strong defense or strong offense?

Personally I would want strong team defense, leading to possession style offense. I expect all 11 players to work defensively and then to patiently build the attack. But it all depends on the types of players you have and the type of teams, fields, and weather you face.

 

a never-ending debate. i think the answer depends on many factors. high among them is what age level are your kids and how competitive is your league? the younger they are, the more i would be encouraging more offensive play, even at the expense of defense. if the kids don't learn and develop their offensive skills early, they will be behind. especially in a less competitive league, i would want my kids learning and developing their offensive skills rather than playing defense. i.e., brazil.

that said, if your goal is to be competitive, you'll probably find it easier to work on strong defense. this will always keep you in games. and, if you have a fast forward or two, you truly will have opportunities to cash in on counters. i don't like this style, but i recognize it's value from a coaching standpoint, especially if the other side has more talent and/or physical ability. i.e., italy.

of course, if you're getting crushed every game, you have to adjust and strengthen your defense, because otherwise it's no fun for anyone.

 

In my opinion, whether you employ the build up attack style vs. counter attack style comes down to one question -- do your players have the individual skill to possess the ball. If you have even 1 or 2 "weaker" players, then when the ball inevitably gets over to them, you're going to lose possession and your attack breaks down.

If you only have 6 players on the field who can possess the ball, then you're going to find it hard to use a possession oriented style building the attack across the field.

If you have some good speed either out wide or up top or both, you might preach a mixture of possession vs. direct play. Make the 2 or 3 or 4 passes to create some space and then play direct to a wide player making a run up the side or to a striker up top.

If you have big strong player whose good at holding the ball and good at deft passing, then you might try something like this...

Put him up top as holding striker -- back to the goal type player. If he's never played this way, you may have to work with him on what to do, how to make quick turns, when to lay off and when to turn and shoot and when to play through to someone making a run.

Put your other 5 or 6 strong players in the central midfield and central defense making that area extremely solid. These guys can make plays to your holding striker and then train the guys who are your "weaker" players to make the runs off him.

So you play possession in the back and then go direct to your holding striker and play direct to goal (or very nearly so) with the guys running off him.

 

kev, i agree with almost everything you say, if the primary goal is to win (or even just to be competitive). especially at younger levels, you'll find that you don't have that many kids who can possess the ball. should you abandon the strategy or should you go ahead and encourage them to use it, knowing that they will miss some opportunities (and even give up some goals) but hoping that they will improve as soccer players nonetheless in the process? i don't know that there is an easy answer, and i think it depends on a lot of other intangibles. my only point being that, especially at younger levels, i'd rather develop their skills.

if you'll accept a baseball analogy (it's my second sport after soccer), i was coaching a team and had a kid who had struck out literally every time he got up to bat, often without even swinging. in this one game, the pitcher got cute with him and worked the count to 3-0. i know that most everyone would say that the kid should take the next pitch. i told him to pick a spot where he hoped the ball was there and if it was close to give it his best shot. the pitch came, he swung, and he hit it. he was thrown out at first by the shortstop, but he was pretty darn happy to have hit the ball (and he only struck out about half the times after that the rest of the season).

sorry about the rant, but my point is that sometimes we need to let and to encourage the kids do things there not ready to do if we're going to help them develop as players.

dude8, you're lucky to have that kind of talent. if you have the skill to employ a build up attack, you should definitely encourage it. also, you may want to insist on it if you have large leads in games (i.e., tell them they need to string together 5 or more passes before they can attack the goal). also, in my experience, if you have a strong, fast defender (even if only one), this can give you a little more comfort to take some more risks by pushing the additional players necessary to the possession game forward.

 

"A great offense wins games, but a great defense wins championships."

 

The "professional" view is; start at the back, and work forward. i.e., if you don't let in goals you don't lose, if you can manage to score one, you will win.
The "purist" will say, "It's a 'beautiful game'; go forward.
If you score more than you let in you won't lose.
It's the "chicken and egg" sydrome.
Or the optimist and pessimist.
Is the glass "half empty" or "half full"?
This can be discussed forever.
It's a personal decision, and I would probably base mine on the strengths I have in the squad. If the attack is stronger, go with that, and vice versa.
We all want to play like Brazil, but to "get the result" sometimes we have to play like Italy.
It's a personal thing, with maybe the personality of the coach coming out through his team and tactics.
Are you an optimist or a pessimist?

 

Do you get royalties for using quotation remarks?

Sorry couldn't resist.


From the fan's perspective, I don't think that defensive soccer is necessarily boring or non-beautiful. I think that teams can take a defensive-first approach and still maintain an elegant style depending upon how they handle possession when they have it. Do they just boot the ball into space or do they have a coherant passing system to go along with their defensive system?

 

Your reply "sums up" the type of football that Liverpool are playing at present! "Can't resist that"! " " " " " " "

 

We will get ourselves worked out when Stevie G remembers to get out of his bed on the other side and Stephane Henchoz gets his calf muscle fixed.

I wrinkle my nose when we run out a 4-5-1, but you just wait. Once Cheyrou, Diouf and Baros get fully integrated into the team - we will show you some of the passing flair that characterized Liverpool in the past.

And even while playing very attractive soccer in the Rush/Daglish/Souness days - Liverpool was famous for their defensive organization.

 

Although I hate saying it depends, it really does. It depends largely on the skills of your players and their age and competitive level.

I think a coach has to be able to emphasize well-rounded players. Sure, some players are going to be finishers, but they need to come back and help out. Sure, some players are going to be defenders, but they still need to be marginally comfortable with the ball at their feet.

But I don't like it when coaches are overly wedded to a system and make their square pegs fit into round holes. If you don't have the talent to win 5-4 games, then you probably need a more defensive oriented mindset.

I also think age level is important too. I agree with person who said that you probably want to emphasize offensive creativity a little more at younger levels.

I coach the modified level (7th and 8th graders) and my philosophy is that at that level, it's most about development. You learn a heck of a lot more by being on the field than sitting on the bench. Although we worked a lot on defense in practice, I encourage the kids to push the ball forward quickly. After all, if it's the other team's half, it's not threatening your goal. None of this 10 men behind the ball crap for the whole game.

 

Personally, I think that every team has to have a moderately aggressive offensive strategy. If not, the defense gets way too much pressure. When this happens, a small mistake can turn into a goal. However, a small mistake on the offensive end may lead to the other team getting the ball still, but they will be at the other end of the field. Hence, I believe that moderately aggressive offense is necessary to protect your keeper and defense.

 

You should be able to play more then one style in a match. You can't do these styles well without years of practice. So there has to be a long term plan to expan the teams game. To do that you can't have a big turnover in your players every year.

Some teams play one style very good, and are very ordinary when they try anything else.

I prefer the possession game in general it is beautiful to watch. I like watching beautiful soccer. But, I feel there are times in the same game to bunker and counter.

Playing direct well involves off the ball movement to clear space before the long pass. plus your back support changes with this type of game. They play deeper then in a possession game.

Young youth teams do not play direct they play long pass or even worse clearances, and run that is not really direct play in my view.

I do like playing a counter attack game after you score a goal. Then most opponents will change their normal game to get more players into the attack. They get impatient.

If we got behind I thought sooner or later we will put together 6 passes, and score because I knew our game was good. So I was always patient even if we lost the game.
-----------------
So after you score bring it is a good idea to bring everyone back, and frustrate the opponent. When they push players up recklessly so they leave holes space to attack.

Then if you have speed, skill, space and practiced the counter the opponent goes from 0-1 to 0-2.

The time your most likely to let in a goal is right after you scored a goal. So witching to bunker and counter after you score at least for 10 minutes will keep that from happening we hope.

Team defense no matter what style you play is very important for your teams confidence.

If you can keep the opponents shots on goal down your good good shape defensively. If you have an organized defense and leave no holes (space) to attack your in very good shape defensively. If you leave no holes (space) to attack when your team has the ball. Then if you should lose the ball they have no space to attack. Then your a bitch to beat.

Your players know that they have confidence when they have the ball. They also know if they get a head 1-0 the chances are good they can win the game.

That is where you want your team to be eventually.

Richie

 

*Bump*

 

my two cents

With offense you have to get lucky once, with defense you have to be lucky always...so you dont lose.

also: a good offense makes a good defense.


i have spoken..

sincerely,

iowa007

ps- have fun when you play soccer...

 

Iowa said "With offense you have to get lucky once, with defense you have to be lucky always...so you dont lose.

also: a good offense makes a good defense."

With a bad defense no lead is safe, and with a bad defense most likely against a good team you will never score enough to win.

Good defense if you don't win, you have a good chance for a draw and get a point.

Good defense helps the attack. Players can take risks on attack because they know if they lose the ball. The team is good enough defensiely to get the ball back without the opponent scoring.

Richie

 

true, true

thanks richie,

you are right....i guess that is why most coaches build the team from the back forward....


sincerely,
iowa007

 

Why is this an either/or discussion?

Good players can play well with and/or without the ball. Obviously, players don't have an equal distribution of talent on the offensive/defensive scale, but good players can be made to play both ways and should play both ways.

Take a look at LD. Then take a look at Clint Mathis. LD hustles all over the field. Clint doesn't. They have different talents and different psychological make-ups. But I'd take either of them for my squad in a nanosecond and use what they give.

I guess you're talking more as a team philosophy of bunker vs counterattack vs possession vs playing direct. Well, I think good teams play all of these styles within a game depending upon the score, the competition, their age level, their skill level and the type of game being played (tournament vs league, etc.).

I think that when a coach says that he only has so many strong players and so many weak players, he's making an admission that as a coach he cannot help his players. If you cannot help your players, why are you coaching?

I'm not trying to be confrontational and I don't know any of you guys from a hole in the wall. I'm ranting a little because I go and watch my children every week being coached by guys who think that because the club's board likes them, they are good coaches. These guys don't bust their behinds at all and don't offer much to the kids. So, I have to help my kids on days that they don't have soccer practice because when I ask them what they learned at their team practice, they usually say nothing new.

Anyhow, if you like coaching, work harder with your weaker players to get them up to speed. When I did coach, I was able to get at least a couple of them to advance to be adequate support players. You can too. Good luck.

 

I'm gonna give an all too late Amen to the post above mine. The guy is completely right. A lot of coaches go to U-15 teams thinking players have learned everything they can. Guess what guys? You aren't Furggie. You aren't a coach because you have a good eye for talent or because you know how to tactically employ your players, you're there to help these kids learn something and then you teach them how to use it on the field.

 

just remember that

your players should have a good understanding on how to be able to play any position on the pitch (that is how i was taught at least).