When your team forces you to change.

We were recently asked a great question by one of our readers and friendly rivals; "How did you successfully coach two teams last spring with two completely different formations and systems of play?"  The questioner was referring to the fact we fielded two U19 nebs teams last spring. The "A" team played a 4-2-3-1 while the "B" team played from a 4-4-2 formation.

The phrase "system of play" is rather a generic one. It is commonly used to define the number of forwards used in a formation. The positional responsibilities of forwards can be different dependent on whether one, two or three forwards are deployed.  And there is a trickle down effect to the midfielders, back line and even the goalkeeper.  System of play can also apply to the teams general attacking philosophy. Does the team wish to counter attack?  Do they seek to play directly? Will the team be more of a build & probe team? 

With the personnel available on our "A" team the 4-2-3-1 was an easy choice.  Lot's of good center midfielders, speed galore on the wings and a couple of strong, fast, physical forwards who could alternate up top.  To be perfectly honest we started the "B" team playing in the same 4-2-3-1 formation for sake of continuity within the program and between the two teams. It quickly became apparent the "B" team lacked the type of forward to effectively run the 4-2-3-1 so I made the decision to switch them to a 4-4-2 where two forwards share the workload and play off one another. However, this did not significantly change our system of play in the broader and general sense of how we wanted to attack opponents.

The single forward in our 4-2-3-1 was responsible for both the initial penetration of a defense and also for being a target player. As such he drew attention from the opponents back line wherever he was positioned in the middle third of the field - usually pushed forward on ball side. One of the three midfielders served as his direct support when he was played as a target. The two forwards employed in the 4-4-2 served the same purpose as they were deployed in a "stack" with one pushed against the opponents backs as a target and the other slightly withdrawn to be in support position of the target.  If not caught up in the numerical alignment of formations the actual system of play in the broader sense was basically the same. 

The real difference between the 4-2-3-1 and the 4-4-2 was found in how we covered defensive width in the defending third. In the former we played as a 5-4-1 defensively while in the latter it often looked more like a 5-3-1-1. Again, subtle differences with the defensive system of playing remaining largely the same.

I think it is important to note the phrase "system of play" as used by the questioner isolated the transitioning phase from defending to attack.  That is, with both teams, as we entered the attacking third of the field we attempted to do so with numbers up and little regard to formational alignment. We sought to create and utilize space by manipulating the defense with player movement and ball movement.  The only variable of priority concern was whether the opponent man marked or played a zonal defense. 

So, my answer to the question is we played the same system from both formations.

To further illustrate this point, the "A" team was capable of playing multiple formations while our system of play never changed.  4-2-3-1 was our preferred choice, but at times we looked to be in a 5-4-1 or a 4-4-2 or a 4-3-3 or even  2-3-2-3.  The point being, we look at a formation as our defensive set and our system of play as our attacking philosophy which after the initial transition phase from defending to attack is not predicated on a formational alignment so much as it is on space, support and pace.