I see a lot of session and drill organization based on random groupings of players as apposed to units that work together the most on the field. Our girls struggle with this as it seems they often cannot make sense of a drill that may take them out of their element or positioning in a general game. Maybe this is a lack of imagination which I have come to believe is a detriment to our practice and development. An example would be something as simple as a 6 v. 4 +1 where our forwards, wings and mids (6) play against our 4 in the back. Since we are short handed I like to combine the attack with a quick transition on shot or loss of possession. Our girls get so confused the SSG often falls apart. How many of you design your sessions based solely on units that play together in a game. FWIW, I realize that the entire team plays together but I'm referencing say the back line working on the same things as forwards and strikers in a particular drill.
Once they hit a certain age group 13-15, I group them by "units". It's akin to what we were talking about in another thread: so in practice 1, it's a defensive unit practice and you pit them against attackers. Then in Practice 2, run a session for the attackers using the same drills BUT now your coaching points are directed to the attackers. Nicklaino even suggests running these two things in the same session. I wouldn't but there's a lot of ways to skin a cat.
I think your point is very important. When I coached youth, I was working with kids in the fundamental stage. So I took the opposite approach that you take with HS players. I intentionally moved players around to give them playing experience in all three lines. My role model for this is HS football where during functional training "backs and ends" were separated from interior linemen. Interestingly the HS coach assigned everyone both defensive and offensive positions. (I don't know if this was driven by practicalities or by his theory of player development.) So in my mind your concern about grouping players by position relates to functional training.
It is very much relative to functional training. IME at the HS level there just isn't enough time to devote to fundamental development. If you can't kick a ball your're kind of locked into a defensive role which still takes development but is easier to understand and execute at a quicker pace. As an American football coach 10 months a year I can tell you that there is obviously a huge difference in the rationale behind organization, at the same time there can be some parallel ideas. The technical aspects of soccer are much more demanding and difficult. A football coach can take an athlete that has never played and make him productive in a very short period of time because the skills required are in a bubble. There is no need for a 300 LB linemen to ever throw a ball therefore it is easy to specialize his training. It's really just blocking and tackling, everything else is genetics, fitness and ability to learn a playbook. The other main difference of note is that offense and defense in American football are separate entities and can be practiced as such. Soccer is all happening at the same time with-in transitions. Can you imagine how many substitution timeouts it would take in soccer if there were a player substitution between attacking and defending phases. Still, in both sports you need your best players to know both aspects (attacking and defending) and the coach must find the time and structure to teach both.
Too many coaches downplay the importance of orchestration when coaching soccer. It's too ad hoc. Much like a football team will rehearse a play, you can do the same with soccer teams in the phases of the game. Things are also happening, generally, in 360° and you need to be able to "call the audible" in real time. The player on the ball is the QB and his teammates are receivers. Depending on what happens after the snap, you may have to adjust routes or the QBs progression or whether to tuck it and run.
it depends on your team's age and ability and the goal of the particular training session. if you're working on a specific attacking or defending principle, then you're going to use the specific units you want to improve as your primary focus, starting with your first choice players in those positions and then possibly rotating in other groups. if you're working on something more abstract or universally applicable across the field, then you don't necessarily worry so much about keeping the functional groups together.
I think tactically soccer is much closer to basketball than football. In my view time spent on "orchestration" of 3 of the moments are well spent, but the 4th moment (attacking/in-possession) needs to be flexible. I recently have started to refer to it as "organized chaos." Prior to age 14 you want elite players to be products of ad hoc soccer. That gives you the raw material to finish with a layer of discipline, like a coat of polish. What is challenging about soccer is that every player needs to be disciplined and inventive at different times in the same match. In basketball (as I was taught) you have fast break and the slow buildup attacks. In both the coach taught a framework of options based around the positions. The object of both offenses was to create an opening for a shot. So both provided flexibility for the team to take advantage of unorchestrated openings when they appeared. The related maxim is: "Take what they give you." For me basketball provides the tactical model for transitions, man to man and block zone defense, fast breaks, restarts, breaking down organized defenses, shielding the ball and losing markers. The American football playbook taught me the theory of how to attack and defend a large field as a team. HS football also taught me zonal marking and hybrid defensive organizations and how to beat those types of defenses.
Have a watch party. I bet most of the team doesn't watch much soccer. Watch a recorded game - espn3.com, footballia.net, youtube - so you can pause and talk about stuff that happens that you would like to see. For example, you'll most likely see the up-back-through used all over the field. Pause and highlight, go back and show them it's the same pattern, used to get out of the defensive 3rd, get past the midfield, and spring someone into the box or down the line. When you say "quick transition" - do you mean the 4 turn into attackers going to the same goal they wre just defending? I found I couldn't get that to work without introducing restrictions. One thing that worked for me was the idea of "half court" soccer - if they won the ball, they had to get it to a target who would play it back to them and/or get it back over a line before attacking. If your goal is quick transition most likely the target option is better - win the ball, quick pass to a coach/neutral for a 1-2 hoping to catch the 6 before they can get into a defensive shape. Do you work on getting out of the back with the Gk and back 4? Whatever pattern you use (cb - outside - down the line, for example) setup goals where the line breaking option is. In the above case, 2 puggs or cones or assistant coaches as a target players. Guide them to use the pattern. When I had an 11v11 team, I played 3 at the back, with 2 DM and 2 wide-mids/wing-backs, so we did 7V3+GK. I usually had 2 puggs out wide (wing backs), and my assistant and I centrally (2 DMs), the back 3 worked on getting the ball into the puggs or to us. We also bossed balls, so if we had a center back that dribbled to one of the wide puggs, we got a new ball in quickly so they learned some positional responsibility - either use your team and retain some shape while attacking, or, switch so that the center is covered and his recover run can be back to the outside cb position nearest the pugg he attacked. Good luck.
No doubt basketball is closer. I was just drawing whatever parallels that could be drawn. A main difference is that the long-range shot has a higher value and a good shooter can hit it a third of the time. I believe, beyond the penalty area in soccer the percentage drops to 5-10% for good shooters.
Good Post! We play as you suggest win/if the back 4 wins possession. We have variations that include "targets". When we include all the players we treat the scenario as playing out of the back (or particular area of field) moving to opposite goal/target/area of field. It becomes shadow play and I will place restrictions such as 3 passes to get to a wing, 5 passes to score, etc. When we do this I will put mannequins ( really garbage cans) on the field as obstacles.