After watching my 2005 son play three games at left back (not always his position) over the weekend, I'm curious how coaches view/tolerate various levels of risk in the passes their backs are making while still in their half of the field. His team tends to struggle for a balance between patience in moving the ball around at the back while waiting for or trying to create an opening and feeling the need to urgently break lines with a longer ball. I thought at times over the weekend he was maybe a little too quick to turn the ball back to a CB or across to the right back rather than play something diagonal or even straight across into the middle that involves a little risk. I know he's really leery of giveaways -- he started all three last weekend, but he's often not a starter and has played for a coach or two who have a really quick hook for defenders who make mistakes (midfielders and forwards/wings, not so much ...). FWIW, his passing was mostly really clean all weekend, and occasionally created attacking opportunities. So how eager are you to see your defenders trying to slide balls through relatively tight spaces or into contested spaces for a chance at a nice pass that opens something up? How much risk do you tolerate?
It's all situational. Risk tolerance of an individual play depends on the score of the game, time left, momentum, etc. I want to see players making brave plays, but I want them to make good decisions about when to try it.
I play GK with adults. I think you don't want to be doing a lot of risky passing too close to your goal. It creates a lot of danger. The passing has to be very tight for a defender due to the high risk. If they aren't confident in that then they should go long or play back to keeper and switch the field. Of course "bad passing" isn't always on the backs. Their teammates need to be moving for them; if they aren't then play it safe, don't force it. Also depends on the opponent. A strong opponent will make you pay for a bad pass
We tolerate the "risk" very well. Over two seasons, we haven't given up a goal from building up from the back and, more importantly, given up very few goals as a result of keeping the ball (as we pass out from the back). It's all in the training. To the spectator it's breathtakingly risky and close but when you repeatedly practice it, rehearse it (kinda like watching a tightrope walker in the circus) it's actually very safe. There is "magic" in the details that makes it a lot less risky, than say taking a long goal kick or punting it away. Plus, in practice we also work on how to "press" and defend against the short passing build out—what they see on game day is MUCH less organized defending than what they see during practices. The thing to remember is that it's not about an individual. Before an individual even gets the ball there should be communication, there should be teammates moving to give him his next passing option. The whole groups need to be prepared for the event the ball IS lost, it happens and it's salvaged by fast reactions. Most importantly, the learning has to have taken place—if all passing options are covered do they have the COLLECTIVE MASTERY to get out of trouble. The answer is RARELY a long panic ball out.
I remember when the team my son was on at the time first started working on this in games at maybe U13. Parents, myself included, could barely stand to watch. His coach at the time -- great coach, who I still talk to a little and really respect -- kept them at it through what had to be at least a couple (maybe more) of just brutal games against teams they could have otherwise beaten until things really started to click. The poor kid who was the starting holding mid on that team took a beating as the outlet of choice until players started really moving for each other and picking their heads up and looking for options. To be clear, when I say risk, I'm not referring to the risk of playing out of the back but the risk of something other than the safer pass to someone else along the back line or the keeper -- the diagonal ball to the player in the central midfield that has to split a couple of opposition players, ... This team and almost none of the teams they face hoof it out of the back much at all (after club ball, the endless 50-50 long balls we see in HS soccer are tough to watch). To the comment on the answers being situational, that's interesting. His current team doesn't score goals in bunches, so games tend to be close. the three over the weekend were all draws, none of them involving either team scoring more than a goal. So one mistake can and sometimes does cost this team dearly. And at U17, while development is still happening and important, some of the players are playing their next-to-last year of organized soccer (maybe the last for a few) and the wins and losses matter. I appreciate the answers.
This is a really important point that I sometimes forget when talking about youth soccer and development. If we want soccer to be part of mainstream American sports culture, we need to recognize that for many young people, it's about RIGHT NOW.
it's a different mindset. Playing from the back isn't just a development tool, It's a winning tool. Done correctly and applying all concepts to all phases. Just because a team kicks it long and doesn't pay for it immediately, doesn't mean they don't pay for it. Launching 50/50 balls in high school—possessions start off with giving away 50% of your potential to retain the ball. What it tells me is that a coach doesn't his trust his team to make 5-10 yard passes and make 10 yard runs. But will launch it 40 yards in the air, expect player to control it, and have teammates running at a sprint to support. I've heard it, I've rarely seen it work. Don't get me wrong, there's a way to play direct. HS teams don't play direct. It looks like it, but it's not IT.
My 19Us this season are an interesting study for this. I have two center backs who have never played center back before. Of the players in my back 4, 3 of them do not have the skill to reliably play out of the back under pressure. That's without considering whether my CMs and wings will reliably be safe outlets for them. We're working on it, but it's just not a realistic option for us at this point. I'd rather have a 50/50 at or past midfield than at the top of my own 18. Just being realistic with what my players can do. I don't expect us to win them, control them, and move forward 50% of the time. That being said, the number of catastrophic failures will be less than the alternative. And frankly, constantly being on the end of an asskicking because you're trying to play the "right" way has more of a negative effect on a team than does playing the "wrong" way. I think another point is that we're all on different parts of the spectrum with respect to our teams' skill levels and experience and what our expectations are. It's hard to say what any team or player should be doing without knowing them well. When I took my C license, I was struggling to make coaching points because the players I was working with were so much better than the team I was coaching at home at the time. Those kids were doing everything I wished my kids could do at home. It looked like great soccer to me. My instructor whose team had just won an 18U national championship thought otherwise. Thankfully, she understood the difference between what I was seeing and what I was used to and how I was applying what I'd learned in the course. Maybe I took this too far off topic...
Stphnsn's comments about being able to trust or not trust most of his back line to play out of the back get at what I'm thinking about, I guess. The team, as I said above, is committed to doing it. Its' just a given. And with maybe one exception, all of the six regular defenders and the starting keeper can reliably play with the ball at their feet and hold possession/look to start the attack from the back. It's a fairly high-level team, has shown the ability to stay on the field with academy-level teams without embarrassing itself, ... But what I wonder about is the degree to which each of those defensive players is trusted to do that (and the degree to which they have the freedom to try a somewhat riskier pass in the name of breaking a line or two). And how coaches see that -- I appreciate you guys providing some perspective. I guess the answer is, essentially, it depends, including on the coach and the player who's taking the risk. At another game last weekend, one of the back 4 made a pass out of the back that was picked off and instantly created a chance (but no goal). That and the sequence that the other team scored its only goal on were the opposition's only real chances. But they won 1-0 in spite of my son's team creating six or seven legit chances (that's another story -- someone please start finishing these). I'm guessing their coach is tempted to be more and more risk averse, but we'll see.
So basically, from an "expected goals" standpoint it could've been 7-2? Which gets to a bigger pet peeve of mine. You don't really see much training of scoring that's worth a lick of salt. Most of the "shooting drills" I see are lame and don't really prepare you for the game. We blame outcomes TOO MUCH on what's happening in the back vs what's NOT happening near the goal we are attacking. It's this pervasive mindset that goal scorer's are born that way, but you really can train a decent goalscorer. Goalkeepers are trained as specialists. In the US, striker's are not.
I hadn't thought of it that way, but, more or less, yeah (at least based on my foggy recollections). Don't get me started. As the parent of a kid who's played primarily in the back from about age 12 on (though a lot of that's been at fullback with a heavy dose of attacking responsibility on some of his teams), that gets old. On a low-scoring team, it also can become a source of tension between players (and parents -- I've heard more than a few defender parents muttering post-game complaints). You eventually just accept that any single mistake at the back has a decent chance of giving the game away. Make more than a couple and you're almost guaranteed to lose. The kids not finishing (mostly the front three in a 4-3-3) are just as frustrated, I'm sure -- but maybe they don't have all the tools they need, as you say.
Been on the bad end of that as a player. One year we were integrating 3 new midfielders and a striker (myself). The first few games we should've won, but attack takes longer to gel than defense—for obvious reasons. My bitch ass "teammates" would talk out loud how it was the offense's fault. Even though defense gave up 4-5 howlers during that patch. But yeah, I just used that as motivation. Got on the pitch daily, did extra training, worked on my fitness—it helped scored more, but our "front six" were also syncing up at that point. We're one team, we endure the good and bad together.