Well - as I said, I am changing their views, but it has to be done properly. I actually tried going to just a 3-3 in game 1 ... for just the reasons you mention. And it was disastrous. They were too far out of their comfort zone and the worst happened - they didn't have much (if any) fun. We've had 2 games since then and I put them in a 2-3-1 with much better results. However, I have taken to talking to each girl on the team and told those that are playing forward and midfield that they MUST come back on defense if their is a girl unmarked. Similarly, I'm requiring that the backs move forward to support the attack when it's available. Then I'm showing the others how to reorganize when these situations occur. Slowly they are starting to put it together... within 2-3 more games, they "should" have it closer to a 3-3, even though they may not completely realize it at the time
This is rather common practice in the local AYSO (where we're much more concerned about player development than the win/loss thing), but I'm questioning whether or not this is counter-productive within the span of a match. If players are constantly switching positions mid-game, doesn't this confuse them and keep them from ever learning situational responsibilities? I've been leaning more lately to having them play a position over a couple of games before switching them around. Of course, a blow-out one way or the other will impact positional/tactical options. That's a great point! We don't want our own abstract concepts to interfere with their play. More often than not, they would be having more fun if the adults didn't try to control things. Then see what the kids decide upon! Should indoor serve as the "now for something completely different" treatment or should it reinforce lessons learned over the fall season and/or prep for the spring? I think that depends alot on whether or not you're keeping the same squad together over the winter that played together in the fall and will again in the spring or if you're working with a relatively fresh group for the winter only.
We've played two games with a 3-3 now. Lost both but that was due to lack of speed in the first game and bad luck in the second. I admit that they do struggle with it but I'm sticking with it. 2 main problems. One is that they play like we have two teams...a defensive team and an attacking team, i.e. not supporting the attack as a defender and not getting goal side of the opponents supporting defenders. We talked about it a bit at practice yesterday so we'll see if that starts to erode. Second problem is they're playing in a straight line and not like a triangle. Not worried about that at all...played 3 v 3 last night at training and will continue with it until they get it.
The most common challenge you hear from coaches is found with the transition game. This is especially so with American players all too often raised with the offense/defense binary. Three lines shakes that up necessarily. I would never go with a two line system precisely because its too easy for kids to think they are either supposed to attack or defend depending upon where they are positioned. I advise young players that when we have the ball we're all on offense and when they have the ball we're all on defense. But a midfield holds it all together and is most responsible for transitions. If this is about player development, why avoid a three line system, when that's what they'll end up playing anyway? Depth and width are crucial concepts of play. With two lines, how is the principle of depth/support learned?
I'll try and illustrate what I have come to understand about this, and what I believe is right. Above is a horrible formation. It's worthless tactically. The kids aren't in good positions to pressure, cover, balance or cover width and depth with connection. Then... Why is it a great teaching formation?? It forces the kids to realign themselves to what they think is correct positioning - based on what principles they've been taught. So, now, when the RB is in possession, the players might look like this: Or, the players might look like this: Or, the players might look like this: That's one "formation" achieving as much as SIX separate "formations". The only thing you're telling the kids is that they are "BACKS" or "FORWARDS". All your tactical training sessions would look like this: 1) [10-15m] Warm-Up Activity - where an introduction/explanation of one tactical concept occurs. Sticking to one concept ONLY. 2) [15m] 1v1 - 2v2 Activity that forces the kids to use the concept. 3) [15m] 2v2 - 3v3 Activity that forces the kids to use the concept. 4) [20-30m] 7v7 Scrimmage with minimal stoppages and some in the flow coaching. It'll take longer to get the kids to achieve good positioning, but when they get it - they've gotten it for life. It's not a false positive, where the kids were told where to stand. They pick where they stand, determined on what they see and what they know.
Excellent, thoughtful post, but the question remains: why tell them they are simply "backs" or "forwards"? Your examples make clear that they need to realign themselves situationally from the formation that you concede is "horrible" and "worthless tactically." Telling them they are either backs or forwards reinforces overly simplistic dualistic thinking. You're asking them to transcend that mode of thought, despite your language, and that's what I don't agree with. Why coach them with language you want them to overcome? Why not use language that helps facilitate their development? One never plays just "backs" or "forwards" (and your diagrams demonstrate just why one wouldn't want them to!), just as we should teach them to think of the pitch in threes, not in terms of our half and theirs. Having backs, mids and a forward in short-sided games keeps them thinking in threes, emphasizing principles like width, depth, mobility and balance. I'm not surprised in the least that people are responding that a 3-3 formation has proven difficult in the early going. So why bother?
I answered and tried to disprove most of these ideas. If you read my post back, you'll get answers to most of these questions. The only things I didn't address are that a) this is a U10 and under formation. When teams make the shift to 9v9, it transforms by installing a block of two "forwards" at the head of your preexisting 3-3. The 3-3 will not equip the kids to play as a "forward" pair and you'll have to teach functional forward play, a bit to overcome this.
Now idealistically - I agree with you. Unfortunately it doesn't play out that way (at least with my current team). Unless your kids really understand how to move and switch off, you're going to have 3 kids who primarily defend and 3 that primarily attack. What you really want is to have the kids support one another wherever they are needed at that time (both offensively and defensively). You can have the same six "effective formations" starting from a 2-2-2, 3-3, 3-2-1, or 2-3-1. How they flow during a match is much more important than where they are standing during the kickoff. In my experience, it's easier to convince players they have to attack AND defend by calling them "mids" (an attacking back is an oxymoron at this stage of their development). So much so that in some game I'm considering telling the kids they are lining up in a 1-4-1, but they always have to have at least 3 attacking and at least 3 defending. Personally, I enjoy telling the kids to go play and not worry about positions (they look at me funny). I remind them that if you read the laws of the game, there are inherently only 2 positions in soccer. 1) Goalkeeper 2) Non-goalkeeper The only reason why names of positions exist is to help the player gain an understanding of what is his/her role in the game.
This sounds like you are playing, at least in part, a man-to-man defense. I suggest that you use a zonal defense with all six field players defending as a unit rather than have separate zones. Like a zone defense in basketball. (Everyone attacking too). The emphasis would be on team shape rather than on an individual's position out of context of the rest of the team (i.e., dependent on where the teammates are instead of dependent on what an opponent does). Telling forwards and midfielders that they must come back IF ...., means that you are normally only using two players (the backs) to defend. I would defend with 5-6 players no matter what formation (system of play) I used. Six is preferably because with a small side giving up a numerical advantage is a big problem. I might keep one forward high to add depth and if I wanted to force play away from the center. I would also attack with all six players (the field is so short its not difficult for all the backs to be within supporting distance).
I disagree with this part of the your post. Maybe you have never experienced it, but its too big a world for absolutes to exist. I like to say that a "position" is where I start before the kickoff, and sometimes not even then. Experienced players play roles, and change their roles to fit the circumstances as they change during the match. The team that adapts the best usually has the most success. In coaching youth, I emphasize that a "position" is a role, not a spot on the field. PS: Think of it this way. A midfielder's role is to link the backs and the forwards. In indoor, the field is so much smaller than outdoors that there is no need for an intermediate link between the backs and forwards. They can link up directly.
The point of getting away from the dualist language of back/forward or attack/defence is precisely to get away from absolutes.
Definitely not playing a man-to-man defense. Sorry if I was unclear (if I were I would have said "if your player is unmarked". I just want the mids and forwards to understnad that they have to look at the field when we lose the ball, and find the unmarked/dangerous players - then to mark accordingly. I definitely tell my team we have (for indoor) 7 attackers when we have teh ball and 7 defenders when they have the ball. (Yes I count the goalkeeper too as we play 7v7) Again I think this is one of the things we agree on, but I lost soemthing in translation on a board. I like to leave 1 (2 if possible) players in a slightly forward position to force the other team to tend to them or to start a break if they dont. But I want them working to ensure when we lose the ball, we are never caught shorthanded.
I will concede that it isn't easy to coach our of the ideology I've presented. But, without yet having coached this style for a number of years, I still feel that it presents the greatest long-term benefits for players with potential. This is a good point and part of the reason why I think coaches need to shift away from teaching out of "formations" at the young ages. The kids aren't born with a sense of strict positioning. Free play will show you that. But, it seems as soon as kids join youth soccer [ages 4-10], they are pounded constantly with this idea of "positioning, positioning, positioning" and it isn't rooted in a theoretical understanding of the game. It's rooted in a understanding of positional roles - which can be largely subjective and counterproductive as they progress through the teenage years. *** But, again, I concede that the idea of coaching without formation and positional guidelines - instead only using principles of attack and defense - is very, VERY hard on the coach. You really need a clear idea of your season planned out, with specific details.
Btw, I think this thread has really good discussion all around. You guys are really challenging my ideas on the subject, and I do agree with most of the other ways 7v7 is presented. I've used them all to great effect.
Yeah, and my concern really isn't for those who have a deep knowledge base, but the other coaches we may be supervising who don't come from a soccer background, who understand positioning based upon gridiron or baseball and try to apply that sensibility to the beautiful game, thereby stifling the kids' creative play. I think to some degree we're just arguing semantics, as it sounds like we all agree on basic principles of play. But we've all seen coaches who instruct kids playing "defense" to stay behind the centre line, and sometimes even restrict them to the penalty area! Its always a challenge working with kids coming from that dualistic school of thought. Just like the kids encouraged to just "boot it!" 3v3 is such a wonderful teaching tool. Remember all the opposition not so long ago to small-sided games? By the way, the KNVB is very prescriptive about how to play 7v7. When in possession: 1 2 4 3 5 7 6 And when the opposition is in possession: 1 3 2 4 6 5 7 So in a way you could say that the Dutch play a 3-3, with two fullbacks, a central defender, a center forward and two outside forwards. But there's always depth added to that notion of width. I'm partial to the 2-3-1 with 7v7 play, but I do like Wahoo's 1-4-1, which is, I suppose, what I'm really asking from the U10s I coach. I don't have them lock in to a position, but try to instill a sense of positional responsibility. "Get involved in the attack, but then you need to get back." A lot of indoor leagues and tournaments play without an offside law. And that encourages the binary of keeping defenders back and pushing forwards up to poach. But when I've been faced with that I don't mind the kids getting burnt by the long-ball. I'm much more concerned with helping them learn to play as a unit, rather than two separate units.
I assume you're talking about advanced age players?! For U10-U14 they need to become expert at pressure-cover-balance before any of what you suggest would make sense.
The team we played last week had two poachers parked in our end the whole game. I could have cared less if they scored 10 goals. But my girls sure cared...couldn't get my defenders to ignore them when we were in posession. I'm trying to get them to understand that if they push up and support the attack then: 1) we'll outnumber them and will score more than them and, 2) we'll cut off the passes to those poachers and they'll rarely get the ball anyway. Also if the keeper acts as a sweeper keeper then she can cut off those long boot-balls to the poachers.
Pressure - cover should be easy at U9. "If their attacker beats our defender, where is he going? Can we get there first and be ready for him?" I think zonal defense can be achieved, but not in the way it is executed at the professional level. Balance is the hard topic to perfect, for me. Most times, I don't think the 3rd kid really understands why he has to stand where he does. He knows he is defending, but can't necessarily see 3 moves ahead when the point of attack might be switched. He only sees the long ball to his area - which causes him to drift towards the ball. The third level for me is... "If we're not pressuring or covering, can we stand next to a dangerous player and prevent him from getting the ball?" Dangerous player being: any opponent in our defensive third.
Not on my team! Although they do a good job of getting to players who beat the first defender, they do a terrible job of anticipating passes to players they are goal side of (if they've even gotten goal side at all).
Hmmm. Maybe get a game going to 5-yard endzones. And, in those endzones have one player from ea. team fighting each other. They score a point by completing a pass to their player on the endzone. Teach them to be behind the player [so she can't sneak behind and out of sight, we want to see the ball AND the man]. And, then work on their ability to read the play and jump in to intercept. I've never done that before; I don't know if it'll work. But, it seems reasonable enough.
Nice. I've done end zone games before but never quite like that. Maybe we'll try that next practice. I worked hard on defending this fall and they definitely started to get it but in the end our offense suffered...they were so worried about how I'd react about our defending they didn't push the ball on offense. I've got a pretty good balance now (our offence and defence is "fair" now, not "poor"), fortunately.
Well I just got back from an indoor game... For those interested but didn't hear - my team is a group of U12 girls that are Div 2 but playing indoor against Premier and the top Div 1 teams. This was from the parents to push this subset of the team and see how they respond. They are playing 7v7 with walls and we only put 8 on the team. So far I'm happy with how they are responding as they are better each week. Ok so tonight we lost 3-1... it was 1-1 for a long stretch of the game and we had PLENTY of opportunities. I tell you, if these girls had learned to shoot (much less finish) 4 years ago, this team would be so much better. Anyway, we had plenty of chances but couldn't knock in more than the 1. It was 2-1 with 1 minute left and I had told the girls to push forward looking for the equalizer when they knocked in the 3rd. Oh well it happens. Now as to positioning and how it pertains to this thread... I again went with a 2-3-1 to let them know how to start the game. However, the other side was in a similar formation, but pulled a trick at the beginning of each half. Their 2 "forwards" moved up into the attack and my team picked them up fine, but then they'd sneak their left mid down the field quietly and after 1 minute it was obvious she was really an attacker not a mid. However my team had trouble realizing where she came from and how to pick her up. In both halves i had to quickly sub in a replacement to show how and where she was coming from. I couldn't help but think (during the game) that a 3-3 wouldn' thave had this problem at the outset. That said, the team is getting much better about not worrying about positions but rather filling in spots and supporting and covering as best they can. While we won't win many games this session (we weren't planning to), they are learning situational awareness and getting a lot of touches on the ball. As long as we're doing that - I'm happy. Suprisingly most of the kids and all the parents have noticed the improvement from Game 1 (ouch) and are so far happy with the session.
If all you teach is pressure-cover-balance for defense, then you ARE teaching a unit zonal defense. The unit is composed of however many field players are defending. The only thing you did not mention is teaching them after being beaten how to recover to a supporting position behind the ball. A team attacking and defending with six field players will dominate a comparable team attacking and defending with only three players. I also think its better for development.