I could have sworn there was a topic on this before, but I can't seem to find it. Anyway, I'm coaching a mens 7v7 team this spring for an intermediate league. 24-38 year-olds, mostly casual players but a few have college experience behind them, so mixed levels of ability from average to very skilled. So I've never really worked with a 7v7 team, so what formations would you suggest? Any tactical advice for such a side would be great too. My best guess would be a 3-2-1? Thanks guys!
2-3-1... midfield, depending on the size, is too much for two guys to cover. Even if the midfielders are fit a quick switch throws them out of position. The big question mark with the 2-3-1 is how to defend the width. I have a suggestion below. Or the two outside mids have responsibility for the whole flanks--but that's a lot of running. But if you do that, then defensively you could have a 4-2. The two players acting as screeners to in front of the back four. You could vary it too and have a defensive and offensive formation. 3-3 defensively and 2-3-1 during the attack.
I'm real intrigued by your last suggestions. I'll play with that a little. Thanks a bunch! I'm also tossing around the idea of the ideas suggested here: http://www.bettersoccermorefun.com/dwtext/comments.htm Scroll down to the 7v7 section. Interesting.
If you play with keepers and a wide goal, you have to defend the width (unless your opponent lacks the skill to cross). I like the idea of a 33 with a block zonal defense. Everyone plays two ways. If you have two field players that are really much better than the others, the 33 system will use them to best effect (put them in the center of each line and they will also be close enough to support each other). The 231 would be better if you only have 1 standout player.
The younger the kids, the less ground they can cover by running, so with the inexperienced and very young, you make it 2-2-2 here in Germany. The elite teams play 3-3 and they habe 6 backs and six strikers. here unlimited subs are allowed, so if one kid is tired, another one enters the field. I am in the priviled situation that I can play 2:2:2 with a very good team because with two of my best men as defenders ....... and the others do not shoot many goals.
German, you mention kids. Not sure if you caught it, but this is for adults. Do you suggest the same with adults? Thanks a lot guys, good suggestions. Keep it coming!
For what it's worth, I'm leaning towards this formation below. I believe it's a 3-3 with the CM and F pushing in offense and pulling back in defense. Sound about right?...
The league commissioner hasn't sent us the official rules yet, so not sure. I'll know soon. Thanks again for the help.
In general, I like the idea of a "central defender" and "central forward" that take responsibility for the center of the field. Otherwise, players tend to drift wide and leave open spaces in crucial parts of the field. Taking that into account, it may be best to go with a 3-3-1.
It's 7-a-side, so there's only six field players. So, a 3-3? I like pushing the two center positions forward and backward as necessary, forming diamonds, and as you mentioned, I think, and as I pointed out in those Dutch diagrams. Thanks for your thoughts, man.
I would not play 3-3 with adults. The Dutch system seems too complex with basically a libero (CM/CB) player. By nature, adult players are too lazy or too undisciplined. I would play a 3-1-2. This way, you have a CB and CM to control the center defensive areas of the field. This is usually what we try to play in my adult rec indoor leagues.
Interesting. So do the fullbacks have to be fast to support runs up the flank? Just seems like a lot missing on the wings here. Also, feels like a ton of pressure for one player to hold the midfield. I'm assuming that's going to be our most skilled player. This sort of leads me back to my original 3-2-1 idea so we can at least spread the midfield a little? I guess that would leave me pretty hopeless down the middle though. Hmm. I have a lot to think about. Thanks everyone for your input.
Our field was about 70 yards long. Remember, you need numbers up in your defensive third to defend as a group and pass out of the back. You don't need them in the attacking third where you should be quickly playing to goal. 2 forwards (one drifting wide) and a supporting midfielder is enough in the attacking third. Fullbacks can push up to give support on the flank. Then, when defending, you don't necessarily need anyone to "get back". you'll already have 3 back. The CM just needs to slow them down in midfield.
FWIW, in indoor (5v5) we play 2-1-2 and the lone midfielder does fine most of the time. This particular team is stocked with really awesome ex-college players and 50+YOs who can barely run and have little skill. Depending on the situation, the lone midfielder drops back to become a CB or drops further to play sweeper and the two forwards drop back to play in front of the defenders. Either way, we get away with it with a lot of communication. Who picks up who. I'm not really big on formations. If you get a bunch of guys who know what they're doing then everyone fills in as needed. If you have a bunch of guys who aren't really soccer players then keep it as simple as possible. In the latter scenario I don't think the formation will really make the difference between wins and losses. I could argue that because we make runs or move to cover defensively, that we're only in the formation for very short periods of time. Functionally, 3-3 offensively will naturally give you three lines anyway because one guy will want to go ahead and another will support square or back (triangles). It's not like you'll ever (I hope not) run up the field in a flat line.
If you where forced to play the team in the formation that suited them what would it be? By "suited" I mean the positions they naturally graviated too. I used to play a 2-2-2 formation that was offset LB CB == == CM RM LF CF == The three dont the middle where the disicplined players, the RM was a player who liked to fo from Box to Box and the LB naturally graviated to defence, so did have to worry about tracking back if he pushed on. The LF position was the challenge But I thought this might help you to also think inconventional
Using a 3-1-2 with a lot of success right now. Getting some good runs out of the outside backs is key. Midfielder has to be smart and sound. He is the key to making it happen. Knowing when to push and when to hold is vital. Drop off an up top layer and go 3-2-1 against teams that can shoot from some range to have better control of midfield. Have fun!
Don't forget the KISS principle By "coaching" a team do you mean actual coaching, where they listen to what you have to say, are pulled if not, and there are a few training session involve; or more along the lines of managing - where you bring uni's, set up a starting line up and give a pep talk at halftime? What are your expectations for the season: Are you playing to win at all costs or as a competitive team that wants to have fun? My experience has generally been the later of both (team manager, and competitive, but mainly for fun), and I have a sneaking suspicion that it holds true for you as well. I tend to lean towards a 2-3-1 for a number of reasons. 1. It is easy to understand. The shape is evident and doesn't take a lot of explaining. Most players with a degree of soccer experience will automatically know their role within the team. Trying to set up a 3-3 with an attacking 2-1-2-1 and a defensive 1-2-1-2, or some variation, seems like it would take too much time to explain and lead to confusion if there was no time spent practicing. 2. Adults don't like to play defense. It's a fact - even with a bunch of coaches who should know better. Setting up 3 in the back and asking them to also provide width in attack is going to leave you with a lopsided 2 defenders or even 1. Counter attack city! By playing with two defender they tend to stay central and not engage in many foraging runs as they know they are leaving their partner stranded. 3. Adults like to score. You have a ready made front 4 that can take up a variety of shapes and patterns. If your team is skilled enough with possession, you can even move a CB up a bit and have 5 players in attack - something not a lot of teams can deal with. 4. Adults don't like to run, especially to defend. If you have 3 in the back and ask them to also get into the attack, this means not only does a WB need to make runs to get forward, but the CB and opposite WB needs to shift horizontally to give proper balance. Might work for the first bit of the game, but by the end it is usually a different story. If you are going to end up defending most of the time with 2, why not just start with 2? 5. It is malleable to the tendencies of the players. CB's can be true CB, or a DM who is comfortable in possession. WM's can be WB's, WM's or Fwd's. They can stay wide and provide services or dive in for combo's. CM can also be a withdrawn forward. CF can be a hold-up play combination target player, an out-in-out speedster that plays the counter, or good in the air and prefers services type. 6. Shape where you need it. 2 in the back gives you defenders where you need it - centrally. They provide a natural option to switch the point of attack, and if your CM moves up one can step into the position and the other can easily cover. 3 Mids gives you natural width and enough support for attacking and defend. It also allows you to defend higher up the pitch rather than tracking back (see #4). Yes you will get beat down the flanks a bit in counter attacks,but lets face it, who wants to play in a 0-0 game? Again, your 1 CF can stay centrally and always provide some sort of dangerous option in front of goal. Other formations may work better, as it all comes down to personnel. But if it is early in the season and your unsure of your team, especially with adults, I prefer a 2-3-1