Playing out of the back -

I have never been comfortable with the expression because I am unsure what people mean by it. Is there a shared definition for the phrase? Does it mean the same thing when the context is youth development as when the context is senior soccer?

I have always thought that the phrase referred to team tactics, so how is it relevant to U-Littles if we aren't teaching team tactics yet? Early in development a coach normally would not expect players to shift tactics based on the ball's location on the field, like senior teams do. Moreover in SSGs there is no "back" to build out of, which is the point of using SSGs during early development.

I expect that at least some coaches use the phrase in reference to possession style play, which is not something I expect to be taught to pre-teens. It is also not the first style of play I expect to be taught to teens. I expect the first style of play to be counter-attacking. If in early development you want players to develop their dribbling skills by trying to dribble out of trouble, how does that square with possession style play which is built on passing?

I think all of this type of discussion by development coaches relates to Anson Dorrance's recommendation that development teams play 343 to maximize the 1v1 matchups and force players to defend without numbers up. Of course it won't work without all coaches cooperating and most coaches would be tempted to use a system that creates numbers up advantages on the ball in order to gain a better result. USSF officially pushes 433 which creates numbers up defending, which as Coach Dorrance points out is not going to develop good 1v1 defending skills. USYSA pushes the pure zone defense rather than man to man. Again that is not going to develop 1v1 defending skills. IMO defensive fundamentals start with man to man defense and all systems even at senior levels ought to involve some man marking in at least some circumstances, corner kicks for instance. Finally if you don't teach man to man defense how are kids supposed to understand zonal marking (man marking within an individual zone)? But since USYSA pushes pure zone rather than zonal marking, it is not a problem--right?

 

Elessar78, what does "play out of the back" mean? If it means staying relatively compact depth-wise, I get that. Do that in Dutch style total soccer too. (By high line, I think you are referring to the distance between the back line and the midfield line being relatively short. I usually talk about high line as a high line of confrontation in defense.)

The part I don't get is that "play out of the back", if it means do not pass to the forward line until you are in the final third, seems inconsistent with senior possession style play which prefers long penetrating passes and also inconsistent with basic 433 tactics (get the ball to the forwards early to take advantage of the inherent width). If the team tactics favor building up slow and not getting the ball to the forwards until the final third, then a 442 (or 352) would be better suited. Tough to get numbers up in the back with 3 forwards not being used. I just don't see where the experts at USSF are coming from on this. A lot of people think that the 442 is a counterattacking formation, but imo the classic dutch-style 433 is better suited to high pressing and counterattacking.

If they simply want to establish conditions during games where kids can learn to play under pressure, they get that anyway in the final buildup and penetration in the opponent's half. (They get plenty of it already during training sessions.) Best practice is to have the backs pushed up to support the attack and also switching fields (as well as long diagonal balls) is typically a back line task. Why isn't that considered building out of the back?

I just don't understand the rationale for pushing this to the exclusion of direct and counterattacking play. If they don't learn how to play direct, then what good does it do to make a break out pass? I think they are putting the cart before the horse, thinking that there is some benefit to jumpstarting possession style play with U-Littles. IMO there is none.

I am not so concerned about teaching these team tactics to U14s (formerly 12 and 13 year olds, I guess we are all going to start changing our vocabulary because of the USSF shifts). Or to elite U12s (10 and 11 year olds) because they are soccer age U14. But ordinary U12s are still supposed to be mastering ball skills, and forcing them to use a style of play that is all short passes on the ground is not going to help them master their ball skills. In the long run, mastering ball skills is more important than learning possession style play.

 

For me, particularly at the younger ages, playing out of the back simply means trying to dribble or pass the ball out of the back rather than simply booting it to safety. The phrase doesn't preclude a long pass, but there is a difference between a long pass and a long kick, and most of us know it when we see it. It also doesn't preclude dribbling, although there will usually be better options if teammates are moving and supporting.

I find the "tactics" discussion misleading in this context. It is as much a tactic not to play out of the back as it is to do so. And, while sometimes the kids are operating with their own innate sense of safety, it is often the coaches and parents who have taught them the tactics of not playing out of the back because of the inherent dangers that go along with trying to do so ("get it away from the goal", "never play to the center in the back", "don't dribble or pass it back there", "just boot it out", etc., most of which I personally find to be negative tactics but they are all certainly tactics). It does require some effort with the kids and their parents to take this on, as the errors can often be "costly". And, there are always going to be errors, but they're best accepted as part of the learning process in my view and it is a healthier tactic in my opinion to make playing out of the back and emphasis and let the kids know it is okay if mistakes happen rather than they should always take the safe option.

And, it doesn't always mean playing short to me. I like to give my GK a wide option on both sides of the field on both goal kicks and punting situations, but I tell my GK that the first look is long to see if we might have numbers for a break, and then the second look is short if the long break isn't on, and then the third look is back to middle to long if the opposing team has committed to covering our short options. And, hopefully, by having played short a few times, we have then opened up some space in mid-to-long regions.

 

Thanks Blech. That was helpful. If "play it out of the back" simply means try to attack rather than clear the ball, that I can understand. It is a good practice for development and not limited to any style of attacking play. My own practice with U10s and 12s was to encourage clearing only dangerous balls near the goal line.

But as Elessar78 said, some coaches are using the phrase to refer to possession play and a particular way of playing out of the back. I am still confused about where USSF is on this issue.

 

All good teams can play the ball out of the back even when high pressured. If you can't your not a good team.

You have to have a lot of options to make it work. When you pass the ball back to a keeper that pass can never be on goal misplay it. It's an own goal if you do make a mistake it has to be a corner not an own goal.

Pass from one back to another the player that gets that pass can never be even with the passer. He has to be further back for depth so it won't be interception by an attacker who has good antispation.

Pass short inside the field have to have at least two options prefer three options.

Any coach who says to his defenders if you get under pressure clear the ball out of danger is an Amature.

We did a drill I called the gauntlet for defenders to help them beat their first defenders after they won the ball. They had 10 yard boxes. Go into the first box their was a defender comming at you from a side position. Beat that defender you have a free box with no defender. Then you enter another box and another defender would came at you from a a different side, beat him and you have a free box. Etc etc. beat them all you ran the gauntlet successfully.

In games the back just has to be able to beat his first defender. Do that you create more space for your team mates.

 

Thanks for the clarification Elessar78. We have discussed this before, but I will say it here for the other readers.

My concern is that before players master passing and first touch, their "safe" passes are short, easy-to-control passes on the ground. If we restrict players to making what is a safe pass at their skill level, they will never develop the ability to make successful long passes and keeper distributions. If we restrict players to passing on the ground, they will never develop their first touch for volleys and half volleys or learn to use their head, chest and thigh to control the ball.

I would rather have pre-teens master these ball skills during the golden age for learning motor skills then master possession style team tactics. This is why I wonder what USSF is thinking with this emphasis on zone defense and possession style play at the expense of mastering 1v1 skills first. Apparently they abandoned the long term development model.

Again I am not concerned about elite players being taught team tactics early; if the coaches are selecting the best skilled players (rather than the most physically mature) the players have mastered ball skills faster than other players their age.

 

Yeah, from what I recall 25 to 30 yards is a long pass at U12. Near support is about 6 yards. You have to be playing on a fast surface to safely pass 25 yards on the ground. Maybe the change in approach is due to the availability of better fields today.

For about 5 years during the late 90s/early 2000s my adult team had a horribly lumpy grass field. You could not dribble or pass on the ground anywhere in the center channel of the field. We passed 6" above the ground to miss the lumps and avoided dribbling in the center channel. Beat a lot of skilled teams on that field because they didn't adjust their style of play. Apparently they didn't notice our passes were skimming over the ground, not on the ground. Puddled, muddy and snowy fields pose the same challenge.

So there is training value in playing beach soccer.

 

I played beach soccer just once. My brother's fraternity played another fraternity on the Beach. My brother had me play with them I was the ringer.

They had no idea how to go up for a header. I go up against this kid. He got his face caved in. The guys on his team could not even look at him. Now he is all scared. I told him don't worry you will be all right.