Soccer coaching forum
and-again soccer forum
Register  |   |   |  Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
TJBrown

Registered:
Posts: 2,836
Reply with quote  #1 
Long time no post! Lol. I'm working long hours and coaching on top of that. Not a lot of free time these days.

I will have a very inexperienced high school team next fall. I will be forced to play several young players most of whom only have recreational soccer experience. The idea of playing a double sweeper system with them came to mind and I have been studying up the last month or so. I have searched the archives and found a couple of threads on double sweeper systems and Bob C.'s posts on the subject have been helpful.

One thing that occurred to me immediately was In playing 2-3 in the back the shape would be much like 4 backs in a bowl shape with a DM set in front of the center backs. This is the way I have taught my teams to play for years. It didn't work out so well this past season hence my looking for a change. I believe presentation of 2 - 3 might be an easier sell than the 4 backs in a bowl shape (we struggled to grasp this) proved to be.

I'd like thoughts on if the 3 should man mark or play zonal in front of the double sweepers and the "why" behind your reasoning.

Secondly, most references I have seen to playing 2 - 3 have involved a 2 - 3 - 2 - 3 formation. This might be nitpicking a bit, but what are your thoughts on a 2 - 3 - 4 - 1 formation? Would roles be defined differently in any substantial manner?

Any and all input is welcomed!

Thank you!

TJ

__________________
Whatever happened to.... Nah, don't want to go there.
mbiyenm

Registered:
Posts: 3,677
Reply with quote  #2 
When I have inexperienced players, I ask them to man-mark.  It's brainless and accountability is clear.

Although zonal marking is more efficient, it requires some understanding.   If your players could not understand 4 at the back, how will they understand 3 defending a larger zone?  With the sweepers you are giving up the option to use the offside trap and compress the field.

This is a system of play question.  I'd recommend you analyze which defensive principle(s) your team failed to execute and find remedies.  It's not clear from your post, what the problem is.  "It didn't work out so well this past season hence my looking for a change." is cryptic.
TJBrown

Registered:
Posts: 2,836
Reply with quote  #3 
Mbiyenm, to be perfectly honest, I'm not sure what the problem was.

While most of the players claimed 8-10 years of playing experience it was exclusively at the recreational level for all but two.. And the two that had played club played for lower level clubs. What I call soccer IQ, or the lack of a well developed one, certainly played a part. We were a average team athletically - no great athletes.

I taught the principles of defending as if introducing them to a youth team. Step by step. We reviewed and reinforced on a regular basis. They got it in training but it never really transferred to games. They reverted back to previous comfort zones at the first sign of adversity. We worked on expanding their comfort zones daily with too little to show for it, imo.

Some individuals performed well, but we failed to sustain high level good play on a consistent level. I don't believe we ever embraced the concept of playing FOR one another. Most people think of attacking soccer when they hear of playing for one another, but it holds true on defense as well.

Player leadership was not what it needed to be either. Did not have a vocal on-field leader / organizer. I did have a sophomore and a freshman begin to step up and speak out towards the end of the season so we have hope there.

I passed out and reviewed handouts on positional roles and responsibilities to each team member before the season. Referred back to these handouts frequently. I'm not sure much of it took root as most of the players seemed to be visual / hands on learners - we did a LOT of small sided work on defending - recreating situations / Isolating moments of play that presented problems for us.

I have started a captains club (open to all sports) to develop leadership. I am pushing hard for our younger players to play club soccer - on any level. Because we tried a zonal 4 this season ( my first at this school) part of my thought process has been whether to stick with it going forward or if presenting defending via a different formation might be best?

So, of course I am turning to the great minds here at and-again.




__________________
Whatever happened to.... Nah, don't want to go there.
mbiyenm

Registered:
Posts: 3,677
Reply with quote  #4 
"They got it in training but it never really transferred to games. They reverted back to previous comfort zones at the first sign of adversity."  This can be addressed.  Organize a friendly game against another team but be on the field to talk to them. Basically, you need to increase the level of stress but not too much.  They are very comfortable in practice because they know each other but panic takes over in a real game.   It's very normal.  By being in the field to talk (not yell), you'll provide a reassurance.

Teaching step by step is the right way but requires patience.   How much time to you have? 

Also, your weaker players might not get better instruction with club  soccer.  Typically, the better coaches are placed with the better players.
AFB

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 6,431
Reply with quote  #5 
Excellent advice and analysis, Mbiyenm.
__________________
Some wisdom from Winston Churchill:

"Once in a while you will stumble upon the truth but most of us manage to pick ourselves up and hurry along as if nothing had happened."

"You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life."

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they’ve tried everything else."
TJBrown

Registered:
Posts: 2,836
Reply with quote  #6 
Mbiyenm,

While I agree that a controlled scrimmage would be ideal I cannot bring another team in by Ohio High School rules during the season. With 16 players total I found it difficult to create game like conditions in training. We did a lot of small group tactical work. The challenge presented here was not having many quality players who could really challenge others to better themselves. Of the 16 players I had, none would have started at my previous school and maybe only 1, perhaps 2 would have made the varsity squad at all. We made progress throughout the season but it was at a slow and steady pace.

__________________
Whatever happened to.... Nah, don't want to go there.
coachkev

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 14,644
Reply with quote  #7 

You answer yourself really
CHALLENGE: - Just keep giving your players challenges to solve during actual play rather than structured drills/function
Provide meaningful competition (1v1, 2v2, 2v3, 3v2 etc)

And look for consistency between their technique and tactical decision making

Its really about ABC = Attitude, Belief, Concentration

TJBrown

Registered:
Posts: 2,836
Reply with quote  #8 
Thank you every one.

I think we digressed a bit from what I was hoping to get input on.

I'd like thoughts on if the 3 should man mark or play zonal in front of the double sweepers and the "why" behind your reasoning. 

Secondly, most references I have seen to playing 2 - 3 have involved a 2 - 3 - 2 - 3 formation. This might be nitpicking a bit, but what are your thoughts on a 2 - 3 - 4 - 1 formation? Would roles be defined differently in any substantial manner? 

Gone back to Inverting the Pyramid and some old 1950's ish books on systems and strategies.  Any other toughts / input would be appreciated.  And, yes, going to something a bit unorthodox by today's standards is very much a consideration. 

Two in the back seems a logical response to the now prevalent 1 forward systems and 2 free behind 3 marking seems logical to the 2 forward formations.  We did not see any true 3 forward systems last season so 4 in the back seems like overkill especially since I had no outside backs who would advance up the field consistently.  Trying to fit personnel to a formation / system rather than forcing personnel to adapt to a system they are not equipped to play. 


__________________
Whatever happened to.... Nah, don't want to go there.
craigl

Registered:
Posts: 972
Reply with quote  #9 
"I will have a very inexperienced high school team next fall. I will be forced to play several young players most of whom only have recreational soccer experience. "

Rec players may have bad habits.  It takes times to break bad habits.  They may tend to park the bus deep.  They may react very slowly due to excessive praise for not thinking and hoofing the ball.  I hope your experience is better.

My experience is that it takes about 3-6 weeks of games to break bad habits and that it may be easier to take a good athlete and teach him to play in 2-4 weeks.

So the problem may be untraining bad player habits rather than just teaching what you want to get accross.    Players that have been coached and think the game will pick things up much faster.   I don't want to be pessimistic, but you need to realize what you may be facing.

2-3-2-3 I have not taught.  To me, it seem similar to 4-1-2-3.  In this case, if your two outside forward stay back it would be 4-1-4-1 (or like 2-3-4-1).  In this case your center forward needs to play more like a target player.   You can hold our outside players back and have a center mid more attacking minded and it would almost be like a 2-3-3-2.   In this way the variation in attack can be with attacking mid and center forward, and outside mids.

The game will likely be decided by matchups.  I think your problem may be creating thinking players and breaking habits rather than how you explain the system, but I guess it depends upon your individual players and how they learn and get it.   You want to put players where they can be successful and gradually increase responsibilities as they are ready for it.

If they play 4-3-3 then how does your back line handle 3 forwards?

If they play 4-4-2 diamond then are you comfortable to man up?

If their attacking shape is like 4-2-4 are you ok?


coachkev

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 14,644
Reply with quote  #10 

From coaching to match tactics, the 3 G's are easy to coach, easy for players to understand quickly so they can progress quicker
From your perspective as a coach, its ideal to see where they are not doing so great in actual play and adjust accordingly.
G1=GET THE BALL - Without it you cant attack their goal
G2=GET THE BALL FORWARD AS FAST AND AS SAFE AS POSSIBLE - Short/long pass whatever ...as long as its the RIGHT pass
G3=GET A STRIKE ON THE OPPONENTS GOAL -Every attack should have a strike on goal as its end result
Now the 3Gs work for coaching as its easier to dilute playing problems into those 3 areas:
Are your players having problems gaining possession? (G1)
Are they struggling to move the ball forward towards the opponents goal? (G2)
Are they struggling to get strikes on target at the end of attacks? (G3)

The problem that most coaches face is TEAM SELECTION not Team Formation
Formations dont win matches - PERFORMANCES do....players who dont peform whether by lack of skill or lack of will may as well play for the opponents....sorry but thats the harsh fact of life for coaches.
Unless coaches get to understand their players and constantly communicate with them AND listen, then players will go out to play and make it all up as they go along.

The players are an extension of YOU their coach, so if the players are stressed and not playing to what you think they are capable of then its no use balling at them or showing hysteronics and flailing arms.....you MUST be calm and constructive and provide confidence in players by using the Coaching Sandwich more and more (Praise/Criticism/Praise)

Trying out new defensive 'shapes' is not really the answer.
Its what are the players in FRONT of the back 4 doing that allows the ball to get to your back 4 in the first place?
If your midfield is lacking then try a 4231 with 2 defensive 'Screens' operating in front of the two centre backs
If you lack pace at the back then get your two centre backs to decide WHICH one goes for balls played in the air and which goes for the ball on the ground


 

 

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

COPYRIGHT @ 2004 - 2016 AND-AGAIN, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED