I noticed that our kids have trouble making long passes. So, rather than say "this formation makes sense on paper" or "this formation is how the pros would do it"... and treating it like a chess game... to me it seems to change the paradigm of thinking to "what are the capabilities of the kids and should I build a formation that suits them". For example, let's say you start with a 3-2-3 where you expect the outside back to make a long pass to the winger, which is something that should work just fine in theory. But what if the kids just don't have the ability to do it, but they try and keep giving away the ball; logically it would make sense to reduce the distances and so the players can actually connect passes; so bring the wingers back and make then wide mids, so the formation becomes 3-3-2 instead of 3-2-3, as an example. Anywho the main question is, rather than thinking of formations in general, as circles on a drawing board, think about first the capabilities of the players and then how to allow them to execute well and setup the formation to facilitate this.
Not many teams are playing with 2 strikers at 11v11. Almost all are playing with a striker and 2 wingers so playing with a front 2 at 9v9 make no sense. Just have your wide players drop deeper to be an option. They do that at all levels of 11v11 so not an issue for 9v9.
What about a 3-4-1 or 4-3-1. This allows for easy build up wide. My point is, at the older ages in 11v11, they are smarter and more skilled. At 9v9, its 10 and 11 year olds basically. You can tell the wingers to check in, but they don't really do it consistently. They aren't thinking to themselves "I need to make the pass easy for my teammate". And the teammate isn't skilled or strong enough to make a good long pass. I think the old barca tiki-taka style works best. Short passes. Moving off ball into the passing channels constantly to make the pass easy for your teammate. Once its at the midfielder then you can play long into the space for the forward.
Clubs with a well-defined playing style and teaching progression will set up the kids in short-sided games to prepare for how they play at 11v11. Things like building out successfully from the back, checking back to receive the pass from the outside back, looking for smart longer passes over the press should all be things they are learning at these ages. The distances and the complexity (and the quality of defenses) keep growing as the kids progress through 7v7 and 9v9 and eventually to 11v11, so it will (should) always be kind of hard even as they get to older ages..Short passes on the ground are great too, but keeping possession that way for any length of time takes awareness and technical skill that the kids probably don't have either. It will fail often, but that should be okay if the kids are learning.
Thanks, they are pretty good technically. They play at the top level. So they are good for their age. But they just don't the ability to make long passes. Of course they are not all at the same level. Some are better than others. But my main observation was just that they are being forced to make long passes due to the setup for the formation. Eg goalie passes to CB to FB.... but then the FB gets pressed and doesn't have any short passes available so tries to make long pass and we lose possession. So it occurred to me, a team is a network of passing distances essentially. Therefore, a formation should be structured based on the passes they can execute on.
.... I should add... the impetus for this thought is.... coaches generally want their players to get wide, as wide as possible. Which is a good and general rule of thumb, to stretch out the opponent and create space. BUT, my overarching point is that that is fine and normal for adults and older teens. But for this age group that creates problems because the kids aren't able to execute those passes. We are all taught to get wide, because that's how the pro game is played. But a different paradigm needs used for kids. You can still used the width of the pitch and you can create space, it just needs pared down to the length of the passes the kids can make.
If you're at a good club, this is the kind of thing you need to not worry about. Let the coach handle it - they're the coach for a reason. IMO.
9 v 9 play on a smaller field so it shouldn't be totally out of their passing range. If it is, the winger should be checking in. The main reason they're probably losing possession is the midfielder isn't following the press (too much ball watching) and slow speed of play. If the backs spend too much time on the ball it often doesn't end well.
A lot of players & coaches see the formations as static. It's not foosball though. 3-2-3 is where you start, in attack though you probably really want it to be 2-3-3, or even 1-2-5. You'll defend in 3-4-1. Formation is no substitute for teaching the principles of play - in attack: movement, width, support, improvisation, penetration. It sounds like the team is trying to poftb, but only have worked on the GK-CB-FB part. When the ball goes to the FB, are both mids sliding over to give them diagonal options? Are the CB and GK moving to give them a square ball or back pass option. Do the parent's cry out to the spirit of the seminal English coach Alistair Naughton-Thmiddle whever the FB chooses those last 2 options? Those are probably bigger issues than the kid not being able to hit the pass to the wing ahead of him. That should be his first look, but usually it isn't on even if the kid could hit it because the defense will be in the way. With your kids you can settle on a formation that guides them to the principles. I picked a 4-diamond (4-1-2-1) because everybody seemed to understand "get forward" so if they were one of the wingbacks they'd join the attack. We also did a lot of 3v3 in practice so they grasped the idea of looking for triangles (support), but the spine being 2-1-2-1 helped reinforce that. The 3-2-3 is also touted for helping them see the triangles. Width is tricky, I always had B teams so I frequently had kids that would take at least 2 passes to swittch the field until u14. I always looked at it as being wide enough to get around the defenders, not both wingbacks need to be on the chalk at all times. Good luck.
@CoachP365 Thanks, you mention something a lot of coaches like which is for wide players to be on the chalk at all times. I think in theory that makes sense. Your view makes more sense though which is to be wide enough to get around the defenders. Coaches are taught to use the width. But they view it too one dimensionally. For ex, players just standing wide tells the opponent a lot, so its easy to intercept those passes. Better, imo, to not stand on the chalk, but rather to move to the chalk when it makes sense. ie, you don't want to signal to opponent that you're going to use the width, but then you use it.
The more I think about it, the more I like a structure that essentially creates a bunch of medium passes up the flanks, essentially a U-shape starting from the back. So that's basically like a 4-3-1, which you could even call a 6-1-1. Or a 3-4-1, which you could call a 5-2-1 Or a 5-1-2 It partly depends on how you're using your GK in the build out. If you have a goalie who's good with feet then you can treat him like a defender in the build out. Another part of this dynamic is do you have kids who can use their left foot if you go up the left side. Most kids this age aren't very comfortable with left foot. So, in sticking with my "build the system around their abilities" framework, I would say make those passes on the left side even shorter than the right side. There's no real reason to say the left and right sides have to be mirror images of each other/ie symetrical.
Most of the time, it has nothing to do with a formation. That’s just a starting point, especially in youth soccer. Kids can’t and don’t hit long passes because they don’t train and work on hitting long passes. On top of that, most of the time, clubs aren’t focused on it because they can’t even coach it (when/where/how). Add on top of that, what I’ve seen is clubs don’t give teams proper training space to even work on these, let alone have the chance to train it.