Over-Coaching is the Biggest Challenge facing Soccer in the US.

I am going to use the former coach of our local high school team as an example of how over-coaching in soccer is retarding the development of the game in the United States. I use this example because it is one I am familiar with.  The coach concluded his career with 330 victories and was recently inducted into the schools athletic hall of fame. I seek not to diminish these accomplishments in any way, shape or form. I do believe the context in which they were achieved is important to understanding why the United States as a country is still lagging behind the top teams in the world.

I learned a lot from the former high school coach. His preparation for a looming season, camps, training sessions and individual games was meticulous. He always had a plan. If there was a negative to this it would be an inflexibility to alter or change the plan. He was extremely rigid in his thinking once the plan had been formulated.  Change could quite literally take years to come about.  He began his coaching career as a 1-4-3-3 advocate. At some point he switched to 1-4-4-2 and it took several years of discussions and weighing the pro's and con's before he eventually switched back to a 1-4-3-3 for his last few years of coaching.  I think he loved the defense of the 1-4-4-2 but loathed the lack of offense it generated for his teams. 

This is where our story begins.  Coach so narrowly defined the positional responsibilities within the 1-4-4-2 as to render the players robotic within the system of play.  I first began to realize this when, despite executing brilliant early crosses a young right back was chastised, benched, and bounced back and forth between varsity and junior varsity before starting in the tournament and becoming a driving force to the teams success.  That an outside back would come forward into the attack was anathema to the old coach.  It was not part of the designated role and responsibility for the position regardless of how effective a strategy it was.

This was occurring about the time the USWNT were dominating the World Cup and Olympic scene. A big part of those teams was a young defender by the name of Brandi Chastain who came into the attack regularly.  I studied her game and that of other outside backs. Players like Carla Overbeck, Cafu and Gary Neville, Roberto Carlos and Frank De Boer.  What made these players effective were well-timed forays into the attack.  Something the rigid and stringent system of the high school coach frowned upon. He basically over-coached the effectiveness of defenders entering the attack right out of his system.

Now, it is true that during the mid 2000's the coach began to allow a center back to come forward. This was more due to the irrepressible nature of an individual than by design, imo.  At 6'3" and 210 pounds of agile mobility he wasn't going to take this force of nature off the field so he learned to work with it by having the defensive midfielder drop back into the center back role to cover for the player.  This evolved to a revolving defensive triangle between the two center backs and a the defensive mid in later years.  I always thought this defeated the purpose in most regards as it did not bring more players into the attack.  Rather it rotated players into the attack. By this time,  I was admittedly interested in how to add more players to the attack than in switching around the players that would attack.

I was coaching U14 Boys in club soccer in those days and made up my mind to "sell out" with the outside backs and encourage them to join in the attack at every available opportunity.  The result was a surge in goal production, especially against man-marking teams which were still prevalent in those days.  Outside backs making well-timed runs forward were seldom accounted for by opposing defenses. Allowed to roam free into the attack, they wreaked havoc on the opponents.  Back in that day the only guideline I provided was "if you don't have an opponent you are responsible for marking, GO!"

Fast forward to this past spring season and my philosophy is now 1) defense wins championships. 

That's it. 

We have a shape we wish to defend in. When transitioning from defending to attacking and when in full attack there are no restrictions on player movement.  We stress spacing and maintaining balance within the principles of penetration, depth and width, but do not assign responsibility for any of these to specific players or positions.  When we lose the ball, we fill our defensive shape 1) nearest three to the ball press and 2) everyone else fill the defensive shape from back to front regardless of "your position."   The result was the closest thing to total football as any of my teams has ever achieved.  We were a dominant team in league, tournament and showcase play.

The contrast between teams, and I suppose between coaches, was the freedom or lack thereof the players had to work with.  The old coach so narrowly defined roles and responsibilities that his teams were very predictable in their play. He basically over-coached creativity and versatility out of the players.  On the other hand, I gave the players near total attacking freedom on the pitch allowing for creativity to blossom and unpredictability to flourish.

The best compliment I have ever received from an opposing coach was this:  "We played you 3 times this season and watched you several more. Your team is impossible to scout.  It's a different player having a big game every time we watch. You generate goals differently every time we watch.  How do you coach that?"    

I don't. 

And that's the secret to our success.