Attacking to defend. I don't really know exactly how to convey my thoughts on this, or maybe even it's not even a thing in soccer. However, in trying to compensate for being a really, really bad possession team, aside from continuing to drill the components of passing, receiving, etc, we have focused on defending and countering. Our counter attack isn't much of one as it is primarily based around 2 girls and the supporting players "crashing the goal". There are times the tactic appears serviceable while others it opens a counter attack for the opposing team that we do not have the speed to deal with. When the 2 girls are at club the tactic completely falls apart because we absolutely cannot move the ball. We got into our attacking third several times last night only to leave without getting a shot the entire night. We lost 3-0, or maybe 5-0, I don't even remember for trying to find my midfield as the ball streaked by to goal. The back line made a valiant effort on the night as the score could have been much worse. Anyway, I almost feel as if I want to tell the girls to build the attack goal side even though I know that is not correct. I cannot get them to understand what it is to open correctly and in a safe way that allows us to transition back to defense when we lose possession. I am beginning to wonder if I am causing some of the issues by being overly conservative, but again, we are always one touch away from losing possession and it is rare we can string together any number of passes. We are not bunched up, but we also do spread the pitch touchline to touchline. I'm at a loss here but not willing to concede. Hoping that someone has been in this position and has some advice. It seems like a very u10 type of problem.
My U10 solution was to teach high pressure defense (pressing high in the opponent's third). The back line was responsible for winning the long balls and was deep enough that balls would not get behind them. This only worked well because opponents did not have good ball skills and tended to dribble rather than pass. Pressing is athletic skills, discipline, determination and fitness. Effort and the right mentality are the more important factors. I thought from the title you would ask about a different approach: defending starts with how you attack--a classic Dutch view. Dutch style principles, however, assume skilled players. I think you should consider being more classic Italian. Maybe even shifting to a 532 with a sweeper. If you are currently playing a 442 with a DM, a 532 is not much of a change: the DM plays behind the back line instead of in front of it while out of possession. Caveat: I am not suggesting that you don't train players to develop them. Team tactics. With only 2 skilled attackers, I would make perfecting the moments of defense and transition to attack the priority.(My next tactical priorities would be the other moments--transition to defense and finally the moment of possession.) I would also work on creating shots off corners and free kicks in the opponent's half. My view is that you are not training the 2 club players; you are training the other players how to work effectively with them. Not letting the opponent get behind you can come from 3 things: 1) defending the danger zone in front of the goal rather than high up the field, 2) pressure on the ball taking away the long positive pass options, 3) your back line dropping back when the attacker with the ball is looking up field to pass behind them. A lot of defending is about good positioning and having a system. More balls are won by the first defender forcing bad passes rather than tackling the ball. Just my thoughts without having seen your team play. Every coach can have a bad day. Just ask Bruce Arena. You can train them, but you can't play the match for them.
Some good information and things to think about here. We're currently playing a 451 - defending/ 4231 - attacking. We began in a 433 US development model based on a coach that was previously with us. Not good as it ask it intends to build on or weakest attribute. Formations are still dangerous for me to adjust because I believe my reasoning for change is narrow. For example, last season we played a 343 some because we could not hold the ball up with one striker. It didn't really solve our problems, which I might add are the same as today. You are correct as to training with the 2 semi-skilled girls. We definitely try to build around them and often use them as player coaches. This is partially because they ask not to train hard with us in order to conserve themselves for eve club practice.
BTW, I referenced U10 to say that our High School girls do not have much skill with the ball. I need to find some consistent and easy functional session plans that will allow the girls to build confidence in practice. I often get caught up in great sessions that I steal from others that seem easy but are difficult to execute. We spend more time working on the drills and trying to relate them to the game and it badly slows the rhythm.
I think every coach goes through a phase before he settles in with his favorite exercises. I like to do individual and pair technical work during warmups. I relate the SSGs to lines in your system. The first SSG I used represented working in a line (or parts of a line). The next progression added elements of a second line so you are developing vertical pairs as well as the horizontal pairs. I ended with a large scrimmage. Try to plan out your session so that the exercises progress in a logical manner. For instance you can start play of basic 3v3 or 4v4 SSGs and then gradually add the rules/restrictions until you get to where you wanted to go. The players are engaged from the start while you are introducing the rules. (This was the advice I got after screwing up during my latest license field exercises.) The format can stay the same from practice to practice while the rules change to reflect that sessions coaching objectives. The second SSG could keep the core format of the first exercise and add the other line by adding neutrals outside the area of play or even inside the area of play. This has the advantage of building on the prior exercise. If you are going to simply scale up the format to for instance 6v6 in a larger area, I think you need to give them some organization, assigning positions or at minimum assigning lines to the players. If the exercises objective is functional training rather than general skills, I think you have to assign positions to make it functional (specific to your system) rather than generic. There are a lot of ways to run the session, this is just one idea for making the session easier to follow for the players.
Let me ask about consistency in spacing through the attacking third. I will preface by saying that in general we hold at midfield with our back 4, the FB's no further up than outside center circle. We will use the CM's forward and keep the wings wide. Do I have to hold a CM there? It doesn't seem efficient to attack with only 5.
You ask some really tough questions. Generally speaking, the most aggressive attacking formation (without players getting in each others way) is 244. Normally teams will keep 1 more back home than there are opposing forwards near the half line. Numbers up. So a team would normally not push forward into a 244 if the opponents kept more than 1 forward up high. How far forward players push typically varies with the score and fitness. Speaking in terms of shape on the field, you have the classic Dutch diamond shape of the top 4. How can you effectively use more players here? The issue is whether you want 1 or 2 strikers in the box. It is not so much an issue of space as it is making the opposing CBs job more difficult. My personal favorite approach would be not to start with 2 strikers in the box, but rather have 2nd striker be a late runner into the box to exploit space left by the CBs. More difficult to defend. The Dutch shape is 121, a diamond. A popular alternative is a "W" 23. Also with lots of opportunities for diagonal passing. That would involve both CMs and also put both CMs in positions near the penalty area. Your team has played 343. The classic Dutch attacking shape is a 343 with a diamond midfield: 12 121 21. The classic WM has a box midfield: 12 22 21. (The WM should have some system of insuring that the system had width so that not all players are in the central channels. Cannot describe it better with prose.) Now for your team specifically, which will be full of assumptions that may not be true. If you want to score, I would push into an attacking W instead of the diamond. In other words add 1 more player to your front 4. And use the WM. That means also pushing 1 back forward into a second holding midfielder role. Unless the opponents retain more than 2 forwards near the half line. I am assuming that your CBs, at least 1, are better passers than your FBs. The 2 attacking mids should be free to move to better attacking positions ahead of the ball. The 2 holding mids must stay behind the ball to guard against a counter (unless they have the ball themselves). The 2 attacking mids will be the key to the attack in the final third. The 2 holding midfielders will be key support. They will have to adjust to maintain numbers up against a counter attack if the opponent shifts more players to the half line. They will also have to switch higher into position vacated by an attacking mid running higher into the box. So that 22 box midfield is a very nominal description. The 4 midfielders should be constantly in motion reacting to changes in circumstances to maintain the best shape. I guess that the actual answer is that the team doesn't attack with just 5 players although that usually no more than 5 are near the box at a time. Likewise normally the back line stays "1 up" over opponents. The modern attacking fullback is skilled player who can cross accurately. I suspect that if you had someone with the skills to be an attacking FB, you would already be using him up as a winger. So I assume your system would be better pushing 1 CB forward rather than 1 fullback to make the 4th midfielder. Too wordy and speculative a response, but I hope it helps.
This is a great response! I'm not sure what a lot of it means but I will get a pencil and paper to figure it out. I suppose training it will be altogether a different animal. I hope tough questions does not mean dumb questions. I'm still trying to figure it all out and want to make sure I am giving the girls proper instruction. Your "speculation" is on point in regards to most of my questions and post. Upon suggestion from this board our strongest players are down the spine. Our forwards and fullbacks are not efficient with the ball hence using mids instead of outside backs in attack. "Efficient" is putting it nice, but they are grinders and will try to defend. This is HS ball and out of 16 girls I only have 5 that have ever played. Everything I have read on the 4231 says the FB's must support high and wide but instead we use the mids. At times it does leave large gaps and I haven't found an answer.
Ok, there are a lot of numbers and abbreviations here I do not understand in application. Are the numbers suggesting player organization? 12, 22, 21 would be 1 back , 2 DM's (holding), 4 AM's, 2 F's and 1 ST? Who is in the W?
The numbers are trying to suggest the shape on the field. Fundamentals have players within each line provide depth and width so that no line is flat. This helps reduce the size of the gaps between the lines. As you noted earlier there is quite a distance between the half line and the forward line. The team shape, in particular the midfield line, needs to expand and contract like an accordion to keep the forward and back lines connected as the team moves up and down the field, until the team transforms to its 451 defensive shape when out of possession. This is what I was trying to convey with the numbers. 3 backs, 1 of which is lying deeper in a sweeper position. 4 mids in a box. 2 DMs and 2 AMs in front of them. When in possession, the DMs should take a cue from the AM in front of them as to when to go inside and when to go outside. The DM should support at a diagonal, not directly behind the AM. 3 forwards, the CF ahead of the wingers. (Alternative is to play slightly behind the wingers, just not flat. The 5 points forming an X shape instead of a pentagon. The reality is the players have to move to find open space. Standing still is too easy to defend.) In the W, the 2 lower points are the 2 AMs and the 3 upper points are the 3 forwards. The difficulty is due to the form of our communication. If we were talking over a cup of coffee at Starbucks, I could draw the idea on a napkin.
Ok, so in relating this to some of your suggestions in earlier post. How does the back line play if playing with 2 backs and a sweeper behind them? I'm not familiar with the sweeper role. I get the idea but not the tactics. I would have the CB that pushes up to DM and what would be our 6 (DM) perform the same task as the 6 - 8 in defense which is to shield the back line? Since this would be attacking in the opponents half would you suggest immediate pressure upon losing possession or start the transition to our 451 shape? Something in between maybe where the back line takes shape while the others organize and pressure within their lines?
The sweeper provides cover for the marking backs. The back line generally should have some depth so that everyone is not flat across the line. In a flat back four there is no designated sweeper so that the job of providing cover is a shared responsibility. Even in a sweeper defense, when an opponent beats his marker and the sweeper picks up responsibility for marking the opponent, someone (usually the beaten back) has to drop back into a covering position essentially trading positions with the sweeper temporarily. When we have possession, the three remaining backs job is to defend the goal against the opponents. That means staying between the opponents and the goal in a good position to defend if possession is lost. The two marking backs would be performing their jobs whether its defending an area or marking an opponent while the sweeper would be providing cover. Maintaining 1 up in the back line means that you will always have a marker for every opponent plus a covering player. The difference between a sweeper/stopper and a CB pair is that in the sweeper/stopper pair the same CB is covering the other CB regardless of where the ball goes. A CB pair will switch off the covering responsibility as the ball moves around. In the specific moment we are talking about here, the backs are spread out so that there is only one CB. So there would be no other CB to trade responsibilities with. I want to repeat what I have said before, the actual organization can vary from coach to coach and from game plan to game plan. What I have described, however, is typical.
This is where you have to use judgment to fit your game plan and system to the players you have. Since most have not played before, you probably have to keep it simple. Rather than assume how your system works, I will just give an example. Assuming your team starts pressing at the top of the center circle (instead of higher), then I would want immediate pressure on the ball after a turnover by the player best positioned to do so. (Normally we say the player nearest the ball, but if that player is too high he might not be able to get quickly in a blocking position to slow down the attack.) The object here is to take away a long penetrating pass. Normally the opponent will switch play to the side away from pressure. Depending on circumstances this might be the time for your "1" in the 451 to pressure, allowing time for his retreating team mate to join the midfield line at the center circle. There are 2 possibilities: 1) the ball may be located higher than the line of confrontation at the top of the center circle or 2) the ball may be already at the line of confrontation or even closer to our goal when turned over. If situation 1, then the objective of the pressure is to slow down the attack for a few seconds so that your team can get the defense organized. The length of time needed is up to you, but typical would be 5 seconds. After delaying the ball for 5 seconds the pressuring player drops back to join the team shape. Typically that would mean your team had 2 lines of 4 and the dropping player would make it 451 when returned. If situation 2, then the 451 shape will form around the pressuring player. A more advanced game plan would be to have the 2 strikers try to isolate the opponent in a 2v1 and win the ball back before the other opponents can move to supporting positions. If they don't immediately win back the ball, they retreat and defend with the rest of the team. I would not start with that as part of the plan, but I would not discourage forwards when they did attempt to win the ball back. At a high level, a game plan may have the whole team high press for 5 seconds to try to win the ball back, before retreating to defend the center circle. That would be pros, hot high school.
Help me with the organization and roles (attacking and defending) in the 532 you suggest. I assume to have any attack the wings must have a high work rate and intelligence of when to move up. Is it too much to ask of them to move to the WM in attack in the opponent half? I think we would move a CB and Mid up while keeping the sweeper, 1 CB and a FB home. It seems as if this invites a lot of attack from the opponent.
First, I want to tell you that I have never played or coached a 5-man back line, so I have no actual experience to go on. "It seems as if this invites a lot of attack from the opponent." How high up the field you place your line of confrontation would have more to do with that than the 532 organization. In a counterattacking strategy, you want to invite the opponent to attack vertically to create larger gaps in the opponents lines for you to counter through after winning the ball back. That strategy assumes a certain amount of confidence in your team's ability to win the ball back. When I suggested 532, I was thinking you were using a 442 system so the change would not be dramatic. From a 451, the simpler change would be using a 541 instead of a 532. Still based on a shifting player that plays sweeper behind the 4-man back line when defending and moves ahead of the 4-man back line when attacking to play a holding midfielder role. To get the WM shape on attack, you could have one of the CBs to also shift into a holding midfielder position with the sweeper when attacking. So essentially, the back line shifts between a 1-4 and 3-2 organization. On defense with the other two lines, you have a 1441 shape instead of 451. As for midfield and forward lines, you can continue to coach the attack as discussed earlier. Using a W with the 5 other players (4 midfielders and 1 forward). My reference to 532 only made things confusing because you were using a 451 rather than a 442. Thinking of 541 instead of 532 should get rid of a lot of the questions. Hope that makes things clearer rather than more confusing.
No. Sweeper has a defensive function which is not necessary when in possession. The sweeper is not pushing up far. He is just playing in front of the back line instead of behind. The shift doesn't take him that far. Just takes time to get used to. The shift also makes best use of that player (which I assume will be one of the better players) in all the moments of the game. Franz Beckenbauer was known as an "attacking sweeper" and invented the modern sweeper role.
This is interesting. The teams we play that use a sweeper do not push her up and rarely do they go further than the top of the center circle in their half (defending). Have you ever seen a 1351? I would like to add a sweeper to our back field to help both an inexperienced line and goalie. Do the roles of the three "CB's" change in a sweeper system? I guess I'm asking if they still shift touchline to touchline, cover and balance the same?
While sweepers are still used by a lot of teams, using attacking FBs (instead of attacking CBs) is typical. I have never seen a 4-man back line play as 4 CBs, which is what you have with a sweeper and 3 CBs. Every 4-man line I have seen had FBs. If you want 3 CBs in front of the sweeper that is too many defenders in the center, especially if you 1-2 DMs playing directly in front of the 3 CBs. Some of this is semantics. If the role of the CBs is to defend the width from touch to touch, then they have a FB role if not a FB label.
Yes, this is essentially what I meant to imply. So basically you have 1 CB and 2 FB's w/ a sweeper behind. Either way, the 3 function the same as a back 4? FWIW, when we played a 343 we would have the weak wing drop in to cover that side. We would do the same in the 1351.
Play making style and the positional system guardiola uses, he says, is attacking to defend. When you have the ball, the other team can't score. It's underpinned by keeping possession of the ball, but also the proper shape and spacing allows players to defend in transition more easily and readily. In concept touch line to touch line width is correct but you have to make it appropriate to your level too
That heading made me think of Guardiola's version of total soccer immediately too. That concept from Guardiola traces all the ways back to Dutch and Ajax total soccer. Rinus Michals had such a impact. First at Ajax until he left in 1971 for Barcelona. That path was followed by Cruyff. Then Guardiola at Barca. And so on the prinicples of total soccer have spread. Today it is like breathing air. It is all around us so we take it so much for granted that we don't notice that we are breathing it.
We look like a team of Helen Kellers in possession so the Pep philosophy isn't necessarily where I was going, but I do understand and it makes perfect sense.
I have a response that, while not very helpful, does explain. The conventional wisdom is that the first development objective is to make players comfortable playing on the ball. When players are scared, the "flight or fight" reaction kicks in. One of the physical changes (in addition to the adrenaline spike) is tunnel vision. So when players are highly stressed they do lose a lot of their vision. The only way I know of to ease the stress of being on the ball during a match is to play SSGs in tight spaces so that the matches played on a full field seem less stressful compared to the training. That high stress still must be balanced against the need to keep training goals within reach of the players so they don't get discouraged. Comfort on the ball is a long term objective, not something that is going to significantly change in one season.