playmaking style: http://bettersoccermorefun.com/dwtext/totalsoc.htm counterattacking style: http://bettersoccermorefun.com/dwtext/countera.htm Obviously we'd like to play both well, but what's your approach? We talk a lot about formations, what about the styles that drive these formations?
Win the ball you try to quick strike by the 3rd pass. If you can't do it by then you play a possession game. You know FIFA said one year that the play maker was a thing of the past. But what does FIFA know?
I really don't get calling total soccer "playmaking style." It's just obtuse. You would think a "playmaking style" would have a "playmaker" position but the point of "total soccer" is to not have a "playmaker" position. I expect a comparison of "possession" style with "counterattacking" style. Total soccer is not something that novices or even intermediate players can play. I would be teaching parts of total soccer in intermediate steps beginning with novices, but you need advanced players to actually pull it off. Styles don't drive systems of play. You can play possession, total soccer, and counterattacking in any system. They are just different tactical approaches. With the adult rec team I coach I encourage a lot of interchange in the first two lines. With the back line, I am lucky if I have one back supporting the attack even part of the time. (I rarely can afford to put two skilled players in the back.) So I have six players in front interchanging freely, and, without a back line in close support during the attack, we are forced to play direct, and we are forced to use a delayed high pressure defense (we are too spread out to press high successfully). Without fullbacks going forward this is the only way I can keep the attack from being predictable. Our effectiveness varies with how many of those six players are high-quality. It doesn't matter if we play 433 or 442. Since everyone plays and subbing is constant, I find it impossible to play a possession game or true total soccer. There is too much variation in player quality and too much disruption to the team's rhythm. I try to keep the same number of quality players on the field through the substitutions, and try not to make more than 3 subs at a time. I think that is the best hope for maintaining a rhythm.
I think the model in many youth soccer environments in our country of nearly a 1:1 practice:game ratio makes it very difficult to teach multiple playing styles. Ideally, if we had 3 hours of practice for every 1 hour of game time, we could use practice time to teach the different tempos and approaches needed for the "playmaking" style vs. "counterattacking" style. I find that my high school players struggle a lot to change styles within a game or even between games with a practice in between to work on the change. It is interesting to compare this to basketball, where the same players have no problem playing full court press on one possession followed by quarter court zone defense on the next possession followed by man-to-man defense on the next. I think this is because there is still something of a pick-up basketball culture in America that makes up for lost practice time, whereas pick-up soccer culture exists only in certain pockets of the country from my observations.
I could only do it with my adult team. The main reason for that I had pretty much the same players for years. You have to build on the game you already had to play more then one way and win doing it. With youth teams most coaches are satisfied playing one especially if they are winning championships. If it isn't broke don't fix it. I was also until some one gave me super advice which was if it isn't broke then break it and make it better. I think the best way to start it is not the way most coaches start it. They try to play a possession game first. I would say try a quick strike counter attack and a bunker game first. Then work on a possession game. I think a quick strike counter game to work you need space, skill, speed and practice. That is easier to create then a good possession game. That can take 4 players or less starting the attack after you win the ball, but you have a limited time to start it before the opponents can get into their defensive shape. D
To me, if your primary focus is development, this is the argument for teaching the possession game first. It is more difficult and more demanding and therefore more worthwhile to young players. I know that I can turn high school age players into a good defend-and-counter team, but unless I have a large number of players who have been well-trained for a long time, it is all but impossible to get them playing anything resembling a "build-up" style. I say bite the bullet and teach the "harder" way when they are young so that they can do it all when they are older.
Well this is basically my point, not even ajax or barca youth teams start playing total soccer. So you get them to a point, refine some more, then refine more next season.
This is why I posted this "question". Playmaking IS more demanding all around, so in theory more progress will be made via counterattacking, less demanding style. Looking from a national team perspective, certainly we don't have the technical skills of say Spain. But we have the horses to play "ca". And "CA" doesn't have to be ugly. See Arsenal, see Borussia Dortmund. I know a lot will say Arsenal are possession, but I'll disagree and only say that when Wenger first started his teams countered so well and still do so everyone takes that away from them. But point is "CA" doesn't have to be ugly, it can be lighting fast and very technical. At national team level, it's just about results. Also, Germany are pretty amazing on the counter (see Germany Argentina last world cup). I think you have to be able to play both eventually. Not just highest levels but mid-teens and on. Barca are pretty good on the counter, Arsenal have been forced to be more patient and build up. Teams will eventually figure out what you want to do and NOT let you do that.
To play a good possession game you need good players at most positions. Do you have that in HS? What's the goal in HS? I think it is to win games. I have not seen many HS games that play a good possession game. I have not seen many HS games that play a good quick strike, or a good counter attack and bunker game either. So MB433 is the goal in your HS just to teach the game for your players future after HS? Then your one in a million.
The only team that should truly care about winning at all costs should be the senior national team and possibly the olympic team. If coaches are teaching counterattacking style at earlier ages, I think its a disservice to the players opportunities to learn.
FIFA articule on the Playmaker and the Wind Screen Wiper. "windscreen wiper" - is a libero in midfield who stationed himself in front of the defensive block and took action to stop opposing attacks. This role is becoming more and more important in footballing tactics. On the other hand the typical playmaker is no longer part of the scene. His duties have been spread around, with the "windscreen wiper" carrying the main defensive responsibility and the midfielder playing just behind the strikers being the main point of attack. The flank midfielders link in pairs with the outer backs and complement each other both in defence and in attack.
In an Italian youth ethnic club and at European youth ethnic club like from Norway at least here in the US on the east coast they play a good quick strike, counter attack and bunker game and they win doing it. When I took over my adult italian club mens team they already had that game then we built a good possession game with that. Then we built a great possession game with that. Then we added to that angle passing, we added square passing and a real good inside combination game and were pretty much unbeatible in arguably the best Amature league our version of the champions league in the US at the time. The northeast super division league. Before the USISL started, before the Aleague started and before the MLS started because of this we also had access to the best players in the US.
I find it sort of amusing there really is this large debate about several aspects of footie. Pragmatists don't mind the counterattacking style if it helps win, idealists, I would presume to say that is what these folks are, prefer possession and the risks it goes with it. Than there is those who prefer team oriented(van gaal) attacking vs those who prefer more freedom (cryuff). Then, we read articles such as this Fifa one you quote that this type of player is gone and this typee of player is emerging.
No, my goal is to win, but I would prefer to win by teaching a possession/playmaking style. Most seasons I evaluate my talent and experiment during our exhibition games and then for the most part revert to a counter-attacking approach. I am just pointing out that teaching the counter-attacking style can be accomplished with some degree of success with relatively naive players. If the goal is to someday produce a national team that is capable of dictating to ANY opponent, which I would hope any country's goal is, then I think all youth team coaches in the USSF/USYS setup (I consider scholastic teams and collegiate teams separate) share a responsibility to teach an attacking, possession-oriented approach. Just my two cents -- there certainly is an element of winning in club soccer especially at the older ages for the bigger teams, and teaching players how to attack on the counter absolutely has its place. I just don't think it should be a default strategy in a developmental environment.
Actually there is a mainstream movement the last couple of years back to advocating playing more direct. It is a pendulum that swings back and forth. I too believe teaching a counterattacking style is a good place to start. And that is based on my experience playing a high pressure defense with U10s to U12s. We were too successful winning the ball, and that was a problem developmentally. 1. A delayed high pressure defense will allow you to win the ball in the middle third which then requires the team to pentrate into the attacking third. If you play a high pressure defense [successfully] you force the turnover in your attacking third and you end up playing the game in your attacking third. It doesn't give you as much practice in penetration. 2. Playing direct [successfully] is going to give the team the most practice in the final penetration and finishing, which is also a necessary part of the possession style (that final penetration and finish is after all the object of possession). So its not wasted. 3. And even when playing direct, as Nick pointed out in his post on Friday if the direct attack is not "on" the slow buildup is the fall back position. And to make a good decision that first attacker has to know what a good situation is for playing direct. That comes from experience. So it makes sense to me to practice playing direct first, and then learn a slow buildup as the next step.
I ran across a coach once that said that young players naturally play a direct style. Which makes sense, without instruction they're going vertical as quickly as possible. It's only loosely "direct" soccer but it's closer to that than possession?
If you play direct right it can be like a possession game. If you play it wrong it is less then a 50/50 ball.
Very young kids will try to win the ball, and if successful, keep the ball to themself and attempt to dribble toward the goal and shoot. But I don't call that a possession style any more than I would call it a direct style. It not any kind of team tactics. I didn't play organized soccer as a child. I did play basketball unorganized and organized in the early teens. My recall is that fast break had to be taught. Playground ball was slow buildup. In fact most of the games were half court games where you had to bring the ball back to midcourt before attacking the basket. As I see it, the defining aspect of a direct style is the use of penetration and mobility to keep the defense off balance and to keep opponents from recovering ball side. The time it takes your opponents to sprint back and recover is the time limit on your direct play. If you have failed to take a shot in that time (5-6 seconds usually), the opponent will recover its defensive shape and your temporary situational advantage lost.