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


Reply
  Author   Comment  
TruBrit

Registered:
Posts: 99
Reply with quote  #1 
Just finished reading this (author, Robert Podeyn).  Not sure about his adherrence to forcing opponents to play down the line when forcing play infield (especially in opponents' defensive third) more likely to cause loss of possession, given three central midfielders.

Not sure that many teams play this particular 4-3-3, with two defensive mids, more likely to play one holding, and two either side more attacking.  Anyone played this, and if so, with what success, especially interested in high school coaches of girls using this?

Don't thing I would ever use it with sweeper/stopper set-up as the lack of width in the back and midfield would be critical.

My other concern is that on loss of possession two outside mids would be caught too far upfield (assuming using one holding, two attacking).  One possiblility is to instruct the midfield three to drop off to, say, half-line, keeping play in front as much as possible.


paulee

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 7,883
Reply with quote  #2 
Trubrit, we used this a couple of years back with 2 holding mids.  Reason being that our 2 attacking mids would get too far upfield, and our DM was often isolated 2 v 1 against the oppositions center midfielders.  Our AMs would watch and say "I'm an attacker, I don't defend."  Lazy slackers.

We were pretty successful with it, but got found out by a team that exploited our flanks when we had pushed up, looking for an equalizer.

If they're getting behind your outside mids, you need to have your 3 central mids swing over to that side of the field, and have your out side back pushing up, with the rest of your backline swinging over.


   X.          O
 
    O         O       O
                         
                   O                                O
                                      O
 
Sort of like this.

__________________
"When you start, you may have to move tons of dirt to find a gold nugget .... but when you start mining for gold, you overlook the dirt."
-Andrew Carnegie
mzbrand

Registered:
Posts: 1,739
Reply with quote  #3 
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruBrit
Just finished reading this (author, Robert Podeyn).  Not sure about his adherrence to forcing opponents to play down the line when forcing play infield (especially in opponents' defensive third) more likely to cause loss of possession, given three central midfielders.

Not sure that many teams play this particular 4-3-3, with two defensive mids, more likely to play one holding, and two either side more attacking.  Anyone played this, and if so, with what success, especially interested in high school coaches of girls using this?

Don't thing I would ever use it with sweeper/stopper set-up as the lack of width in the back and midfield would be critical.

My other concern is that on loss of possession two outside mids would be caught too far upfield (assuming using one holding, two attacking).  One possiblility is to instruct the midfield three to drop off to, say, half-line, keeping play in front as much as possible.




I watched the author play this formation at Northwood University in Dallas last year, pretty much as described in the book.  When an attack came down the sideline, the outside back and the outside wing forward would play very tightly together with centerback support and pressure from the internal midfielders.

The midfielders were a tight, supporting group. They move as unit up, back, left, right.  The midfielders played off of each other and looked for an opportunity to release a forward (center if possible, outside otherwise).  You need a dangerous AM joined with good possessing DMs.

They ran a "flat" defense with this formation.  I don't recall any suggestion of a diamond back in the book, but can't find it anymore.  I'm also not sure what you mean by "outside midfielders", but I assume you mean the wing forwards.  I think it's critical that the wing forward coordinate with the wing defender and that the back line play as coherent group. The zonal shape is much more important in a 4-3-3 since you have less midfield presence.

The formation looked effective to me and I've seen it run by other teams including the University of Mississippi's women's team who made it look like a well-designed machine.  I'd say the biggest weakness of the formation is not exposure on the wings, but the lack of creative options available to the wing players.
ganderle

Registered:
Posts: 1
Reply with quote  #4 
I coach a boys high school program and in our first year implementing Podeyn's system, we bled a lot of goals and had a lot of growing pains.   Podeyn's version of the 4-3-3 calls for a shift back 4 where the wing defenders press far into the opponents half and the weak side wing defender "swings" to become the deep defender located central.  The system gives up balance but if the 3 mids keep good shape and deny the center, it works well.   The 3 mids need to stay disciplined and not get drawn wide (outside of the line of the sides of the penalty areas.  When we had trouble, we did not hold the center because we either did not put immediate pressure on the opponent outside mid or the mids did not hold good shape centrally and then we were exposed.  For us there is a lot to work on, however, we had some great success as well with the system but you really have to understand your team mates responsibilities as well as your own  and stay disciplined.   The system calls for high pressure and does cause a lot of forced errors on the opponent.
__________________
Gregg Anderle
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

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