In the past I have talked about attacking tactics as either indirect or direct. Counterattacking style is direct and possession style is indirect. But these words don't seem to communicate the concepts well. So I thought I would describe team tactics a different way--in terms of three phases: buildup, approach and finish. Direct attacks--like counterattacking--skip the buildup and move directly to the approach and finish phrases. Indirect attacks start with the buildup phase. This distinction is inherent in how I define the phases. The purpose of the buildup phase is to unbalance the defense. In counterattacking, the defense is typically already unbalanced when the ball is won. These are just generalizations. A Dutch style soccer opponent will not be unbalanced when they lose the ball. They stress keeping a compact (i.e., connected) team shape while in possession so they are already defending before they lose possession. In youth soccer, some talk about "possession" style soccer as being anything that is "not" kick-and-chase. To me though just booting the ball up the field is not playing any kind of soccer at all. Both indirect and direct soccer use the same skills, same fundamentals. I am not someone who says all clearances are bad tactical choices. I am saying that indiscriminately clearing the ball is a bad habit. Any rate, this is why I introduced the buildup phase into the conversation, to distinguish direct play from "kick-and-chase" soccer. I think that this view allows us to talk about team tactics at any age or level, and with any competition rules. While I don't believe in focusing training on team tactics during zone 1, everything I do is based on the context of preparing to eventually play the senior game, especially senior team tactics.
When I first glanced at this, I thought of a certain "thoughtful" soccer coach on an old message board (not sure you were there, rca) who had this scheme of breaking up the game into a whole bunch of different "parts" (the possession part, the "breakthrough" part, the finishing part) as if they were completely disparate pieces that could be taught in isolation. Thankfully, this isn't that, and I think the distinction has some value. But we need to be careful about dividing things too finely. I do agree that we need to separate kickball from direct play. And others have similarly made a distinction between mere possession and penetration; the phrase "possession with a purpose" got run out a lot at one period. I prefer to view attacking tactics in terms of the basic principles of penetration, width, depth (support), mobility and creativity. What we call direct soccer focuses more on penetration and depth/support ahead of the ball, whereas a more indirect style uses more elements of width, closer support using depth behind the ball, and creativity. Possession can be done anywhere on the field, and doesn't need to even involve attacking. As I sometimes say to my (older age) teams, if you're not penetrating, you're just playing with yourself. Buildup is certainly a useful term, as long as we take care to stress that we are always looking to go forward when the opportunity presents itself--whether it's a 5-yard ball into feet or a 50-yard ball to a running striker.
GKbenji, that is a very interesting approach. It is always difficult to step outside your own prejudices. I am strongly biased toward attacking soccer. My formative years involved fast break basketball and power sweep football. I played competitive soccer during the 80s. I suspect that I don't really understand possession soccer and that colors my view of soccer tactics. For example I think of possession style as something you do to slow down the tempo of the game after you have the lead. Theoretically I know that the style has more to it than that, but I have this unthinking preference for direct play (direct in the sense of penetrating and finishing at first opportunity). I think talking about principles is important, but I find it difficult. For instance when I think of direct attacks, I agree that penetration is emphasized but I think of width as having equal emphasis. When I think about direct play versus indirect play, I think that playing directly means the ball is passed to the forward line early. Typically to a forward near the touch line in the middle third. So I don't associate supporting in front of the ball as an important part of it, once the ball is with the forward line. Instead I think of the forwards using the width and diagonal runs and passes to break down the back line and score. In other words I think that direct play means breaking the defensive lines as quickly as possible to penetrate into the space behind the opponent's back line. This makes at least 6 of the opponent's field players (attacking fullbacks, forwards and mids) largely irrelevant to play. The flip side of my thinking is that all teams play possession style during the times in a match when the opponent has established a good defensive shape in his defending third. Because there is no space behind the back line to exploit, you must either retreat back to the middle third to create space behind the defense or else pull apart the defense in front of the goal with combination passing. Both alternatives look like indirect style soccer to me. If you look at modern tactics as battles for control of the outside channels, then width is also very important to the attack. Good conversation.
Nooooo!!!! He who shall not be named. My gosh, time flies, that's like ten years ago. Not to vindicate, Russ, and I don't know if I am (and it's not my goal) but below are the phases of play that Barca teaches: It's not radically different than what he was talking about. The main difference is that it's on a continuum, not distinct and separate phases. I don't really remember what his exact view point was.
How would you categorize the EC2008 match of the Orange team against Italy? If one needs an excellent example of counter attacking to study, this is the one. But how would you describe it in your terms? For instance if one analyzes the clearance of Gio van Bronckhorst and the events after it, what is it that gives you food for thought? this were the line ups:
No, elessar, what Russ talked about wasn't that at all. It's pretty common to divide soccer into those four pieces. In fact, just today I filled out a pre-match schematic for my USSF DA team, and US Soccer wanted our coaching objectives for exactly those four phases of the game. Russ had taken some of those phases and broken them down into nonsensical parts. For example, attacking was composed of the "possession part", the "breakthrough part" (getting the ball behind the defense), the "finishing part" or something, and proposed those should all be coached in isolation. While we all essentially do that to an extent in our training by means of where we focus our coaching points in a session, he made it reductio ad absurdum. To respond to rca's reply, possession isn't just keep-ball. You are always looking for the way forward. But it's much easier, of course, if you actually have the ball. Think about Barca and tiki-taka. It's a "possession style", but not just for the sake of possession. It's probing, moving the ball, looking for that space and moment to go forward and strike. I think your idea about direct meaning getting the ball to the forward line early is key. Often the midfield is bypassed. Many people would say the objective is to get behind the defense as well, as you mention. However, IMO you can play directly but not necessarily behind the defense, e.g. long balls in to a target player, who turns or waits for the midfield to join. It bypasses the midfield on the first ball, but doesn't necessarily get in behind, and uses supporting teammates. I also see serving early or repeated balls into the box as "direct"--not much attempt to pull the defense apart, just send it in an try to pick out a runner or get a rebound or deflection opportunity. I think you need to be careful about equating direct with "behind the defense". You don't necessarily need to break the back line to score.
I think the attack after van Bronckhorst won the ball is an excellent example of what I discussed in the 3rd paragraph of post # 3. The Orange attack directly at the goal and use the whole width of the field. In the final third they use diagonal passes to beat the defense.
I will comment on the last point first: Very true. I don't think any of us think we are talking about universal truths. Regarding the first point, while I haven't seen Russ's comments, I have seen other coaches breaking down the "possession moment" tactically into 5 or more "phases" in a complicated, regimented view of the game. In the military we have a very formalistic way of planning combat, but the military has a tradition--No battle plan survives contact with the enemy. Meaning that the military commander relies on his subordinates' initiative to solve tactical problems as they occur. It is the commander's "intent" rather than the plan that is more important. In soccer I would compare the principles of play to the commander's intent. When I read that complicated attacking model, I thought that the game at the top of the pyramid must be very different from what I played. I am glad to see you say it is non-nonsensical when carried to extreme. With great players, a coach can simply tell them to put the ball in the back of the net and be effective. But 99% of the time teams actually could benefit from some coaching. There has to be some middle ground between the two extremes, but the best coaching approach likely varies with the team, the opponent, and the objectives.
Here's a bit of my challenge right now when trying to work on positional play/possession soccer. We are crammed 3 teams onto a 7v7 (maybe a 9v9) sized field for training this spring. It's ok for technical work, small-sided games, etc. But for any type of shadow play we just don't have room to see how it looks in real life. Even working on building out of the back with a back line of 4 and 1 midfielder, the field we are on isn't wide enough or long enough. Once the Spring season ends, the fields should open up and we'll have 1/2 of a full sized field. It's funny - When you watch a well put together coaching video, they have all the space they need on a perfect pitch and perfect numbers to make everything flow. In reality, you've got balls flying in from other teams. You are crammed into a corner with 1 goal. You have planned some sort of 4v4+2 exercise where you plan to emphasize defending, but your 2 center backs (who you designed the session around) need to leave early for grandmas birthday.
I always thought that the coaching courses should give you a real-life challenge like this: You get 13 players (and have to use all of them), 6 bibs, cones that are a mix of 5 different colors, just 5 balls (2 of which are flat)... and halfway through your session, a gridiron football team arrives and says they've reserved and are taking half your space.
In my world a 7v7 field is 80x40—so you have 40x25. It's Narrow, but you can simulate well enough. Back to front and side to side that's probably what your spacing will be anyway (close to that).
One illuminating quote by Pep is: we don't pass to move the ball, we pass the ball to move players (defenders). It makes a lot of sense when you look at it from a defense's perspective. Pressure-Cover-Balance-Compactness-Restraint. . . most times the first thing that breaks down in most novice positional activities is the first defender. Instead of stepping and dropping with a square pass, the first defender chases the ball instead of exhibiting restraint. The defensive shape is quickly ruined by a simple 1st level pass. What pep's teams are really good at is seeing that space that is created by ball circulation and attacking it. Individuals identifying space is good. The collective identifying space (and exploiting it) is kinda magical. Even at the pro level, once the ball is swung to the other flank you get a straggling full back that doesn't shift with the block or a wing/outside mid who doesn't drop and connect with the back line.
Great quote. Pep is looking for any kind of advantage. Think about mismatches. The easiest-to-accomplish example is to isolate your best attacker 1-on-1 against the opponent's weakest defender on the flank. The attack has an advantage even though the defense is balanced. If the defense adjusts they weaken the center channel. This example has you think about the opponent's location and not just looking for space. With kids, if you create mismatches of skill, rather than physical mismatches, you are still encouraging player development and good tactics.
Benji your not talking about "thoughtful soccer" Russ Carrington and his children's book. the guy was an idiot. How many times did he try to get his C license never passed it. He never even coached a good team. His claim to fame was his sons playing success never even played in college. You can play a direct possession game. Turn your direct game into a more possession direct game? Pass long into space instead right to a waiting player. Use up top player movement, and movement from the flank player to an up top inside the field position. Pass long from the back to the far side mid on the far side up top space. Instead of near the keeper. So your pass possession would be in your favor instead of the opponents defensive favor. Play back to your support players after a long pass. You don't always have to try and beat the opponents backs over the top. Try to hit the second, and the third diagonal run instead of the first diagonal run. Most passes off diagonal runs are to the first option. Not the trigered 2nd or third option options after that. The back support player of the dribbler is the guy who should get the ball first in order to hit that third triggered option not the dribbler. In every long direct pass you need 2 back options not one. Also those two back options should be further back then the back option would be in a possession game. Do all that with practice direct would be a more possession game
I think any real good team should be able to play both a counter and a possession game. The first part and easiest to learn is the first part the counter then if you can't hit it by the third pass then play a possession game. Why counter should be tried first and not possession. Right after your team wins the ball is your best chance to counter before the opponent can transition to defense. Can't do it and opponent got everyone behind the ball. Then you go to the possession game.
If you are interested you need to use google translate. It's an analysis of the attacking tactics used by Feyenoord/Gio van Bronckhorst. The site is called (translation) between the lines http://www.tussendelinies.nl/waarom-feyenoord-toornstra-als-middenvelder-nog-beter-wordt
Thanks @feyenoordsoccerfan One frustration I have had over the years is being limited to English language publications. Some of the translations are horrible. The most recent example is a book in Spanish about Pep translated by a British publisher. The translator apparently knew nothing about soccer and did a horrible job. For example in one paragraph the translator used three different terms in a way that made it impossible to understand if the author was referring to one player or 3 players (centre-half, centerback and central defender). A fan reading for entertainment probably wouldn't even notice, but I was trying to learn something. I get frustrated with google a lot too, but Dutch (and German) seems to translate to English better than Spanish. At least for me. Ironically I took 2 years of Spanish in college. ("This is my pen. Where is the library?" )
RCA I don't really read soccer books. But one I actually like was Franz Bechenbauers Soccer Power. First published in German. Then translated into English in the 1980s. Some would say it is out dated. But I like it remember old stuff you haven't seen in years becomes new again if you actually use it now.. Youcan buy it on Amazon if they still have it. Hard cover is under 10 dollars. Definitely with the money.
But of course I am. BTW, that old forum has recently re-awakened with some old-timers (and Old Timer) showing their faces again. Not Russ, though.
I always felt that Klopps good years at Dortmund this is how they played: "direct possession" . . . they would drive forward once they gained possession but if the opponents recovered defensively, they could knock it around as well. But their main drive was to get forward before the opponents could get organized defensively. It's a lesson, Arsene Wenger routinely ignores.
Forward runs use it for depth and width. Old post of mine we used it all the time. "First all that forward movement up field gives your team depth behind those runs. Use it with inside movement underneath the opponents backs. That up top forward movement of your strikers gets the backs to retreat. Use the space in front of the retreating backs to get shots off. You don't always have to beat a back over the top, you can beat the back underneath once you get him moving back. ------ Any run from the flank inside the field with the ball or without the ball opens up space on the flank for others to use. Use that space as well. ------------- A lot of good things happen when a player moves from outside to inside. Good example is your playing against a flat four. The flank mid beats his first defender. That forces one of the central backs to leave the middle of the field. Now instead of the dribbler taking on that player as well, he immediately attacks inside. Now there are only 2 backs left to defend the middle if you do it fast enough. At the same time a central striker sees the flanks inside movement. He goes to the side where the flank player came from. Maybe, that run can draw another back out. That leaves a lot of space inside that that flank dribbler can use to dribble in and get shots off, or to pass from. You can help show flank players the benefits of moving inside using functional training. Take that one player and walk them throw those runs. Show them all the space this movement creates. Team mates have to use that space. The problem with inside runs is your jamming up the middle of the field. Players inside the field have to learn when they see these runs they have to move out and clear space to help the player moving inside. The team mate has to move out, and hopefully his movement pulls an opponent also out of the middle. If they can do that, the player moving inside has more space to play in and that can get that player isolated so he becomes very dangerous. He is playing away from pressure now, instead of playing into pressure. Do your guys do takeovers? I love them simple tactic because it involves 2 people to start with and it is an about making space, and playing away from pressure. You can do that vertically or horizontally."