I'm wondering at what age do coaches generally start playing kids in specific roles on the field? I'm coaching my son's U10B travel team and we've committed to giving all the boys similar time at the various positions. We play a 3-2-1 where the central defender pushes a bit higher up the field - almost like a defensive mid. I'm doing my best to give fairly equal time between the (midfield + forward) slots and the 3 defensive slots. With that said, the kids are starting to show their strengths and weaknesses a lot more clearly than they were at U9. A couple of kids are very good up top, but struggle defensively. Others are weaker in midfield and forward, but decent defenders. I feel like it would be very easy for me to start designing lineups that cater to these natural proclivities. However, U10 in our town is still a heavy development age, so I feel constrained to keep pushing for equal time. So - when do people generally start specializing?
What you've described is the exact reason why you should rotate players positionally ... to develop. Dont sound ready to specialize.
There is usually a great difference between what coaches do and what coaches should do. My short answer is that players should work on fundamentals before "positions". What do you mean by "position" anyway? In my view "position" is meaningless without a game plan. My view of "positions" is based on skill sets. During the fundamental stage, I think there is only two positions--field player and keeper. After you start teaching team tactics (intermediate level) I see only 5 positions, i.e., 5 skill sets: flanker, CF, CM, CB and keeper. In the intermediate level, specializing is training to play 2-3 of those positions. Personally I think specializing is a mistake. At the senior level, where a coach assigns a player is dependent on the players available. I know a player who was a right midfielder, but always started at left wing--because he was the best player at left wing on the team and not the best right midfielder. He played left wing on that team, but he was still better at right midfielder. It is a team sport. Fielding the strongest team is what matters, not putting individuals at their best position.
My answer...when they want to. If a kid wants to only play Keeper or defense and think that is the most fun, then I’m fine with that. Let’s be honest at U10, a kid being comfortable and having fun is way more important than “development.” I do, however play a 2-3-1 that allows me to let all players focus more on pressure, cover, balance and width, depth, support so they learn attacking/defending principles regardless of position. At our age and playing 7v7, I try to get as close as possible to playing what I term a 1-6-0 formation. I tell my defenders they can go and the mids need to drop to support if they do, vice versa with the forward.
Based on your description it sounds like the kids are ready to start specializing "a little bit". Maybe favor them in certain positions; rather than equal time at each positions give them 75% of the time at their "desired" position and see how that goes. I think you are only restricting their development if a kid is clearly a natural forward but you force him at fullback. He needs as much time as possible in the forward position. (and vice versa)
For the last 20 years at least wingers and fullbacks are 2-way players. Typically only 1 or 2 players don't defend behind the ball. Attacking fullbacks are the key feature of the modern game. My intent was to train players to be able to play "total soccer" at the senior level which meant being able to switch lines and play effectively in all three lines. You won't accomplish that by allowing players to "specialize" in one line before they are at the intermediate stage of development when switching lines is a routine part of team tactics and training.
Letting a kid choose a position with no regard to how to play the position is not exactly specializing. Sounds like you are coaching fundamentals to young players which I would call development. So you can have fun and develop.
This is something I have struggled with this season with my 12U team (who are developmentally more like 10Us). I had visions of rotating players throughout the field all season, but I quickly realized that isn't going to work in real life. Some kids just won't focus well enough to be defenders, and some just don't have the mentality to be attackers. Some won't work hard enough to be midfielders. I like the 75% suggestion.
I have a similar group. My message has been clear since day one. Every player gets rotated and every player gets equal playing time. Certain positions does the kicking on set pieces so it's not based on a player's strength. I keep track of the positions where the players have played and my goal is that a player has played each position about the same number of times at the end of the season. I am consistent in doing all this and I make no exceptions. The players understand this and it didnt take long for them to get used to it and I think most of them like it because it's fair. I teach the same principles that was mentioned by rustysurf83 for each position. During a game, I coach the players who have just subbed off to reenforce the same principles if I see they are clearly missing the mark. It's worked out pretty well in that I see small improvements each game and the players are having fun. The two things that have worked in my favor are 1) it's house and so there is a lot of give and 2) I have a few high motor players who cover a lot of ground and opens up space for the other players.
I wouldn't specialize them too early. A kid who always plays on the wing/back/front may never get used to action in 360° and developing that necessary awareness. Hold off as long as we can. Play at an appropriate competitive level where you can experiment fearlessly with positions. Let's be honest, we specialize them to maximize team performance (wins)—not because we want them to learn.
Thanks for all the replies! RCA - I appreciate your comments and agree with them to an extent - I also think you must deal with much more advanced teams than mine. Many of the concepts you mention would fly right past my U10B travel team. We have 2 1.5 hour practices every week to teach the boys everything they need to know as well as practicing all the fundamentals. It's just not enough time to get too sophisticated. For instance, we've spent the last 2-3 weeks teaching our defenders to look up when the other team has the ball, find the open attackers, close the space, then stay with their man. Basic stuff, but they still struggle to consistently do this in games! The thought of trying to teach defenders and midfielders to overlap and cover for each other is just too overwhelming for these kids - "modern game" be damned. It would be a waste of practice time better spent on fundamentals. When I talk about positions, it's really just our way of preventing "blob ball" where everyone runs around together all over the field. You would think by U10 this would naturally not occur, but we've played several teams that play this way. I watch my daughter's U9 team and their coach has not really introduced positional play yet beyond "offense and defense." What this leads to is worse (in my opinion) than just blobs. The 3 best players on the team run all over the field step in, win the ball, then dribble until they score or lose the ball. They are developing at the expense of all the other girls on the team who stand and watch these 3 players. My concept of positions is simply to prevent this as each kid has a role on the field, regardless of how simple that role might be. (i.e. right side midfield - stay on the right side, play offense and defense, when our defense wins the ball move to space to receive a pass, when you get the ball turn up the field and either dribble or look to pass to the forward or other midfielder, etc... - forward - try to find space on the field when we have the ball, dribble past defenders, shoot, pressure the defenders when they have the ball, etc..). Also, to be clear, I'm not asking "when should I stick Tommy out at Right Midfield permanently instead of Left Midfield", I'm asking "when should I let Alex play most of his minutes at "forward" instead of splitting them". Again, I appreciate all the comments. The bottom line is, I don't think there is a one size fits all answer. None of my kids are going to be professionals (or probably even college level players - sometimes I even question high school). They're out there to have fun and making things too complicated tends to work against that goal. (Also - just read the posts above this - I also keep a spreadsheet and make sure the minutes are roughly equal between all the players and all the positions.)
I was going to object to this, and my rebuttal was that my team gave up 3 goals in the first 3 minutes of each game when I played new kids in the goal and my 3 back positions each game for the first 3 games of the season. Those were my "rotating" games before I started mainly sticking players in consistent positions. I didn't specialize to win. I specialized to survive. I think we need to add more context to the discussion. There's a difference between age groups and competition levels and teams' mental makeups. If you're playing 10U in-house rec soccer, rotating throughout the season, results be damned, is probably the way to go IF your players are still learning and enjoying the game. Maybe some 12U travel teams could handle continuing to rotate and getting thumped regularly AND continue to learn the game and enjoy it. From what I saw of my 12Us after those first few games, they couldn't handle that. I could tell it wasn't working, and something needed to change. Now we're still not winning games, but we're also not out of the games mentally after the first 5 minutes. There's value in that even if my players aren't getting the broader experience they'd receive in the ideal world.
Kids in house can get just as demoralized as kids in travel. Having the right level of competition would be ideal.
To the OP, You started the thread askingabout positions but it seems more like a structure problem "blob". I feel like your players need instructions on how to function as a group. At u7, we are teaching kids about a diamond shape. So they know points in a diamond: left, right, front, back. But even in grown-up soccer these are just "starting positions"--at any given time you will break formation so you can do something (dribble, support, pressure, back-up). So at u10 you start by convincing them to stop just kicking the ball away mindlessly. YOU the coach should be able to perceive the "soccer idea" behind any action. The second thing you need to convince them NOT to do is dribble into defenders-dribble into the acres of green space instead. Once you have that we can start talking about structure. Soccer can't take root when mindless kicking of the ball is taking place. Now you can SUPPORT a player with the ball, he'll need one left, right, and center (the diamond). If, at u10, you are playing 7v7 then you'll notice that 4 of your 7 players can be IMMEDIATE passing options. The rest can get the ball next (hence positions) (maybe)(they're there in case you need 'em). In this phase, you'll need to coach them to move to an appropriate distance, angle, shape, and location while the ball is in transit. You need basic skills like ball mastery, a push pass, receiving, basic dribbling, and shielding to enhance what you have going. Youve discovered it doesnt happen naturally. Now go teach/coach. You'll be a broken record maybe for a month. I took over a u10 this season and we are going through similar things.
If a player has mastered fundamentals, including the principles of play, then that player will be successful later regardless of the coaches specific game plan and team "tactics". Fundamentals win matches. Unfortunately, we coaches in general do not spend enough time on fundamentals. We are in too big a hurry to do functional training for "positions", thinking that a U14 curriculum for U12s will produce elite senior players. Development doesn't work that way.
There's an IMPLICATION principles of play (penetration, support, movement, depth and width, and creativity) are taught as separate points. You can't support without movement. When you support correctly you create depth and width. Proper support creates the opportunities for penetration. *talking about the beginner level, small-sided games. In the 11v11 game, you can probably treat each separately, but then again you prob shouldn't need to teach these basics at 11v11.
The best way to teach principles of play is with SSGs, rondos progressing to games with goals. You have to have at least 3 a side, but I think 4 is better for learning. Watching a great striker pair work through a 4-man back line is a documentary on the principles of play, or rather poetry rather than a documentary. I never tire of watching great players beat superior numbers.
I like the points @rca2 and @elessar78 made, and I may be guilty of jumping ahead to positional play this season when my players don't fully grasp the principles of play (nka Team Tactical Principles or TTPs - at least as of August). If my #7 understood the TTPs, maybe I wouldn't go hoarse every session reminding him to get wide for his teammates.
The thing is....most coaching instruction assumes everyone has a team of dedicated kids who have seen the game - also that they've been through the previous levels. So theoretically, your u12s are all kids who have been in organized soccer since u6, learning to get comfortable on the ball doing 3v3 in a triangle no keeper, building on that comfort and maybe passing sometimes in u8 4v4 w a coach who had them in a diamon, no keeper, adding in a 3rd line and a keeper in u10. Rotating through positions all along the way. The reality is usually much different. It's not uncommon to get u12s that are new to organized soccer, or making the jump from inhouse to travel or no-cut to placement/selection. I'm willing to bet your read on your kids, that they couldn't stay engaged while getting thumped every week, was on the money. The theoretical long term plan in the unicorn league of "rotate them, results don't matter" tends to contribute to "N percent drop out by u13" - why keep doing stuff if you don't think you're good at it. You might have a chance at a long term development plan by doing some positions. The kid that just can't focus, maybe he doesn't play keepr or centerback until he's 14/15, etc. The principles of play are important, but only in the context of the kids you have, and it sounds like you have kids without the framework to really harness them. Watch a game with them where you can point out stuff that applies to how you wnt to play. Width on a blank green canvas most likely looks different than width in the context of "see how when MyFaveClub wins the ball, they increase the distance between themselves..."
I'm the same. I use a mix of SSG and positional play (read:rondos). When I was first taught to teach a rondo, they put a player on each side of the box. "This is where you go". Now, I make a big enough grid and at the start I don't give them (a diamond) shape. They can self organize inside that 4-sided space. Usually the shape is crap and too small-but it helps them figure out how to the make optimal shape and spacing. Im finding the trick to staying in position is to teach them to scan. They check their reference points (ball, sideline, goals, teammates, center circle). If they are just watching ball, they'll drift-only one point of reference.
The term "positional play" gets misused in the US. In essence it is a term for "Dutch Style" principles of play. Positional play isn't about the position of individual players. It is about how the team plays using its position to dominate the game. Just like in chess a player dominates by how the pieces are positioned. Like chess, the essence of positional play is for the team to be well positioned to defend and attack at the same time. It is out of fashion now, but I like to use the term "shape" (like elessar78 did) instead of "formation" and "positions". The SSG is the 11v11 game in miniature. I start with teaching 1v1 play, then play with partners, then playing in lines, and then playing with multiple lines. The way I think about it is that everything starts with 1v1 and the rest is ever more complex support for the players on the ball. I know that 8 and 9 year olds are capable of positional play, but I doubt younger children are. It requires some abstract thinking to anticipate play.
I may be misreading this, but why should the young player that can focus and puts effort into what's asked of him by the coach have to do double duty on the back line just because the unfocused kid fancies himself a goal scorer?
[QUOTE="elessar78, post: 38226679, member: 169602 Im finding the trick to staying in position is to teach them to scan. They check their reference points (ball, sideline, goals, teammates, center circle). If they are just watching ball, they'll drift-only one point of reference.[/QUOTE] Cool insight right here, that could explain a lot...
I'm talking the unfocused or more likely "kid that has no idea how the game looks, so why would anyone expect him to know how to defend" - not the kid who just likes to score/parents are paying/giving pokemon cards/externally motivating and therefore doesn't want to play back. Also - I coach no-cut/town travel, and 2nd teams in that framework, so I get a lot of kids that wouldn't really be out there if the goal was "to win". Like I've never had a team without a kid with osgood schlatter or severs, nevera had a team without a kid with add/adhd. I tend to not get kids born before May in their given birth year (or December under the old aug-jul system). I get the kids who were always "strikers" for their rec league/no goalie teams, then ineffective for their u10 travel teams but still fast, agressive to the ball - maybe dad coached them but has decided travel isn't for him. at some point we have "the talk" that the same things that made them good - skills, speed, aggression - means they can play anywhere, and we start working on the stuff they never had to learn, as well as working on whatever deficiencly is keeping them from being effective as a forward - usually they never learned to shoot correctly or they have no idea of off the ball movement other than running onto loose balls. Nobody gets double duty though - I tend to keep kids in like positions for the duration of a game, so if I'm playing with a back 3, I'll have 4 kids in that pool, one of them will always be one of the stronger kids, but next game that kid will be in the mid/forward pool or the wing/wide-mid pool (unless, see above, they have one of the growth plate related diseases or are just really slow - no point putting them out where they'll be exposed for something beyond what I can train. There's a subtle difference between putting a kid where he can't succeed vs putting a kid where he could fail but he also can succeed.)
Seem like a lot of kids these days exihibit add/adhd symptoms including several on my team. My kid is diagnosed with adhd. When I saw my roster for the first time, what stood out was that most were born in the later months (we go by calendar year). We have a good mix of athleticism, competitiveness, and abilities. I emphasize fundamentals and positional play. I make it a point to avoid coaching by positions because they are not ready for it. The kids already know that there is the concept of keeping a shape and back line defends. I just had to get them in the habit of joining the attack. I rotate my players through 2 to 3 positions per game. Every player has the greenlight to go for it if they think it's a good desicion. It's not perfect and there's plenty to work on, but it's not bad either. So far, every player has played hard and I think it's because they all understand it's a fair system and that they will have opportunities in every game no matter their preferred position or role on the team. I dont think this system would work 11 aside, but playing small sided games against the same level of competition, I really like the results.