Misleading thread title hopefully got your reading. I have coached a Boys HS Varsity soccer team for seven years. If you ask me how many players I want to defend centrally for my team, I say 2. If you ask me how many players I want to control the flanks, I say 2 per flank (fullback/outside midfielder combo). If you ask me how many players I want to control the center of the pitch and link to the frontline, I say 3. If you ask me how many strikers I want to use, I say 2. If you've been counting, that adds up to a 4-5-2. Houston, we have a problem. So, the question is, where to cheat?! I have tried a lot of different things, but in most seasons I usually wind up playing a 4-4-2 with two deep-lying center midfielders who do an adequate job controlling the middle but cannot do much in terms of supporting the central strikers. Pretty old-fashioned, but my experiments with a lone striker have led to pretty toothless attacks, and my experiments with 3-5-2 have led to problems at the back. I experimented with a very traditional Dutch 4-3-3 (4-2-1-3) last season but struggled in transition. Any suggestions? I know this is a very generic question, just trying to stimulate a tactical discussion I guess!!
You don't have a lot of choices. You want nine players behind the ball on defense. You can have that and two strikers, but its going to be tough on the transistions figuring high school is usually a lot of sprinting and turnovers. I don't see a better alternative than what you were doing last year. No matter what your game plan, you probably aren't going to get rid of the transition problem. 433 (4213, 4231, etc) sounds like your solution with the 2 wingers defending the flanks in front of the backs. Transition is tough on the wingers, but no more than playing winghalf in a 442. If you have liberal substitutions, you can rotate the wings to keep their work rate high. The other alternative is to run a 442 and have one of the strikers withdraw into the central midfield on defense. But really the only difference between the 433 and 4411 is pyschological rather than movements on the field. The defensive organization depends on how many you want defending behind the ball. I figure you already know all this and are just doing a sanity check to see if you are missing something. I don't see anything you are missing.
It's complex but very common for professional sides to run two formations, one in possession and the other without it. In one of France's Euro sides, Henry would play striker on attack but slide back to almost a right midfielder role defensively.
Exactly. I think people tend to over think formations. Use a formation that maximizes the talent you have on the field. Almost every formation has the same number of players defending when on defense and, conversely, the same number of players on offense when pressing forward. If you have speed/endurance on the outside you have all the flexibility you need. If you lack speed on the outside keep it more simple.
surprised not more have taken the bait for the discussion. It's a worthwhile topic. As far as the 4-3-3 and transition, which one are you talking about? Defense to attack or the other way around? Where do you set up your line of confrontation?
one potential issue is thinking of attacking players as different from defensive players. (guys who hang out up front and poach goals but don't defend--guys who hang back and defend but don't support the attack.) i'm not saying that's how you think, but... if it is how you think, you may want to re-think. (in terms of training and strategy, soccer coaches in the u.s. really should try to think about what happens in basketball.) anyway, it is kind of a neat question. what i like most is a tangent... what would happen if you and the opponent could each field 12 players? what would change there? (would it still be enough to have 2 central defenders? 2 defenders per flank? 3 defenders in the middle? 2 players up top?)
Thanks for all the replies. I definitely think of the formation as fluid. What I have found though is that most teams at this level play so rapidly and so direct (not a slight, just a truth) that we wind up doing a minimal amount of defending in the midfield and a lot of rearguard defending. If teams built up more slowly and we could work more with a defending shape in the midfield, things might be different, but most teams we play against try to skip the midfield and go directly to their forwards when their defenders win possession. We were playing as high pressure as possible. In the most traditional 4-3-3, as soon as possession is lost the frontline tries to win the ball back immediately while forcing play to the wings. At the same time the ball-side fullback pushes up essentially into the midfield, and the other 3 backs slide over slightly to form a back 3. What was basically happening was stronger teams were winning possession and skipping the midfield before we could get them under pressure. That was the problem in transitioning from attack to defense. Going from defense to attack wasn't really a "problem," but I never really succeeded in getting the type of play I wanted from my wingers, so we were not as effective as we should have been in that regard. The JV coach at my school has had a lot of success 2 years in a row now playing a 4-3-1-2 with the 3 midfielders behind the playmaker playing fairly narrow. I may try that this year, but I suspect that we'll get overrun on the wings. The Varsity teams tend to use width much more effectively, putting a lot more strain on the fullbacks and requiring a lot more defensive work from the flank midfielders.
I can't see your whole picture but your front line seems to be doing the right thing, but what is the rest of the team doing? While the front line is harrying the opponents, your midfielders and defenders should be setting up underneath at the line of confrontation if the ball gets through. I'd suggest if the opponents are bypassing midfield, that you set that line of confrontation at about 10-15 yards inside your defensive half so the direct play isn't as effective. They'll be going against 8 defenders that are set up. But then your front line might have to do more delaying than trying to win back the ball—which can be one in the same. I once played on a team that did this very thing. We pressed high, not necessarily to win back but to force the defenders to play long balls which our mids or defs would just pick up. We had a stretch of two years where we averaged conceding less than a goal a game. On the surface, I think the 4-3-1-2 works because you already have 8 players conveniently back and, IMO, 2 forwards can effectively delay the opponents from getting into the attack.
This is to be expected, but not a reason to abandon your defensive zone organization in the final third. You will still be in good shape as long as the rest of the team recovers and sets up before the opponent's midfielders arrive to support the opponent's forwards. I would also expect that the opposing forwards upon receiving the ball continue playing extremely direct for an early shot so that the ball is out of play before your full defense has recovered. Again the directness of the opposing attack is not a reason to abandon your plans. Regarding the transition to defense, there are several basic approaches using 4 backs. I will categorize by who is defending the space in front of the CBs: 1 DM, 2 DM, 3 CM. From what you said in the op, it appears you want 3 CM defending in front of the CBs. I wanted to point out that you can get pretty solid protection against a long ball counter playing like Brazil in 2010 with 2 DMs. I suspect this requires speedy fullbacks. Brazil would send both fullbacks into the attack with both DMs in a box (with the CBs) controlling the center of the field against a counter. The DMs can also provide distribution from their position while still in position to cover a counter. Any space for a long ball upon a turnover would appear on the flanks. Which means it is less dangerous and gives the defense more time to recover. Since you are pushing both fullbacks forward, this should put opposing flank players back defending making it harder still to exploit a long ball on the flank. Another consideration for this organization is that in most systems it will give you 2 flank attackers on each side and and 2 central attackers (in front of the DMs). This should give you adequate numbers forward.
3-1-3-3 that chile used can be your solution, its really a 4-3-3, but the central defender pushes up to attack and the 3 defenders push inside together. so now, you have to press the opponent high up the pitch, instead of running with them, they have to force the defenders or whoever has the ball to make a pass, and you'll need to good central guys, one a central defender playing the 1 and the guy in the back of the 3 attackers to be really smart to intercept the ball. So in general the 3 defenders play more close together, are generally fast, and great tacklers, the 1 is a central defender who can push up to help the attacks and spread the ball around the other 3 in conjunction with the 1 form a sort of diamond in the midfield. and of course the upper 3 play like they would in 4-3-3 this has an image of how they play with each other and might be something to look at http://www.zonalmarking.net/2010/06/08/marcelo-bielsa-chile-world-cup-2010-tactics/ the important thing is the passing triangles that help unlock the defenses, if your geometry is correct you can unlock any team no problem, and create many offense chances
The 3-1-3-3 is a really difficult system. The defensive group of 3 and the midfield group of 3 both have to do a great deal of shifting to effectively close down space; what I like about playing with a back 4 is that it's easier to close down one side. I know that the 1 in between the lines can retreat back into the defensive line, but that is very difficult to do and won't always happen in a transition-happy game. In theory it is a great system, but I think you need a lot of great players with tremendous fitness to pull it off.
yes thats why it's chile (country with high altitude) who plays it, and athletico bilbao, but at the same time, it's all about pressing high up the pitch, and trusting the defense to be fast enough if the offside trap doesn't work. if the players retreat when the opponents get the ball your gonna be in big trouble. but if you have problems in transition you can try the 4-2-3-1 that Holland uses for it's national team. i watch them all the time. only issue would be the central striker would be isolated. but they control the flanks, control the center. and when they are having a good game, they create lots of goal scoring opportunities. Slow build up from the back, the full backs move up, the two center backs split open, while van bommel usually sometimes de jong come up the middle, giving the Goalie a chance to pass it to three people, from that point, robben or the other side before it was kuyt, now it's affellay, can cut in, meaning the opponents defensive four will have to get tighter leaving space down the line for van der wiel and the other left back, who if they beat the winger, leaves you at a man advantage to cross and have 3 guys try and connect with the cross to score, if the defense stays wide , then crossing (switching sides) of the field will have a guy open usually your other back. and what Holland does when a team parks the bus or they got closed down quickly, is that they pass it to van bommel or de jong, while resetting and if v. bommel and de jong are closed down they pass it back to the goalie, so having a sweeper keeper is of utmost importance
formations: While not unimportant at high-level high school, it's still over-emphasized. Get the players' responses to the different phases of the game correct each time and the formation will work. If it's not the weakness in it will at least be evident and you need to re-allocate your resources (players) to compensate in that weakness. Say you run a 4-3-3 with a triangle midfield and their responses to the situation are correct but you're still being overrun in midfield because of the fast switching of the opponents' 4-4-2 and overlapping outside backs. So you'll probably have to drop your two wingers into more of a midfield role creating a 4-5-1. We all go in with an idea of how we want to play and if our players are good enough then we don't adjust to the opponents. But, even with the best pro teams, the game dictates what we need to do tactically and we just need to be flexible. Most of what we discuss are pro formations that are solving professional problems. What does a high school team face? If your team is naturally a kick ball team (not saying yours is), why populate your midfield with too many players if they're just getting bypassed anyway? 4-2-4? 3-2-5? Or if you're content with dominating possession, clogging the midfield, and playing someone in (instead of a dedicated forward) why not play 3-7-0? The way my U12s play, we don't train positions specifically, so everyone is basically a midfielder. On smaller fields we can hold pretty well with two good defenders, so in theory I could play 2-6-0. Forwards are kind of a waste because they don't act like true forwards. They're not doing much just waiting for passes up top. You could make an argument that they're stretching the defense but they're not doing it consciously or effectively, so what's the point? We do well with midfielders running at defenders and playing through balls to runners that are coming late.
Everything I have learned at my licensing courses says you're right, but practical experience tells me that formations and team tactics are important, though I am sure they are still over-emphasized at times. I can think of numerous examples of coaches changing tactics (3 front to 2 front, adjusting the shape of the midfield, changing the marking system at the back) that have swung games in my high school league over the past several seasons. While the players' ability to adapt quickly to these changes is probably more important, it is still largely up to the coach to make sure his team is ready tactically, yes? Oh and I would definitely not call my team "high-level" high school haha...
I mentioned adjusting the formation. Mid-game or pre-game probably doesn't matter as long as your players can handle a change like that. This is a philosophical question but is merely changing the formation a change in tactics? I'd say not necessarily. In my own situation, we still play the same way but I may put more forwards to increase the ability to press or put another midfielder if we're losing the battle there. Last game was a good example when, I feel, I actually used a tactical approach. Hot day and we had zero substitutes—we had to play smart. For the most part we did, we hung back, played possession, played to feet, didn't play through balls as much as we normally do, no hounding after a turnover—everything at a low simmer. Not really packing it in but just conserving energy. They did a fine job, actually took the lead 1-0 but we played well for 59 minutes and 40 seconds, but three lapses of concentration through the course of the game so us lose 1-3. . Most of the game we played 3-4-1. Then with fifteen minutes left I pushed up a defender to chase the equalizer and we ended up conceding the third goal (a player ducked out of the way of a ball instead of heading it, led to the goal). Point being, I didn't change the instructions on how to play but just positioned them differently. Most of the time our identity is: in possession: don't turn the ball over during the build up and play a penetrating ball as soon as we can. Objective of every possession is to get a nice, crisp shot on goal. transition from attack to defense: hound it and try to win it back within 5-7 seconds, everyone else use this time to get into position. opponent's in possession: P-C-B-C transition from d to a: show for the player with the ball or try to hit our target players on the break. Even on the high school teams I help out with, we don't know our opponents (most of 'em) well enough to go in with a tactical set up ahead of time. So "tactics" are put it at half or on the fly. Are going with tactics that are wrong or inaccurate worse than going with a general one-size fits all approach?
That is a good question. First I want to address what is tactics. In my mind the system of play and tactics are separate subjects. The system of play is a tool that is intended to allow the players to combine together easier during the run of play. So the more experience the players have with a system of play, the more advantage they gain from using it. To that end I would rather make adjustments within a system of play than switch systems of play. I think its less confusing to the players and lets them benefit from prior learning. Tactics are general in nature and can be applied while a team is in any system. High pressure defense and delayed high pressure defense are what I think of as tactics. Similarly changing the line of confrontation is an example of what I meant by an adjustment within a system of play. I have had success tailoring a line of confrontation when opposing fullbacks were lacking ball skills: I backed off to allow the team space to give the ball to the full back and allowed the full back to dribble up field. I applied pressure exactly when the fullback looked up to make the pass. The result was a turnover every time. Another adjustment within a system of play is how you organize a line. In a 442 midfield you can have a box, a diamond, a line, a Tee, and an inverted Tee. Switching player positions can make a tactical impact too without even making a substitution. For instance up front you can create mismatches by switching forwards around. How you are going to organize the defense is another example. Typical is pure zone defense with 8 behind the ball (2 lines of four) funneling to the outside to attempt to pin the first attacker against the touch line with a double team. A different common organization would be to go to a modified zone with a player assigned to man mark the opponent's playmaker. Other choices are how much freedom you give particular players to roam. How much interchange do you allow between the lines. As a team gains experience with a system, they can interchange more and still maintain team shape and organization. If you switch systems, it slows down their progess down the learning curve. So in my view is better to play one system well than play several systems not as well. Now to answer your question directly. I think that if you have a complicated setup with a lot of restrictions, that, if used in every match, will more likely cause problems than a simpler system with less restrictions on the players. What I consider a complicated setup is a system with a lot of role player positions (DM, CAM, target forward) as opposed to generalists.