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.
Welcome to the web home of Conceive Believe Achieve Soccer. We specialize in conducting high school team camps. This website began as a means to promote our camps and keep campers informed of upcoming opportunities. There are now over 650 articles archived here. Use the search function in the right hand column below to find ones on topic for you. You may contact us at coachtjbrown@gmail.com or 567-204-6083 Thanks for visiting!
Showing posts with label Depth. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Depth. Show all posts
Monday
Keep Your Shape vs. Crossing Lines
"Keep your shape" or utterances to that effect are common calls from coaches in youth soccer competitions. Most of the time, especially at younger ages, this implies staying in the teams formational shape; 1-4-3-3 or 1-4-4-2 as examples. In the older age groups the word shape becomes more synonymous with the word support. Support (and balance) takes priority over formational shape as the latter becomes a bit more fluid.
Typically a formation will have three lines; backs, midfielders, forwards. Dependent on how each line is employed there might be what we shall call "sub-lines" within each line. For instance, in a 4-3-3 the midfield might be deployed in a triangle as 2 holding midfielders with an attacking midfielder in front of them. The triangle shape might shift to one holding midfielder and two attacking midfielders but the players manning these positions stay with their "line."
The same is true of the back line where two center backs are often found flanked by two advanced wing backs. In this case, the two advanced wing backs might appear to form a line with the holding midfielder(s), but their roles and responsibilities are still associated with the back line. Similarly if two or more forwards are deployed one might be pushed forward as a target while another is slightly withdrawn.
"Stay in your position" is another call often heard at youth soccer contests. It can mean the same thing as "keep your shape." Often times when I watch youth soccer matches I see two teams in rigid formation moving up and down the pitch in synchronization. A picture of armies of the 1700's facing one another in rank and file across a battlefield comes to mind.
Now, I think shape or more specifically support is a critical element to team defending. The system employed behind the support strives to make an attack(er) predictable and therefore more easily defended. This is sound soccer at any age or competition level.
If predictability of attack is a desired result of properly supported defending, then unpredictability is paramount to effective attacking. This is where crossing lines comes into play.
In review, formations deploy 3 basic lines with possible sub-lines fielded within any or all lines. Backs, midfielders, forwards. When defending these lines define the teams formation. All too often in the youth ranks they also define a teams attacking shape. However, this makes the attack very predictable.
Crossing lines simply means a player moves from one line to or even better through another line. The easiest way to depict this scenario is to picture a wing back moving up the field through the midfield line and into an attacking position abreast of the forward line. The wing defender has crossed lines and therefore fundamentally changed the shape (or formation) that his team will attack in. If the responsibility for crossing lines from back to front in the formation / shape is shared amongst all backs this movement can prove to be unpredictable and extremely disruptive to the opponents maintaining their own shape or support system.
This movement is commonly defined as mobility, the fourth element to the game of soccer. In previous writings we have discussed the first three elements of the game of soccer; penetration, depth and width. It is the mobility used to establish these elements that help define a teams attacking shape and the support within that shape. More precisely it should be mobility between lines that defines a teams attacking shape and manipulates the defending shape of the opponent.
Crossing lines brings a fluidity to the game that rigid deployment in formation shape does not allow for. In military terms it is akin to defending in a castle while an opponent uses speed and mobility to bypass the castle. In soccer terms, crossing lines adds another dimension to a teams ability to create numbers up situations to attack with. Think again of the wing defender. In front of him a midfielder engages a defender. The wing defender moves forward on the flank isolating that defender in a 2 v 1 situation. Now the overlap combination passing sequence might be on or the defender might be set up to execute a wall pass / give and go sequence against. But the real value of mobility and crossing lines might be what is occurring on the backside of the opponents formation where your other wing defender might have freedom to run the flank all the way into the final third. Now, the opponents defense is stressed and under pressure of attack from both on-ball and off-the-ball threats on different fronts.
Crossing lines brings with it an element of danger when the ball is lost. You will find teams that are adept at crossing lines when attacking filling their defensive shape from back to front regardless of originally assigned positions. This is where pressing defenses come into play. Upon losing the ball the nearest three defenders press to either win the ball back or slow the counter attack allowing teammates to reestablish shape behind the ball. Six seconds. That is how long those pressing have to win the ball back. That is also how long teammates have to regain defensive shape behind the ball.
In conclusion, one of the games within the game of soccer is the battle of Keeping your shape vs Crossing lines and the transitional phases of going from one to the other.
Typically a formation will have three lines; backs, midfielders, forwards. Dependent on how each line is employed there might be what we shall call "sub-lines" within each line. For instance, in a 4-3-3 the midfield might be deployed in a triangle as 2 holding midfielders with an attacking midfielder in front of them. The triangle shape might shift to one holding midfielder and two attacking midfielders but the players manning these positions stay with their "line."
The same is true of the back line where two center backs are often found flanked by two advanced wing backs. In this case, the two advanced wing backs might appear to form a line with the holding midfielder(s), but their roles and responsibilities are still associated with the back line. Similarly if two or more forwards are deployed one might be pushed forward as a target while another is slightly withdrawn.
"Stay in your position" is another call often heard at youth soccer contests. It can mean the same thing as "keep your shape." Often times when I watch youth soccer matches I see two teams in rigid formation moving up and down the pitch in synchronization. A picture of armies of the 1700's facing one another in rank and file across a battlefield comes to mind.
Now, I think shape or more specifically support is a critical element to team defending. The system employed behind the support strives to make an attack(er) predictable and therefore more easily defended. This is sound soccer at any age or competition level.
If predictability of attack is a desired result of properly supported defending, then unpredictability is paramount to effective attacking. This is where crossing lines comes into play.
In review, formations deploy 3 basic lines with possible sub-lines fielded within any or all lines. Backs, midfielders, forwards. When defending these lines define the teams formation. All too often in the youth ranks they also define a teams attacking shape. However, this makes the attack very predictable.
Crossing lines simply means a player moves from one line to or even better through another line. The easiest way to depict this scenario is to picture a wing back moving up the field through the midfield line and into an attacking position abreast of the forward line. The wing defender has crossed lines and therefore fundamentally changed the shape (or formation) that his team will attack in. If the responsibility for crossing lines from back to front in the formation / shape is shared amongst all backs this movement can prove to be unpredictable and extremely disruptive to the opponents maintaining their own shape or support system.
This movement is commonly defined as mobility, the fourth element to the game of soccer. In previous writings we have discussed the first three elements of the game of soccer; penetration, depth and width. It is the mobility used to establish these elements that help define a teams attacking shape and the support within that shape. More precisely it should be mobility between lines that defines a teams attacking shape and manipulates the defending shape of the opponent.
Crossing lines brings a fluidity to the game that rigid deployment in formation shape does not allow for. In military terms it is akin to defending in a castle while an opponent uses speed and mobility to bypass the castle. In soccer terms, crossing lines adds another dimension to a teams ability to create numbers up situations to attack with. Think again of the wing defender. In front of him a midfielder engages a defender. The wing defender moves forward on the flank isolating that defender in a 2 v 1 situation. Now the overlap combination passing sequence might be on or the defender might be set up to execute a wall pass / give and go sequence against. But the real value of mobility and crossing lines might be what is occurring on the backside of the opponents formation where your other wing defender might have freedom to run the flank all the way into the final third. Now, the opponents defense is stressed and under pressure of attack from both on-ball and off-the-ball threats on different fronts.
Crossing lines brings with it an element of danger when the ball is lost. You will find teams that are adept at crossing lines when attacking filling their defensive shape from back to front regardless of originally assigned positions. This is where pressing defenses come into play. Upon losing the ball the nearest three defenders press to either win the ball back or slow the counter attack allowing teammates to reestablish shape behind the ball. Six seconds. That is how long those pressing have to win the ball back. That is also how long teammates have to regain defensive shape behind the ball.
In conclusion, one of the games within the game of soccer is the battle of Keeping your shape vs Crossing lines and the transitional phases of going from one to the other.
Labels:
attacking,
backs,
Conceive Believe Achieve Soccer,
Conceive Believe Achieve Soccer Camps,
crossing lines,
Defending,
Depth,
formation,
forwards,
midfielders,
mobility,
penetration,
Shape,
support,
Width
Friday
Opposing Principles of Play
I have published these and similar thoughts before. They are extremely important for both coaches and players to understand. Consider this a short guide to transition from playing AT soccer to actually playing soccer.
Attacking Principles of Play Defending
Principles of Play
1) Penetration to score 1) Delay the Attack
2) Depth to stretch the defense vertically 2) Support behind 1st Defender
3) Width to stretch the defense laterally 3) Compactness
4) Movement of Players & Ball 4) Maintain Balance
5) Creativity & Unpredictability 5) Discipline & Patience
1) Penetration to score 1) Delay the Attack
2) Depth to stretch the defense vertically 2) Support behind 1st Defender
3) Width to stretch the defense laterally 3) Compactness
4) Movement of Players & Ball 4) Maintain Balance
5) Creativity & Unpredictability 5) Discipline & Patience
Opposing Principles of Play
Attacking Principles of Play Defending Principles of Play
1) Penetration to score 1) Delay the Attack
2) Depth to stretch the defense vertically 2) Support behind 1st Defender
3) Width to stretch the defense laterally 3) Compactness
4) Movement of Players & Ball 4) Maintain Balance
5) Creativity & Unpredictability 5) Discipline & Patience
1) Penetration to score 1) Delay the Attack
2) Depth to stretch the defense vertically 2) Support behind 1st Defender
3) Width to stretch the defense laterally 3) Compactness
4) Movement of Players & Ball 4) Maintain Balance
5) Creativity & Unpredictability 5) Discipline & Patience
Labels:
attacking play,
balance,
CBA Soccer,
Compactness,
Conceive Believe Achieve,
creativity,
Defending,
Delay,
Depth,
Discipline,
movement,
patience,
penetration,
principles of play,
support,
unpredictability,
Width
Sunday
Liberty Center 10 Evergreen 0
I like to check in with the teams I conduct camp for during their regular seasons to see if what we worked on has translated to their games. Saturday morning found me making the trip to the Widewater Retreat Center to see the Lady Tigers of Liberty Center take on Evergreen Lady Vikings. I have conducted camp for Liberty Center the past two summers and was anxious to see if the progress made in camp would show itself in an actual game setting.
This is a young program, in their 4th year of varsity soccer, I believe. When I first camped with them in the summer of 2013 I found a group with little actual playing experience, but very eager and willing to learn. This summer I returned to find a group who had obviously worked hard under the guidance of head coach Billy Daniels.
The Tigers began the match in a 1-4-1-4-1 formation with striker Lexi Noll on top and attacking mid Candace Sayers in support. The Vikings countered with a 3-5-2 formation played a bit unconventionally with the center defender advanced of two outside backs split wide. This aggressive attacking formation put the Tigers back on their heels initially as Viking forwards broke through time and again. Great pursuit angles utilized by the defenders and outstanding play in goal provided by Libby Ball kept the Vikings off the scoreboard.
Beginning at about the 10 minute mark the Tigers were able to begin exploiting the center of the Vikings defense mixing in attacking flank play for variation. Once the first goal went in the Tigers pounced repeatedly on other scoring opportunities. I was pleased to see the ideas of penetration, depth, width and mobility in the Lady Tiger's attacking play. I was also pleased to see the sequences of two touch play we had worked on in evidence. Overall there was marked all round improvement from when I last saw the Liberty Center women play late last season.
While today's score was lopsided Evergreen had some good runs of play, especially early on. They threatened the Liberty Center goal on numerous occasions but just could not get one in. Coach Daniels slowed the attack early in the second half seemingly calling for the Tigers to work on their possession game before looking to go to goal. It was good to see the Vikings continue to work the full 80 minutes of play. That type of spirit will pay off as they build their program throughout this season.
Today's scorers were Candace Sayers and Lexi Noll each with a hat trick (3 goals a piece) while Courtney Taylor, Julianna Crockett, Davina Fredrick and Kris Keller each contributed a goal. Lexi Noll was also credited with 3 assists. Kirstin Daniels had 2 assists and Courtney Taylor 1. Libby Ball was credited with 11 saves and Lexi Noll with 2.
I am looking forward to returning to Liberty Center later on this season. Coach Billy Daniels and this young team are moving in the right direction in establishing a solid foundation to grow the program upon.
Best of Luck!
This is a young program, in their 4th year of varsity soccer, I believe. When I first camped with them in the summer of 2013 I found a group with little actual playing experience, but very eager and willing to learn. This summer I returned to find a group who had obviously worked hard under the guidance of head coach Billy Daniels.
The Tigers began the match in a 1-4-1-4-1 formation with striker Lexi Noll on top and attacking mid Candace Sayers in support. The Vikings countered with a 3-5-2 formation played a bit unconventionally with the center defender advanced of two outside backs split wide. This aggressive attacking formation put the Tigers back on their heels initially as Viking forwards broke through time and again. Great pursuit angles utilized by the defenders and outstanding play in goal provided by Libby Ball kept the Vikings off the scoreboard.
Beginning at about the 10 minute mark the Tigers were able to begin exploiting the center of the Vikings defense mixing in attacking flank play for variation. Once the first goal went in the Tigers pounced repeatedly on other scoring opportunities. I was pleased to see the ideas of penetration, depth, width and mobility in the Lady Tiger's attacking play. I was also pleased to see the sequences of two touch play we had worked on in evidence. Overall there was marked all round improvement from when I last saw the Liberty Center women play late last season.
While today's score was lopsided Evergreen had some good runs of play, especially early on. They threatened the Liberty Center goal on numerous occasions but just could not get one in. Coach Daniels slowed the attack early in the second half seemingly calling for the Tigers to work on their possession game before looking to go to goal. It was good to see the Vikings continue to work the full 80 minutes of play. That type of spirit will pay off as they build their program throughout this season.
Today's scorers were Candace Sayers and Lexi Noll each with a hat trick (3 goals a piece) while Courtney Taylor, Julianna Crockett, Davina Fredrick and Kris Keller each contributed a goal. Lexi Noll was also credited with 3 assists. Kirstin Daniels had 2 assists and Courtney Taylor 1. Libby Ball was credited with 11 saves and Lexi Noll with 2.
I am looking forward to returning to Liberty Center later on this season. Coach Billy Daniels and this young team are moving in the right direction in establishing a solid foundation to grow the program upon.
Best of Luck!
Wednesday
Planning Practices for Success
One of the questions we are frequently asked is how to train a team for a specific formation and system of play. In my opinion, this is the king consideration to having a successful season, especially in a high school setting. Ohio limits the number of contact days a coach can have with his players out of season and once regular season play gets under way there is precious little time for instruction between preparing for a match, the actual match and a recovery day following the match.
Establishing continuity in your training while also maintaining skill level and addressing tactical concerns is a balancing act many coaches struggle with. Mastering this is also the single most important key to a successful season. My approach is to decide on a formation and system of play then analyze the key tactical components of play that will be required to execute successfully within this framework. Call it reverse engineering of a soccer system of play, if you will.
I then build my season long training themes around these ideas. Using this past spring season as an example I knew the technical components that would be most emphasized in our play were the push pass, crossing the soccer ball and running with the soccer ball. Therefore all technical training throughout the season was grounded in these three areas.
Some type of sequence of touches work was done daily and incorporated into preparation for matches, pre game warm ups and touches on recovery days. The sequence of touches I am referring to involves 2 touch play. Receive with the right foot and pass with the right foot is considered to be Right / Right or R/R. The four sequences of touches are therefore R/R, R/L, L/L and L/R. Breaking lines and its variations were staples of our training as warm up exercises.
Warming up for what?
Playing soccer utilizing a specific system of play, of course. So, the tactical application of the techniques we worked on in warm ups took center stage in our play in practice. From small side games through full sided work we emphasized the sequence of touches. It is critical to receive across the body when utilizing any of the four sequences of touches as this is the basis of combination passing. In fact, the cues for knowing when a specific combination pass is on are often triggered by the receiver's ability to receive the ball across his body.
Combination passing infers the ability to interchange positions so this becomes a central focus in our small-sided and full-side practice play as well. We did a lot of 3 team scrimmaging work to emphasize the four elements of play - Penetration, Depth, Width and Mobility. An example would see 3 teams of 6 players each. Two are active inside an appropriate sized grid with the third team in-waiting around the grid. Upon a team successfully competing "X" number of passes inside the grid they would play to the team outside. Those two teams then interchange positions - the team inside the grid moving to the outside and the team on the outside moving to the inside of the grid. Play is continuous.
Target play and flank play were two of the main tactical themes of our formation and system of play so we built on the above referenced possession game by dividing the squad into two teams. We utilized a large grid of approximately 44 yards wide by 50 yards long. On the top or 44 yard ends we positioned target players and along each side we positioned flank players for each side. No defense allowed outside the grid to begin with. We built this game into allowing targets and wings to interchange (Mobility) with players inside the grid both with and without the ball. This provided us with a realistic depiction of the sometimes chaotic world of spine play and the importance of target play (Penetration) and flank play (Width) to provide space for and allow the spine players room to maneuver in the middle of the pitch. Add in goalkeepers or a defender with the targets and you have Depth. covered as well.
There is continuity of technique and tactical emphasis throughout these progressions that all applies directly to the formational alignment and system of play we utilized. Were there other areas of concern, technical and tactical, that cropped up during the season? Of course, but we incorporated addressing them into the continuity of our practice activities.
With so much active play in our practices we also address the physical aspects of play. One of the best ways to condition for playing a game is ... to play the game! We used a lot of small-sided and full-side team play to condition us for actually playing and by staying consistent with our practice and playing themes we addressed the psychological (confidence) aspects of play as well. We had a plan. We stuck to it and as a result as the players improved their confidence grew. As did the success of our season. 47-8-5 speaks for itself, doesn't it?
Establishing continuity in your training while also maintaining skill level and addressing tactical concerns is a balancing act many coaches struggle with. Mastering this is also the single most important key to a successful season. My approach is to decide on a formation and system of play then analyze the key tactical components of play that will be required to execute successfully within this framework. Call it reverse engineering of a soccer system of play, if you will.
I then build my season long training themes around these ideas. Using this past spring season as an example I knew the technical components that would be most emphasized in our play were the push pass, crossing the soccer ball and running with the soccer ball. Therefore all technical training throughout the season was grounded in these three areas.
Some type of sequence of touches work was done daily and incorporated into preparation for matches, pre game warm ups and touches on recovery days. The sequence of touches I am referring to involves 2 touch play. Receive with the right foot and pass with the right foot is considered to be Right / Right or R/R. The four sequences of touches are therefore R/R, R/L, L/L and L/R. Breaking lines and its variations were staples of our training as warm up exercises.
Warming up for what?
Playing soccer utilizing a specific system of play, of course. So, the tactical application of the techniques we worked on in warm ups took center stage in our play in practice. From small side games through full sided work we emphasized the sequence of touches. It is critical to receive across the body when utilizing any of the four sequences of touches as this is the basis of combination passing. In fact, the cues for knowing when a specific combination pass is on are often triggered by the receiver's ability to receive the ball across his body.
Combination passing infers the ability to interchange positions so this becomes a central focus in our small-sided and full-side practice play as well. We did a lot of 3 team scrimmaging work to emphasize the four elements of play - Penetration, Depth, Width and Mobility. An example would see 3 teams of 6 players each. Two are active inside an appropriate sized grid with the third team in-waiting around the grid. Upon a team successfully competing "X" number of passes inside the grid they would play to the team outside. Those two teams then interchange positions - the team inside the grid moving to the outside and the team on the outside moving to the inside of the grid. Play is continuous.
Target play and flank play were two of the main tactical themes of our formation and system of play so we built on the above referenced possession game by dividing the squad into two teams. We utilized a large grid of approximately 44 yards wide by 50 yards long. On the top or 44 yard ends we positioned target players and along each side we positioned flank players for each side. No defense allowed outside the grid to begin with. We built this game into allowing targets and wings to interchange (Mobility) with players inside the grid both with and without the ball. This provided us with a realistic depiction of the sometimes chaotic world of spine play and the importance of target play (Penetration) and flank play (Width) to provide space for and allow the spine players room to maneuver in the middle of the pitch. Add in goalkeepers or a defender with the targets and you have Depth. covered as well.
There is continuity of technique and tactical emphasis throughout these progressions that all applies directly to the formational alignment and system of play we utilized. Were there other areas of concern, technical and tactical, that cropped up during the season? Of course, but we incorporated addressing them into the continuity of our practice activities.
With so much active play in our practices we also address the physical aspects of play. One of the best ways to condition for playing a game is ... to play the game! We used a lot of small-sided and full-side team play to condition us for actually playing and by staying consistent with our practice and playing themes we addressed the psychological (confidence) aspects of play as well. We had a plan. We stuck to it and as a result as the players improved their confidence grew. As did the success of our season. 47-8-5 speaks for itself, doesn't it?
Sunday
Analyzing an individual soccer player in the context of team play. Depth.
It has occurred to me that depth is the least understood of the 3 elements of the game of soccer. When I think of depth in an attacking sense I consider the on-field positioning of forwards, midfielders and backs not only in the context of formation but also within their own lines. The position and spacing within a teams formation that defines a teams shape, if you will.
I think it perhaps best to begin with a concept of depth familiar to most - supporting players behind the ball carrier. The picture that comes to mind is that of the ball carrier have options for play both in the forward passing lanes and also in the passing lanes towards his own goal. This brings to light a very basic but often overlooked principle of play which states the man on the ball should play the way he faces.
I think it perhaps best to begin with a concept of depth familiar to most - supporting players behind the ball carrier. The picture that comes to mind is that of the ball carrier have options for play both in the forward passing lanes and also in the passing lanes towards his own goal. This brings to light a very basic but often overlooked principle of play which states the man on the ball should play the way he faces.
Thursday
Analyzing an individual soccer player in the context of team play.
I love to problem solve. I am sure this is why my two favorite sports are basketball and soccer. Both offer abundant problem solving opportunities on individual and group levels. Statistics kept in both sports seek to quantify individual and team performances. Sabremetrics has taken statistics to a whole new level. However, almost all statistics are ball related and that's where I feel analyzation of player performance through statistics leaves something to be desired.
Consider there are 22 players sharing 1 ball during a soccer match. It stands to reason the vast majority of time a player spends on the pitch is without the ball. What I have set about doing is to define the relationship between on-the-ball statistics and off -the-ball actions and how this impacts the game. I believe the place to start this process is to define principles of play in the game. In order to do this I believe it essential to consider the three elements of play - penetration, depth and width.
Penetration without the ball can happen in a number of ways.
1) A target player in front of the opponents back line.
2) Off-the-ball runs at or through the opponents back line.
3) A player in an offside position
There also needs to be a means of gauging the effectiveness of each action. Did the action have a positive, negative or no discernible impact on possession of the ball? For the lack of better terminology I consider this in the context of Attacking Unity. In this regard the action must also be viewed in terms of uniqueness and duplicity. That is, was the action singular and performed as Intelligent Support or as an act of unaware individualism duplicating the actions of a teammate? Was there a positive impact on the teams spacing?
Penetration with the ball happens in two basic ways.
1) Running with the ball
2) Passing the ball
Maintaining possession of the ball is obviously the king consideration when penetrating with the ball However, there are variable acceptable levels of risk associated with these actions. What is accepted, even expected, in the attacking third of the field might be far different than what is considered prudent in the middle or defending thirds of the field.
There is quality of decision making to be considered as well. Was running with the ball the correct decision or should the player have chosen to pass to the feet of a target player or into space to a teammate making a run?
So much to consider and we have yet to even begin looking at width and depth in relation to attacking play. Or the defensive side of play, at all. Tomorrow I will take a look at the element of depth and associated principles of play. Remember, we are just beginning a process here. I'm not quite sure where it will end, but have in mind to analyze my son's play through video review. For comparison's sake I will likely analyze some of his teammates play as well. My intent is not so much to create a new realm of soccer statistics as it is to discover the quality my powers of observation.
Consider there are 22 players sharing 1 ball during a soccer match. It stands to reason the vast majority of time a player spends on the pitch is without the ball. What I have set about doing is to define the relationship between on-the-ball statistics and off -the-ball actions and how this impacts the game. I believe the place to start this process is to define principles of play in the game. In order to do this I believe it essential to consider the three elements of play - penetration, depth and width.
Penetration without the ball can happen in a number of ways.
1) A target player in front of the opponents back line.
2) Off-the-ball runs at or through the opponents back line.
3) A player in an offside position
There also needs to be a means of gauging the effectiveness of each action. Did the action have a positive, negative or no discernible impact on possession of the ball? For the lack of better terminology I consider this in the context of Attacking Unity. In this regard the action must also be viewed in terms of uniqueness and duplicity. That is, was the action singular and performed as Intelligent Support or as an act of unaware individualism duplicating the actions of a teammate? Was there a positive impact on the teams spacing?
Penetration with the ball happens in two basic ways.
1) Running with the ball
2) Passing the ball
Maintaining possession of the ball is obviously the king consideration when penetrating with the ball However, there are variable acceptable levels of risk associated with these actions. What is accepted, even expected, in the attacking third of the field might be far different than what is considered prudent in the middle or defending thirds of the field.
There is quality of decision making to be considered as well. Was running with the ball the correct decision or should the player have chosen to pass to the feet of a target player or into space to a teammate making a run?
So much to consider and we have yet to even begin looking at width and depth in relation to attacking play. Or the defensive side of play, at all. Tomorrow I will take a look at the element of depth and associated principles of play. Remember, we are just beginning a process here. I'm not quite sure where it will end, but have in mind to analyze my son's play through video review. For comparison's sake I will likely analyze some of his teammates play as well. My intent is not so much to create a new realm of soccer statistics as it is to discover the quality my powers of observation.
Monday
Analyzing Team Play / Problem Solving in Soccer
If you go to any Internet soccer forum or message board you will find a frequent topic of discussion is conversion rates on shots taken at goal. This is one of the areas I am most often asked to address in the team camps I conduct. There seems to a general consensus in thought that a magical drill or practice exercise exists that can improve a teams ability to score goals. Of course, this just isn't true. In fact, the reasons a team struggles to finish can often times be a lot more complicated than one might suspect. Before coming up with appropriate exercises to address a teams struggles to score I have to figure out why they are struggling to score.
A friend contacted me after the 2012 high school season lamenting his team generated 22 shots on goal for the entire season. On the other hand, they had converted on 21 of those chances!
For our purposes here we will use the official FIFA definition for shots on goal: A shot on goal sees the struck ball travel within the frame of the goal and results either in a goal being scored or a save being made. So, if the shot strikes post or bar and bounces out, this is not considered a shot on goal. And, of course, any shot high or wide of the goal is not considered a shot on goal.
The coach referenced above is a former college goalkeeper and knows the correct definition of a shot on goal. So I was really curious as to how a team could convert on 21 of 22 chances. That is one of the most confounding statistics I have ever heard of. No wonder he was interested in getting his team to take more shots on goal!
The question I had to answer was, why only 22 shots on goal over the course of 17 games?
The first hint I got was the coach telling me his team refused to shoot from distance. They insisted on being at nearly point blank range before attempting a shot. Aha! That explains the tremendous conversion rate. It also provided a vital clue in terms of questioning why they only took 22 shots on goal. My suspicion was a lack of striking skill and this was confirmed during my first session with the team. They didn't take more shots or shots from greater range because they could not execute the required skill to do so. Now, I knew where to begin addressing the issue of generating more shots.
As I said earlier, it's not always so simple to diagnose why a team struggles in a certain facet of play. The team my son plays on this fall is struggling to score goals. They generate enough shots on goal but struggle to finish. They strike the ball well and can shoot from distance. So, why do they struggle to finish?
I believe there are a number of reasons all inter-related.
1) Play in the final third is too slow. The team is fast enough in the initial stages of attack, but are slow in moving the ball once in the attacking third. Especially slow in moving the ball to the feet of an open shooter in front of the face of the goal.
2) There is a reluctance to take an isolated defender to goal in 1 v 1 situations. Wingers carrying the ball into the attacking third only to stop their advance instead of cutting in on the defender, getting their shoulder ahead of the defender to eliminate him from play and going strong at goal.
.
3) This is directly related to #2 above: The team plays too much on the flanks. It is good to break through on the flanks but the ball must be carried inside or passed inside at the earliest possible moment. The team in question is slow to do this resulting in many of their shots being taken from the wedge (Corner, corner, post) or wider. These are poor angles to shoot from as the opposing goalkeeper need only defend 4 yards of goal or less leaving little room for error on the placement of the shot.
4) Poor utilization of space in the attacking third. This is one of the most common problems I encounter when working with teams. Teams either fill the space they want to play in far too soon or do so far too late. Both are occurring with this team.
For instance, when a wing does take on a defender 1 v 1 and a cross is forthcoming I often see teammates running abreast of the wing and at the same pace as the wing carrying the ball. It is a flat line of 3-5 attackers. What we should see are the three elements of the game represented - Penetration, Depth and Width. A lone attacker pushing defenders back upon their goal to free up space in front of them to be played in. Other attackers trailing the play centrally waiting for the cross to be played and timing their runs onto it. With a late trailer hanging back to play rebounds or a poorly crossed ball. And an attacker making the Corner, Corner Post run from the weak side. In this manner the goal is properly framed to play the cross from a variety of angles.
In other instances the timing of crosses is off. They come far too soon as central attackers have yet to arrive in position to play the ball. Sometimes the CF and AM's are pulled wide and other times they are either slow getting to the face of the goal or the crosses come much too soon. This team has crossed the ball fairly well, but all too often the timing is off with central attackers being slow to arrive or worse yet no one present to finish.
5) Taking too long to get a shot off. There seems to be a need on the part of some players to set up the perfect shot.There is an absence of toe pokes and volleys. A lack of understanding that it matters not how the ball goes in, just so that it goes in... legally, of course.
Okay, now that the problem and the reasons for it have been identified how can it be solved?
In my opinion, the main point to be addressed is how the attacking players link together in the attacking third. The team plays a standard 4-3-3 with a DM and 2 AM's in the midfield triangle. In theory, this should present as a wing player with the ball supported by an outside back leaving a CF and 2 AM's centrally and the weak side wing on the back side of the play.
Again, in my opinion, this years team does not have the right personnel to play this version of the 4-3-3. There does not appear to be a defensive mid capable of distributing the ball to all four channels. There are passes to space in the outside channels but far too few passes to feet in the inside channels. The CF and AM's are bunching up and actually helping the defense by cluttering the very space the attack should be looking to open up and use to score goals from.
I would suggest tweaking the standard 4-3-3 to be played as a 4 - 2- 3- 1. This is simply inverting the midfield triangle to having two DM's and one attacking mid.
The reason for doing this is quite simple. The team has an abundance of wing players but is short on inside players. The team also has two terrific passers to man those DM mid positions, provide support for the attack and make forward runs. Neither is a true defensive mid, however. Another option might be to pair them as AM's. That hasn't been tried yet either. Both are dynamic, creative players that could play make with and off of one another.
With two DM's one supports wide behind the ball and the other remains central. Weak side width support is then the responsibility of the weak side outside back. The CF and AM must work in conjunction with one another in the attacking third, somewhat like forwards in a 2 forward set.
Still attacking with 7 players, but now linking them differently and playing more to their strengths.
The overriding consideration in instances like this is "If all you ever do, is all you've ever done, all you'll ever get is what you have always had."
Change.
In the team camp this summer the focus changed from generating more chances to the technical skills required to execute on the chances they were generating. In the second case here the idea is to maintain the quantity of chances, but change the quality of chances being generated.
A friend contacted me after the 2012 high school season lamenting his team generated 22 shots on goal for the entire season. On the other hand, they had converted on 21 of those chances!
For our purposes here we will use the official FIFA definition for shots on goal: A shot on goal sees the struck ball travel within the frame of the goal and results either in a goal being scored or a save being made. So, if the shot strikes post or bar and bounces out, this is not considered a shot on goal. And, of course, any shot high or wide of the goal is not considered a shot on goal.
The coach referenced above is a former college goalkeeper and knows the correct definition of a shot on goal. So I was really curious as to how a team could convert on 21 of 22 chances. That is one of the most confounding statistics I have ever heard of. No wonder he was interested in getting his team to take more shots on goal!
The question I had to answer was, why only 22 shots on goal over the course of 17 games?
The first hint I got was the coach telling me his team refused to shoot from distance. They insisted on being at nearly point blank range before attempting a shot. Aha! That explains the tremendous conversion rate. It also provided a vital clue in terms of questioning why they only took 22 shots on goal. My suspicion was a lack of striking skill and this was confirmed during my first session with the team. They didn't take more shots or shots from greater range because they could not execute the required skill to do so. Now, I knew where to begin addressing the issue of generating more shots.
As I said earlier, it's not always so simple to diagnose why a team struggles in a certain facet of play. The team my son plays on this fall is struggling to score goals. They generate enough shots on goal but struggle to finish. They strike the ball well and can shoot from distance. So, why do they struggle to finish?
I believe there are a number of reasons all inter-related.
1) Play in the final third is too slow. The team is fast enough in the initial stages of attack, but are slow in moving the ball once in the attacking third. Especially slow in moving the ball to the feet of an open shooter in front of the face of the goal.
2) There is a reluctance to take an isolated defender to goal in 1 v 1 situations. Wingers carrying the ball into the attacking third only to stop their advance instead of cutting in on the defender, getting their shoulder ahead of the defender to eliminate him from play and going strong at goal.
.
3) This is directly related to #2 above: The team plays too much on the flanks. It is good to break through on the flanks but the ball must be carried inside or passed inside at the earliest possible moment. The team in question is slow to do this resulting in many of their shots being taken from the wedge (Corner, corner, post) or wider. These are poor angles to shoot from as the opposing goalkeeper need only defend 4 yards of goal or less leaving little room for error on the placement of the shot.
4) Poor utilization of space in the attacking third. This is one of the most common problems I encounter when working with teams. Teams either fill the space they want to play in far too soon or do so far too late. Both are occurring with this team.
For instance, when a wing does take on a defender 1 v 1 and a cross is forthcoming I often see teammates running abreast of the wing and at the same pace as the wing carrying the ball. It is a flat line of 3-5 attackers. What we should see are the three elements of the game represented - Penetration, Depth and Width. A lone attacker pushing defenders back upon their goal to free up space in front of them to be played in. Other attackers trailing the play centrally waiting for the cross to be played and timing their runs onto it. With a late trailer hanging back to play rebounds or a poorly crossed ball. And an attacker making the Corner, Corner Post run from the weak side. In this manner the goal is properly framed to play the cross from a variety of angles.
In other instances the timing of crosses is off. They come far too soon as central attackers have yet to arrive in position to play the ball. Sometimes the CF and AM's are pulled wide and other times they are either slow getting to the face of the goal or the crosses come much too soon. This team has crossed the ball fairly well, but all too often the timing is off with central attackers being slow to arrive or worse yet no one present to finish.
5) Taking too long to get a shot off. There seems to be a need on the part of some players to set up the perfect shot.There is an absence of toe pokes and volleys. A lack of understanding that it matters not how the ball goes in, just so that it goes in... legally, of course.
Okay, now that the problem and the reasons for it have been identified how can it be solved?
In my opinion, the main point to be addressed is how the attacking players link together in the attacking third. The team plays a standard 4-3-3 with a DM and 2 AM's in the midfield triangle. In theory, this should present as a wing player with the ball supported by an outside back leaving a CF and 2 AM's centrally and the weak side wing on the back side of the play.
Again, in my opinion, this years team does not have the right personnel to play this version of the 4-3-3. There does not appear to be a defensive mid capable of distributing the ball to all four channels. There are passes to space in the outside channels but far too few passes to feet in the inside channels. The CF and AM's are bunching up and actually helping the defense by cluttering the very space the attack should be looking to open up and use to score goals from.
I would suggest tweaking the standard 4-3-3 to be played as a 4 - 2- 3- 1. This is simply inverting the midfield triangle to having two DM's and one attacking mid.
The reason for doing this is quite simple. The team has an abundance of wing players but is short on inside players. The team also has two terrific passers to man those DM mid positions, provide support for the attack and make forward runs. Neither is a true defensive mid, however. Another option might be to pair them as AM's. That hasn't been tried yet either. Both are dynamic, creative players that could play make with and off of one another.
With two DM's one supports wide behind the ball and the other remains central. Weak side width support is then the responsibility of the weak side outside back. The CF and AM must work in conjunction with one another in the attacking third, somewhat like forwards in a 2 forward set.
Still attacking with 7 players, but now linking them differently and playing more to their strengths.
The overriding consideration in instances like this is "If all you ever do, is all you've ever done, all you'll ever get is what you have always had."
Change.
In the team camp this summer the focus changed from generating more chances to the technical skills required to execute on the chances they were generating. In the second case here the idea is to maintain the quantity of chances, but change the quality of chances being generated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)