Crash Course Thread...

I did not have the patience to watch the whole video. To many issues to comment on.

But on the third goal before it happen their was a double team on the flank. One above and one below. But you need three players one inside the field to prevent the flank player from dribbling or passing inside the field. There was no defensive player inside the field to stop anything. So they pass to the Chelsea player that is how they scored on a later pass. The attack should have been stopped on the flank. Look on that part of chelseas attack again.

 

shadow play is where you have your players moving the ball while going up the field against no one. It is very good for player discipline when they don't have the ball. It is also good for the dribbler to try all the different possible options that he should have in a given time and space.

I used it with youth and even adult teams just to make sure they are not just playing one option, and working on player off ball support and near ball support spacing.

You don't want the dribbler being predictable. Some do the same things over and over at different positions on the field. It helps that player with his vision seeing other things going on instead of just one thing all the time.

You the coach can start by throwing a ball to the keeper representing a shot coming from one side for example. Keeper makes the save and distributes away from the pressure (good for practicing keeper distributions as well).

Then the ball gets passed to all the players all over the field while they are moving forward in the attack. Until you get a shot off and score.

Then work the ball back down the field using other pass options. What you don't want to see is the ball moving all over the field to non moving players. You want them to be moving forward as they are moving the ball around. Even when you back pass the players are still moving forward the ball might go back but it is to a forward moving back support player.

Use freeze play with this to correct a badly positioned player. If they leave a hole because of bad spacing fix that hole, bad spacing.

You want to see a lot of ball movement, and a lot of off the ball movement.

Great for a possession game.
-------------------------------
Then add some passive defensive pressure first on the dribbler. Then add some other passive defenders.

Then gradually increase the pressure until you high pressure the dribbler who ever the dribbler may be.

Please do this in a progression over 3 or 4 practices not all in one practice.

Extra added bonus get them to think of their positioning in support. They will start thinking about being tired.

--------------

On running Forwards wings and attacking mids against defensive mids, backs and the keeper.

Play on a half field.

Make 2 small goals behind the attacking mids. One on each side of the field no keepers.

The defensive mids, backs or keeper wins the ball they can attack those two goals. So they have a chance to score as well makes it less boring.

Keep track of score get forwards and attacking mids to fall back when they lose the ball.

Use low pressure on the ball to start then gradually move to High pressuring the dribbler. Make sure there is a second attacker in support so the dribbler is never isolated by himself. You can also work on attacking communication especially from the support players. They have time to look up because they are not under ball pressure.

It is very good for a distributor getting a lot of touches in a game. Play with one attacking mid. He supports the attack all over the field. He should get a lot of touches doing that.
---
It is very good for the defense as well. Especially when they have to overshift constantly to the pressure side the ball side

 

On the video on the two goal the defender was in useless space he should have funneled in towards the middle of the field not stayed outside on the flank. No one was there to defend against. Even if he fell back out side he was doing useless running.

Man defense is a mix of man and a zone. Close to the ball its man further from the ball it is a zone.

 

I don't see how a man to man defense would have changed anything. Generally speaking the situations were bad to begin with. Even numbers so there was no cover and all the backs were isolated. The impression I had was that these situations don't develop without a breakdown in the midfield. Yes the fullback can come inside to cover the passing lane, but then that leaves the wide attacker free. All that means is that if the fullback had played better, the result would still have been bad. Saying that the fullback should have made a faster recovery run is a nice coaching point, but it is not a real coaching solution. Nobody is going to make up that much ground against attackers with that speed. It is more of a case of fixing blame on someone for failing to save the team from a prior mistake. The coaching solution is to prevent these situations from arising by how you play in the moments prior to the clips. Stopping a counterattack starts with how your team attacks before the ball is lost.

Inside the penalty area every system turns into man-to-man marking unless the coach stops it. It is common sense that in front of the goal every attacker has to be closely marked and the marker cannot leave his mark. Some well intentioned youth coaches try to train all the common sense out of players.

Pure man to man marking died out in the time of the WM because it is too easy to draw markers away to open up space in front of the goal by attackers interchanging positions. Zonal marking (marking man to man in individual zones) used to be commonly understood and commonly played. Now what I call block zones are more prevalent. Instead of individual zones you have a block of players in a given shape in a shared zone. Like basketball zone defenses. A block zone is a pure zone so you are defending space instead of man marking. Zonal marking is a hybrid of man marking within a limited space. Wooden used to say that players have to understand man to man defense first before they learn a zone. (Last time I played with a new rec team, I asked if they man marked or played a zone and none of the backs had any idea of what I was talking about. Turned out that system involved a lot of spectating off the ball. Later I played with a new premier team and thankfully they were organized.)

As I said initially as the defense gets nearer to the end line, all defenses become man to man, because it is too dangerous to leave an attacker unmarked. It is the situation where almost every team uses man markers.

Instead of zonal marking what is popular today is defending in 2 lines of 4 behind the ball. A less popular approach uses block defending in the center channel and zonal marking in the outside channels along the touch lines.

 

I think Wooden described zone defense exactly the same way. Regardless the labels don't matter. How you play matters.

 

Regarding the misconception of rec players being inferior to premier players, I played on an over-(really old) premier team with a strike partner in a 442. It is the first time in my life that a partner complained that I ran onto "his" side of the field. (I had made a crossing run underneath him.) Crossing runs are particularly effective for strike partners because each partner's run clears space for the other. It pulls apart CB pairs opening up passing lanes. Similarly horizontal takeovers and heel passes can be defense killers.

What can I say. That comment dialed back the creativity from 10 to 2 on the dial. (I heard the Ghost of Youth Coach Past yelling: "Spread out! Stay in your position!")

 

Passive players are cheaper and more realistic than mannequins anyway.

 

passive players are a dime a dozen

But mannequins can put you in the poor house

 

If your struggling to get the ball to your strikers he has to go into open space to get his touches a 4-4-2 has more space to attack then a 4-3-3.

Watch Romario in the WC when it was played here in the US.

On your mids the wing mids are always set up in front of the inside mids. They start behind thevwing mids on the inside of the field.

The two inside mids should be staggered and spaced properly. I like my two inside mids to be able to play both Acm and a dcm. But not all mids can do that.

I also played with a stopper and a sweeper. Plus 2 wing backs. My sweeper on my best teams was Michael Windischmann. He is in the soccer hall of fame and was captain of our national team.

 

I am not sure that I understand this part. Are these two the only experienced players in the lineup?

 

My preferred system is 433, with the three best players down the spine. If I only have 2 high quality players or I don't have a playmaker, I used the 442 instead to increase the number of midfielders. If I only had 2 high quality players, 1 was a CB and 1 was a CM. Both players had freedom to roam. Of necessity the CM played box to box and the CB usually played sweeper covering the other 3 backs.

I never coached a 343, but I think the 343 played with a flat midfield (LM/LCM/RCM/RM) probably is also an excellent choice when you don't have enough high quality players. Essentially the team is a large compact block, both wide and deep, of players pressing the ball together on defense and attacking the goal when in possession. The system always has numbers up around the ball and always has team mates within supporting distance of each other.

Novices can use their chase-the-ball mentality but with discipline to keep the 343 shape. Compared to the 442 diamond system, the 343 is more compact and has more width in the attack. When you don't have anyone suitable to play attacking fullback, the 343 is tactically superior. The 343 also requires less running on the flanks. The 343 has less width in the back, but that is an acceptable risk with HS girls as usually they do not have the strength to take advantage with long runs and long diagonal balls to the weak side wings. When defending in your own half, you can have the weak side winghalf drop back to a wingback position to become the 4th back.

When you only have 2 high quality players, then how you use the speed and athletic ability of your other players makes a difference. On attack superior speed can stretch an opponent and superior athletes can usually dribble and strike the ball fairly well. Defense is mostly athletic ability. So 3 good athletes backed by a high quality sweeper is almost as effective in defense as 4 high quality backs.

 

You are already doing a great job with what you have to work with.

Three is much better than two. It is much easier for 2 out of 3 to be within supporting distance of each other and less predictable than when everything has to go through the same 2 players.

 

Cannot help you with that one. I never did any functional training and never played in a 5-man back line, which is essentially what that system is. The "DM" functions as a destroyer-type stopper. To distinguish between DM and stopper, look at where the "DM" plays when the team is in possession. I am guessing that he stays in a block with the CBs as if the team had 3 CBs, which makes the system a 541. So how you coach the "DM" defines the system as either a 451 or 541.

 

Just starting reading a new book: Shut Out Pizza by Dan Blank. It is a very specialized book. He talks about how to train a 4-back defense. College players. Women, but the approach is gender-neutral. The book goes into the details of coaching points. Starting general and then getting specific.

Although he notes that coaches will think of exceptions to every rule (which is why he wrote the book for coaches and not players to read), he emphasizes pushing wide. Never inside. Please note that he is only talking about the back line. For the other players, he does not say.

I found the book very interesting. It is current. Based on his experience since 2009. I found it interesting that there was never any debate about the type of organization. Zone defense in a line of four. Pressure-cover-balance. No mention of other organizations, not zonal marking and not sweepers. It gives me the impression that a flat back four is "the" defensive organization of choice. He does talk about playing while in possession, but his attitude is that attacking is a sometime diversion for backs when it doesn't interfere with defending. His culture is the backs are a "team within a team" competing for a shutout. Probably not a good approach for lower level teams.

This book is different from his other books. This one is about tactics, culture, and coaching points rather than exercises and drills. It is not about developing players. It is only about how to train an outstanding back line.

A lot of the information is too high a level for high school and below, but then some of it will be extremely helpful in coaching a flat back four at any level.

 

Hopefully Nick or one of the other more experienced coaches can talk specifics in this area. I am not sure my experience playing or coaching would be helpful.

The shifting of numbers in the three lines during the run of play is a common aspect to the adult game. This is a very old idea. Shifting between lines was the hallmark of the 424 system. It had 2 midfielders who stayed in that line but were always supplemented during the run of play by filling in the midfield with either forwards or backs depending on whether defending or attacking. During the run of play there was never just 2 players in the midfield line.

The classic 433 would defend with 2 lines of 4 behind the ball (using some system to designate which forward withdrew into the midfield). The classic Dutch system would shift to a 343 with a diamond midfield while in possession. Something like 12/121/21. My experience was pushing a CB into the midfield. Cruyff talked about pushing the LFB into the LM position in the diamond. As time went by and teams started using only 2 forwards (352 and 442) the "total soccer" teams tended to play a 343 instead of a 433. (Cruyff was against systems that used 2 holding midfielders, but I think that was also because his style of soccer defended high up the field.) Of course the total soccer teams were still shifting to the same shapes. The former LFB still shifted between lines but was labeled a LMF now. In my playing experience during the 1980s regardless of 433 or 442, we pushed a CB into the midfield automatically upon transition to attack and attacked with a 343 organization. I was surprised later to hear Cruyff talk about pushing the LFB up.

I want to emphasize that the 343 organization on attack didn't mean that players had no freedom to make attacking runs. There were be further runs especially along the the flanks, long attacking fullback runs into space and shorter overlapping runs for example. My impression is that in the Dutch system the players interchanged positions more (hence the "total soccer" label) keeping the same organization which could transition to a high press quickly upon loss of possession. On the teams I would play on in the 1980s we would become unbalanced (depth wise) as we pushed more numbers forward. Thinking in terms of the old 4 channels instead of USSF's new 3 channels, we eventually would push numbers up the channels and hold 2 CBs at the half line so the shape ended up like a 244 on attack. What commonly see on TV in a 442 system is pushing FBs into the midfield even with the DM and ending up with something like 2323 in attack, some systems with a rotation of players through the CF's area for unpredictability and some systems with a CF staying near the CBs to pin them in place.

As for losing a ton of balls to the opposing keeper (in the past the balls would be lost to a sweeper higher up the field), you can adjust your teams tactics to make it more difficult for the keeper to win the ball.

Typically the problem is players off the ball running to the wrong place and running too soon.

As for runs. Keepers can cover ground quicker in the direction they are facing (body not head). So you don't attack a point directly in front of the keeper. You attack the space to his rear or side. The runner needs to get to the ball in time to finish, but arriving before the ball gets there only gives the defense more time to adjust to the attack. I tell forwards not to "use the space" before the ball gets there.

As for the server. Ultimately effective service can only go where the runners show. But if you have a choice, there are several things that can improve the chances of success.

1. Wingers start looking for "early" crossing opportunities as soon as you are in the attacking half. The earlier the pass, the bigger the space behind the opponent's back line. These early passes will generally look like diagonal passes. In this area of the field it is very risky for keepers to attempt to win the ball. As you carry the ball to the end line, the prime target area doesn't change so you don't want to make square crosses near the end line because it puts the ball too close to the keeper. A successful cross to the far post from the corner flag is not technically impossible but it is extremely difficult, so why try it. If possible wingers should be attacking on a slant toward the near post instead of parallel to the touch line. This commits defenders making more space for team mates and reduces the distance for the services. So by the time the winger gets to the corner flag, he is looking to send "negative" diagonal crosses back toward targets nearer the 18. A common mistake off-the-ball is for runners to keep up with the winger running into the penalty area and using up all their space before the cross. It's been 30 years and I remember still being frustrated with my striker after I worked hard to create 3 crosses in a row only to have the striker showing at the near post next to the keeper every time. I put it on his head each time, but he was facing wrong as well as in the wrong position. He didn't put any of them on frame. If he had only stayed higher so he had space and was facing the goal....

2. For everyone. Don't make your through passes/runs into space in front of the keeper/penalty spot. Make it to one side or the other so that the keeper has a further run to win the ball and the ball is moving away from the keeper instead of towards him. The direction of attack where practical should be nearer the posts than the penalty spot. For crosses the same idea applies to how you bend the cross. Bend it away from the end line so the ball is bending away from the keeper instead of towards the keeper.

3. The classic way to beat sweepers was to attack along a wing forcing the sweeper to commit and then switching fields with a long diagonal pass creating 1v1 matchups near the ball. Same tactics will prevent a keeper from providing cover and winning through balls.

Hope that helps. Lunch time. Got to run.

 

I looked at page 10 of the PDF download. My understanding is that when the ball is played to the unmarked wide attacker near the touchline, the LFB leaves the central attacker (without the ball) and shifts to the wide attacker with the ball. His proper position is covered in the several chapters on playing the "coffin corner." There is a lot of material covering various circumstances (with cover & without cover and 2v1, etc.). In the handout Blank only says that the CBs have to shift to the strong side to mark the two interior attackers. Coach Blank wrote several chapters on the subject so its too much material for me to begin to explain here, even if I could.

Please remember that Blank is only addressing how to train the back line as a separate unit. So he doesn't include the midfield screen in front of the back line. In this situation ideally the system would require a midfielder or winger (depending on system) to track back with the attacker along the touch line. So Blank is talking about what the back line should do when the midfield is out of position to help. Otherwise the fullback and the player defending in front of him would work together as a pair to control two attackers in the outside channel.

PS: If I remember correctly, Coach Blank will entertain questions about things he said in his books. He can be reached at his website where he also has a blog.

 

By the way for all you high school coaches, NSCAA offers a series of 4 courses especially for high school coaches in conjunction with the NFHS.

https://www.nscaa.com/web/Education...spx?hkey=5278475e-c172-44bf-8dda-e8504eade786

 

Sounds like the ladies lack a bit of fundamentals perhaps? No matter the area of the field, the fundamentals shouldn't change. For example, receiving a ball and opening up to the field would be done the same in the defensive third vs at midfield. Maybe simplifying the system of play into roles on offense/defense would help them understand a bit more (where to be when we have possession?)