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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's it. 

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

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

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

I don't. 

And that's the secret to our success.

Sun Tzu's Keys to Effective Soccer.

"Invincibility lies in the defense."   Today's translation is "Defense wins Championships."  If you doubt me look no further than the New England Patriots Super Bowl win.  It was a defensive stand at the goal line that won them the game.

"The possibility of victory lies in the attack."  Today's translation is "Offense wins games."  Look again to New England's Super Bowl win for confirmation as the Tom Brady offense made winning the game a possibility.

Now, let's address soccer.

"For should the enemy strengthen his van, he will weaken his rear;"  This has been very much on my mind as I have watched recent matches involving the USMNT. The team has played very direct soccer often utilizing the long ball in counter attacking to play in a forward.  The whole premise of the attack seems to be of a blitzkrieg mentality. 

This also applies to how Michael Bradley is being deployed.  Because of his incredible fitness level, Jurgeon Klinsman has chosen to play Bradley in an advanced attacking midfielder role.  It is not coincidence the USMNT defending has suffered without Bradley in his customary holding defensive mid role.

What I have also noticed is the gaps between the forward line and that of the rest of the team that occurs when the USMNT attacks in this manner. It's no secret the US back line has struggled mightily in recent matches. Sun Tzu's words ring clear here - the rear of the US formation is weakened by the direct dump and run play of its attack.

"should he strengthen his rear, he will weaken his van;"

The trendy formation for years was the 4-4-2.  The USWNT played a 4-4-2 against France this past weekend... and lost 0-2 to a talented French side. While the defense was solid except or a two minute span in the second half missing from the US play was the accustomed counter attacks and build ups to probing attacks that have defined USWNT soccer for years.

"should he strengthen his left, he will weaken his right; should he strengthen his right, he will weaken his left."   Remember the commentators for the USWNT match with France commenting how Carly Lloyd had been switched from the right to the left side of the formation? Ostensibly this was to strength the defense against France's Elodie Thomis who was giving the USA's Lori Chalupny fits.  In moving to strengthen the left side, the US weakened its attacking right side. 

Both our USMNT and USWNT have been caught in reactive modes to the perceived strengths of their opponents.  Yet, this is not entirely about playing to your own strengths.  Rather, this is about forcing your opponents to respect the possibility of attack coming from any point along the front.

If he sends reinforcements everywhere, he will everywhere be weak.  Numerical weakness comes from having to prepare against possible attacks;"

This is what the USWNT succumbed to against France.  It is also what the USMNT has been battling in recent friendlies.  And, if you will remember, this is what I have written about concerning our Grand Lake United teams success last spring and summer.  One coach commented to me,  "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."

"numerical strength, from compelling our adversary to make these preparations against us."

I also referenced playing a team in a tournament shortly after having faced them in a league match. Our foreign exchange student had wrecked their defense in scoring a hat trick and leading us to victory in the league game.  We knew he would be double teamed by the opponent in the tournament. So, I didn't even start Calo against them. We scored early and were up 2-0 before Calo ever took the field. I left the early goal scorers in the game when I sent Calo on.  Think of the conundrum facing the opponents at this point. 

It's not a great secret that successful soccer revolves around creating numbers up situations both when attacking and when defending. If you strengthen your ability to be numbers up in all phases of play, you can diminish an opponents ability to do so and chances are good the run of the game will be in your favor.