I have written a lot about decision making in general and specifically about players on-field or in-game decision making. I was talking with some friends last night when it occurred to me a coach's decision making is every bit as important as that of the players. Maybe more so in some regards.
Most people see a coach as the guy standing on the sidelines during games. This is the person who makes out line ups, makes substitutions and yells at officials during the game. What they don't see is the day to day activity behind the scenes.
Planning a 1.5 hour practice can often take me 1.5 hours. I care enough to get it right. There is analysis of where the team currently stands, specifics to be addressed, how to go about addressing these areas and planning for the needs to do so.
Training and game schedules.
Transportation.
Equipment.
Budgets.
Assistant Coaches.
Post game meals.
Video Taping practices and games.
These are but a few areas coaches have input in on decisions being made.
It goes even further than that though.
On the roster of a soccer team you will have players that learn in many different ways. How do you select or design an activity that reaches across all of these? Will you have to coach, instruct, teach the same activity in different ways to reach every player? One size rarely fits all.
Sometimes I think people forget a coach wants to win. While there is a contest taking place on the pitch there is also a bit of a contest taking place on the sidelines between coaches. Which coach will have the better initial game plan and which will make better half time adjustments to provide the players the best opportunity for victory.
When I go about setting a line up it can be a difficult task. It's definitely not about putting your 11 best players on the field so much as it is about putting the 11 who play best together on the pitch. This has been driven home hard in recent cub seasons as I have had a plethora of players who play center midfield for their high school teams. Some must change positions. Some may have to come off the bench as a substitute.
I have been following the teams that camped with us this summer and, of course, my son's high school team. In each case, I have found myself wondering about positions certain players have been placed in - not criticizing where a coach has decided to utilize a player. Just wondering what went into that decision making process trying to understand why the coach believes this is the way the pieces best fit together.
This is what I am getting at - most people know very little of all the decisions a coach must attend to nor do they realize the details of the process that take place far from the public eye. Parents tend to view a coach's decisions from the perspective of their child first and the team second. Whereas a coach must view things from a team perspective first with the individual players perspective being secondary.
Thus a player coming to his high school team after enjoying great success as an outside back for his club team may find himself playing center midfielder for his high school team. Or a more than capable club winger might be asked to play as a goalkeeper in high school. It's how the pieces best fit together in a given circumstance. As a coach I both understand and appreciate this.
Being on the other side of the pitch these last two fall seasons has been such a Blessing to me as I have watched the decision making process of coaches from a parents perspective, BUT with the inside knowledge of the vast variables a coach faces in making decisions. This has been of a tremendous benefit and influence to me as a coach.
In fact, this experience has provided me with the inner strength to make changes on the club level that I might not have had the courage to otherwise make. A prime example was my calculated move to take a center midfielder and move him to left back. There was some initial trepidation, even reluctance on the players part about making the switch. He bought into the move though. Asked questions and really studied and learned the position. Best left back I have ever coached and without a doubt in my mind the best left back in the area right now. He would have struggled to find time as a midfielder on our club team. Now, he should have college coaches clamoring for his attention.
A second example can be found in the demotion of a player to our second team. This players mother was extremely upset. She went so far as to try and convince another coach to take over the team so that her son could remain with the "A" team. She talked about me behind my back and was just generally belligerent towards me. I attempted to explain the reasoning but she could not see the logic through her anger, disappointment and hurt.
The player was a bit more receptive. I think he understood on a deeper level that in order to have a great senior year in high school soccer he needed to change some things about his game. He had been named to the varsity squad each of his first three years in high school only to be demoted back to JV in short order. A definite pattern had been established. This young man worked hard this past winter and spring. He did everything I asked ... and more. Not only did he learn to play at a higher level, he became a leader for our second team. He just blossomed as a player and a person.
Two great memories from this experience I will carry forward with me. The first was the day the player handed in his "homework" to me. It detailed the perspective of 5 different players taking part in an exercise and he nailed it in an extended response form. It was well thought out and on point. A far reach from his one word or short sentence answers of his previous homework assignments. The second was his taking over half time of a match. He was frustrated with a lackadaisical first half effort by his team, but he wasn't negative in addressing his teammates. He identified problems the team needed to solve, provided ideas about how to go about solving them and was very encouraging of his teammates. I remember standing aside watching and listening in awe wondering where this had been in previous years?
The answer was quite simple, in previous years he had deferred to others. He had been surrounded by teammates who were a little further along the development trail of leadership. Now, he had to step up and assume that mantel. He always had it in him, but had never been in the proper circumstance to allow it to shine forth. The by-product of all this has been a huge surge in confidence. This is a confident young man on the pitch. He's not a captain for his high school team, but he is a leader on the field.
It may well sound as if I am patting myself on the back for coaching decisions that have turned out well, but that is the furthest thing from the actual truth. I am not responsible for these players transformations and success. They are. I may have provided some tools or a venue, but these players put in the work and enjoy the success from having done so.
The point I have sought to make is that most people (players & parents) do not consider all that goes into a coach's decision making process. Nor do they appreciate the allocation of time and effort resources that are involved in making the decisions coaches do. Coaches can quite literally be exhausted mentally, physically and emotionally after a season concludes. The stress of constantly making decisions and balancing the interests of the program, the team and the individual player (in that order) can take its toll.
If only all we had to worry about was line ups and substitutions!
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 adjustments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label adjustments. Show all posts
Sunday
Monday
Every time I think I have seen it all....
About a dozen years ago I was coaching a U12 team for Grand Lake United. Our first match was at home and we were all excited to get the season underway. Not knowing anything about our opponent, I was a bit nervous and more than a little curious to see how our team would perform. Most teams were running 4-4-2 or 3-5-2 formations back in those days and I anticipated we would see one or the other. Ha! That opponent came out in a 1-1-9 formation, I kid you not. They overwhelmed us in the first half. We made some adjustments for the second half and held our own losing 5 - 2 if I recall correct. To say I was a bit miffed about the unconventional line up would be an understatement.
To finish this story before moving on to the subject of today's writings - we game planned for their 1-1-9 formation when we played them again. I put a big.strong, fast player at forward and packed everyone else in. We played long balls to our forward who out ran their defender time and time again. Final score of 6-0 in our favor and a league title secured.
Tonight I went to scout Bluffton at Wapakoneta with my son since his team will play both of these sides later this season. I'm still a bit shocked or stunned by what we witnessed tonight. Wapakoneta came out in a 3-5-2 but it was anything but conventional.
The left back and center back never advanced beyond their own 25 yard line for much of the first half.
Allow that to sink in for a minute. This is a varsity high school soccer match and 2 of the backs never advanced beyond their own 25 yard line.I've not seen anything like it since I last coached U Littles and coaches would hold their defenders at their own 6 yard line.
The right back would advance to the bottom of the center circle to perhaps the center line and played centrally when he did so.
Picture this as a GK with a center back and a left back each in their roles but positioned 25 yards out from their own goal. Meanwhile the right back has moved centrally and up to bottom half of the center circle. There is no defender on the right side of their formation.
Two defensive mids played at the top of the center circle and together with the right back now in the middle of the pitch formed a loose triangle. Their roles seemingly to keep the ball pushed into their attacking third.
In front of this 1-2-1-2 alignment were three midfielders spread across the width of the pitch and two forwards paired together on top. A 1-2-1-2-3-2 formation. They played 5 on defense and 5 when attacking. In doing so they strung out the Bluffton team shape turning the game into something resembling a 3 zone practice game with players spread out over the length of the field. This played well into Wapakoneta's strategy to use the speed and skill of their front 6 or 7 players. They did their best to turn this soccer match into a track meet.
Wapakoneta is very dynamic on the attack and they have to be for they are not nearly as strong defensively. They have to spread opponents out in order to take advantage of their team speed and pace of play. I believe there is a realization on the coaches part that they probably have to win games in shootout fashion as they did in tonight's 6 - 5 victory.
That is the key to defeating them.
If I were coaching against that system of play, I would draw the line of confrontation at our own 40 yard line packing 9 or even 10 players into that area with a target forward or two playing in front of their backs. The idea would be to confine all that straight line speed into a small area and take away their direct play. It also might be possible to lure their defenders out a bit more exposing their teams weaknesses further.
Another option that I originally considered was to play a 4-2-3-1 version of a 4-3-3 against them and put the target ball side behind their centrally located advanced right back and in front of their deeply withdrawn center back and left back. Another option might be to play a 4-3-1-2 and advance the two wingers to wide positions behind the advanced and centrally located right back and in front of the center back and left back. This might work provided your speed and pace of play could match or exceed theirs.
Then the fun really began as Wapakoneta changed formations to a 4-3-3 and eventually a 4-4-2. The four in the back looked flat at times but was actually a sweeper with 3 backs covering the width of the field in front of him. There were 1 or 2 defensive mids dependent on formation and position of the ball on the pitch. The one constant was deeply withdrawn defenders.
The constantly changing lineups served to confuse Bluffton if only momentarily. The realization that regardless of what formation Wapakoneta aligned themselves in the system of play remained the same settled in. They want to stretch the field and especially the opponents formation vertically. Most of Wapakoneta's play was inside the 44 yard width of the penalty areas. They did play to the flanks and their speedy wings in the attacking third of the pitch but very little up to that point. They also defended within the same 44 yard width only venturing outside to defend crosses or balls played into the outside channels Their focus was on keeping the ball centrally where they could use their straight line speed to their best advantage.
Clever coaching by the Wapakoneta staff. They bait their trap well and get teams to fall right in. It is refreshing in sense to see an innovative or at least unconventional approach to the game. It's a bit of a gimmick system but well thought out and well executed. It is obvious most of the Wapakoneta players are buying in and believing in it.
I am reminded of the Loyola Marymount basketball teams of coach Paul Westhead of the late 1980's and early 1990's. Their best defense was a devastating fast paced offensive attack that saw them want to get a shot off in 7 seconds or less of each possession. Wapakoneta's best defense is their offense. It is a classic case of playing to strength and doing your best to disguise weakness. It's working well for them and they will continue to find success until teams adjust.
Tonight's match between Wapakoneta and Bluffton was as entertaining as any have seen recently even if, or perhaps because, it was so unconventional. Wore me out just watching the end to end action!
Oh, yeah, the final was Wapakoneta 6 Bluffton 5, but that wasn't the real story.
To finish this story before moving on to the subject of today's writings - we game planned for their 1-1-9 formation when we played them again. I put a big.strong, fast player at forward and packed everyone else in. We played long balls to our forward who out ran their defender time and time again. Final score of 6-0 in our favor and a league title secured.
Tonight I went to scout Bluffton at Wapakoneta with my son since his team will play both of these sides later this season. I'm still a bit shocked or stunned by what we witnessed tonight. Wapakoneta came out in a 3-5-2 but it was anything but conventional.
The left back and center back never advanced beyond their own 25 yard line for much of the first half.
Allow that to sink in for a minute. This is a varsity high school soccer match and 2 of the backs never advanced beyond their own 25 yard line.I've not seen anything like it since I last coached U Littles and coaches would hold their defenders at their own 6 yard line.
The right back would advance to the bottom of the center circle to perhaps the center line and played centrally when he did so.
Picture this as a GK with a center back and a left back each in their roles but positioned 25 yards out from their own goal. Meanwhile the right back has moved centrally and up to bottom half of the center circle. There is no defender on the right side of their formation.
Two defensive mids played at the top of the center circle and together with the right back now in the middle of the pitch formed a loose triangle. Their roles seemingly to keep the ball pushed into their attacking third.
In front of this 1-2-1-2 alignment were three midfielders spread across the width of the pitch and two forwards paired together on top. A 1-2-1-2-3-2 formation. They played 5 on defense and 5 when attacking. In doing so they strung out the Bluffton team shape turning the game into something resembling a 3 zone practice game with players spread out over the length of the field. This played well into Wapakoneta's strategy to use the speed and skill of their front 6 or 7 players. They did their best to turn this soccer match into a track meet.
Wapakoneta is very dynamic on the attack and they have to be for they are not nearly as strong defensively. They have to spread opponents out in order to take advantage of their team speed and pace of play. I believe there is a realization on the coaches part that they probably have to win games in shootout fashion as they did in tonight's 6 - 5 victory.
That is the key to defeating them.
If I were coaching against that system of play, I would draw the line of confrontation at our own 40 yard line packing 9 or even 10 players into that area with a target forward or two playing in front of their backs. The idea would be to confine all that straight line speed into a small area and take away their direct play. It also might be possible to lure their defenders out a bit more exposing their teams weaknesses further.
Another option that I originally considered was to play a 4-2-3-1 version of a 4-3-3 against them and put the target ball side behind their centrally located advanced right back and in front of their deeply withdrawn center back and left back. Another option might be to play a 4-3-1-2 and advance the two wingers to wide positions behind the advanced and centrally located right back and in front of the center back and left back. This might work provided your speed and pace of play could match or exceed theirs.
Then the fun really began as Wapakoneta changed formations to a 4-3-3 and eventually a 4-4-2. The four in the back looked flat at times but was actually a sweeper with 3 backs covering the width of the field in front of him. There were 1 or 2 defensive mids dependent on formation and position of the ball on the pitch. The one constant was deeply withdrawn defenders.
The constantly changing lineups served to confuse Bluffton if only momentarily. The realization that regardless of what formation Wapakoneta aligned themselves in the system of play remained the same settled in. They want to stretch the field and especially the opponents formation vertically. Most of Wapakoneta's play was inside the 44 yard width of the penalty areas. They did play to the flanks and their speedy wings in the attacking third of the pitch but very little up to that point. They also defended within the same 44 yard width only venturing outside to defend crosses or balls played into the outside channels Their focus was on keeping the ball centrally where they could use their straight line speed to their best advantage.
Clever coaching by the Wapakoneta staff. They bait their trap well and get teams to fall right in. It is refreshing in sense to see an innovative or at least unconventional approach to the game. It's a bit of a gimmick system but well thought out and well executed. It is obvious most of the Wapakoneta players are buying in and believing in it.
I am reminded of the Loyola Marymount basketball teams of coach Paul Westhead of the late 1980's and early 1990's. Their best defense was a devastating fast paced offensive attack that saw them want to get a shot off in 7 seconds or less of each possession. Wapakoneta's best defense is their offense. It is a classic case of playing to strength and doing your best to disguise weakness. It's working well for them and they will continue to find success until teams adjust.
Tonight's match between Wapakoneta and Bluffton was as entertaining as any have seen recently even if, or perhaps because, it was so unconventional. Wore me out just watching the end to end action!
Oh, yeah, the final was Wapakoneta 6 Bluffton 5, but that wasn't the real story.
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)