This is a repost from 2013. When a reader recently asked about "changing channels" I thought to write an article about this and realized I already had. Changing channels fits with the theme of other recent articles advocating unpredictability in the attack.
As we have progressed through the spring season we have installed more and more of our system of play. The past couple of weeks we have focused on flank play utilizing wing midfielders and wing defenders. These players typically man the outside channels.
A channel extends the length of the field from end line to end line although typical channel play takes place between the 18's. Dependent on who you ask there are either 3 or 4 channels on the pitch. The two outside channels and either one or two channels through the middle of the pitch. I prefer to think of the pitch divided into 4 channels as this matches well with zonal back 4 so prevalent in today's game.
Anyone who has played basketball knows a key to defeating a zone defense is to overload one side of the court creating numbers up situations that forces the defense to lose the shape it prefers. The same holds true in soccer.
Our focus has been on overloading the wide channels by playing to flank players and running two other players toward the wings - some combination of forwards and center midfielders. I like to run both forwards toward the flanks when possession is in the midfield area as this draws additional defenders wide and opens the center and weak side of the field. Early crosses into the center channels or even better, to the opposite wide channel can open seams to attack through when they catch defenses shifting.
Why play wide first? Because it draws defenders from the space we ultimately wish to utilize - the center channels or the area in front of the face of the goal.
Sometimes it is advantageous to attack "straight" down the outside channels utilizing an outside back to engage defenders before dumping the ball in behind the defense for the wing or a forward to run onto. These "through" balls need to be played in a manner that affords your teammate the best opportunity to win the ball. Too often we see balls played too direct and with too much pace that opposing goalkeepers easily pick up. What about playing a flighted ball with backspin just beyond the defenders? This will keep the ball away from the goalkeeper and the backspin will also serve to settle the ball back towards the teammate running onto it. Defenders often over run this type of serve and then are caught attempting to turn back to the ball allowing the forward and the ball to run by them.
Sometimes a defense will seek to press and put numbers up in the outside channel and nearest central channel. When this occurs we need to change the channel either via a drop and switch of fields or by a long diagonal cross. These long diagonal crosses should be played just over the head of the defender being isolated. If the cross is going to the opposite wide channel it must be a flat diagonal cross over the outside defender on the weak side.
Think of sitting in your family room with a group of people and the person in control of the remote keeps flipping channels every few minutes. Each time you become interested in a show, he flips to something else. Such behavior can really get on a persons nerves can't it? Is the picture beginning to come in clearer? Switching channels can serve to drive an opposing defense nuts just as flipping TV channels can drive people nuts!
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 flank play. Show all posts
Showing posts with label flank play. Show all posts
Monday
Tuesday
Corner, Corner, Post
EDIT: I am constantly amazed how articles on this site can suddenly become popular once again months after their original publication. Such is the case with this article. Of a sudden it has received a number of hits so I am "re-publishing" it to the front page.
*********************************************************************************
Soccer coaches the world over like to spread the field when in possession of the ball. Wing or flank players are encouraged to "stay wide" in an effort to draw defenders away from the face of goal. This is all good and well as it addresses one of the three elements necessary to play effective soccer - Penetration, Width and Depth. This is what some refer to as the triangle or diamond shapes in soccer.
Over the years I have become accustomed to using two different coaching phrases when teaching players to maintain width; "Heels to the touch line" and "Corner, Corner, Post.
"Heels to the touch line" applies to the middle "third" of the field give or take a few yards toward either end.
"Corner, Corner, Post" is the path a weak side wing player takes toward goal.
*********************************************************************************
Soccer coaches the world over like to spread the field when in possession of the ball. Wing or flank players are encouraged to "stay wide" in an effort to draw defenders away from the face of goal. This is all good and well as it addresses one of the three elements necessary to play effective soccer - Penetration, Width and Depth. This is what some refer to as the triangle or diamond shapes in soccer.
Over the years I have become accustomed to using two different coaching phrases when teaching players to maintain width; "Heels to the touch line" and "Corner, Corner, Post.
"Heels to the touch line" applies to the middle "third" of the field give or take a few yards toward either end.
"Corner, Corner, Post" is the path a weak side wing player takes toward goal.
Saturday
Analyzing Team Play. What and Why.
If you go to any Internet soccer forum or message board you will find a frequent topic of discussion is the lack of proficiency in scoring goals. 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 score 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.
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.
Monday
Crossing the Soccer Ball.
What I am about to write will seem sacrilegious to soccer purists, but if you bear with me I think you will eventually understand the point being made. The traditional crossing of the soccer ball is the most inefficient tactic for scoring the soccer ball in the game today.
For years I have taught my teams to deny the opponents cross. The foundation of any good defensive scheme is to take away what the offense wants to do. In soccer finishing off crosses has long been a staple of training around the globe. So, I have for years instructed my outside defenders to turn the ball inside toward their center backs thus denying the opponents the traditional cross. This simply makes sense and I have noticed ever increasing numbers of teams adapting this strategy.
My own teams rarely practice crossing the ball in a traditional sense - driving the ball down the flank to the 18 extended and crossing into the space directly in front of the face of the goal. We do practice taking the ball to the end line and engaging the goalkeeper then slotting it back between the penalty mark and the top of the 18 - the bangoo.
I always try to stay ahead of developments in the game. My teams played zonal long before it became popular to do so. As I just stated, my teams rarely cross the ball in a traditional sense. We are different yet highly successful. Perhaps we are successful because we are different?
The traditional cross was viewed as a fundamental strategy when playing against a diamond man-marking stopper / sweeper system. It was intelligent play to shift the diamond towards one side of the field and play back against its grain to generate scoring opportunities. With zonal defenses being the staple of todays defending schemes that strategy is not nearly as effective unless a team over shifts its entire back line to ball side. If the backs remain in their channels it renders crossing the ball far less effective.
Changes to combat zonal defending schemes are driving todays game like never before. This is something I noticed 4-5 years ago and resulted in a different approach for our offense being developed. As I said, my teams have never been ones to spend much time in training on finishing off crosses. I have always considered this to be an inefficient means of generating quality scoring chances. We have always looked for different means to advance the ball into scoring position.
The head high school coach I worked as an assistant under was the first to utilize a zonal defense in our area. Our school was way ahead of the game in that regard and it was ultra effective. He was also a possession style coach for attacking the opponents goal. Those teams were great defensively and struggled to score. A typical score would be a 1 - 0 victory and we were the dominant team in the area. I remember countless discussions with that coaching staff on how to generate more goals.
Possession in those days and on those teams saw a primary focus on the number of passes a team could string together. Training games were built around this and those teams became pretty impressive in building up the number of consecutive passes they could make in playing keep-away. That was also the rub - playing keep-away doesn't do much for you if the intent is to score goals.
As a head coach in both the scholastic and club ranks I have stuck with zonal defending and a possession style attack, but it would be unrecognizable to those old teams. The foundation for our attacking philosophies are rooted in my love for basketball. I remember legendary coach Bob Knight instructing at one of his camps that you had to move the ball from side to side to open seams in a moving defense through which to attack. Attacking zonal defenses in soccer works the same way. The beauty of this is it also works extremely well against man marking systems of defending.
So while traditional crossing of the soccer ball has been increasingly looked at as an outdated low percentage means of generating quality scoring opportunities the value of intelligent crossing of the ball has actually risen.
A 2010 study of the UEFA Champions League saw that while 16% of goals scored came from traditional crosses only 1 in 92 crosses resulted in a goal being scored. An efficiency rating of .01%. Yikes! Here's another interesting statistic from that study, possession was lost 73% of the time a traditional cross was made. In fact, the study suggests the cross is so inefficient teams would score .57 of a goal more per game if they abandoned the cross entirely.
Comparisons between qualifying matches for the 2010 World Cup and qualifying for this summers World Cup also bolster the idea traditional crossing is becoming less prevalent in the game. There were over 3 fewer crosses per match in this last round of qualifying than there had been in the previous.
Tiki-Taka or touch-touch is surely responsible for some of this as possessions became longer and by extension fewer over the course of a match. Yet, tiki-taka was exposed in this summers World Cup for being nearly as ineffective as the traditional crossing style has become. So, what's going on?
To begin with, tiki-taka is basically what those high school teams I referenced earlier played in the late 1990's and early 2000's. Those teams won games with typical scores of 1-0 or 2-1. They possessed the ball. They made opponents chase the ball. That is tiki-taka soccer. The underlying premise being the opponent cannot score if you possess the ball. However, the priority in tiki-taka is not about possessing to attack.
Over the last half dozen years I have directed and urged my teams to find the path of least resistance to goal. We do not work on traditional crosses at all. We do still work on the bangoo cross. And we work on early crosses as if it were a religion. I provide two simple templates or patterns for advancing the ball up the field with both relying heavily on having at least two complete changes of field. If we can change the point of attack with one huge cross, I love it. If it must be done by 2 or 3 shorter passes, I still like it. But then the ball must immediately begin it's journey back across the pitch as we enter the final third. This can be done by another cross or by a player carrying the ball across. The entire premise is to force a defense to move to one flank then catch them moving in recovery to the other flank. Flat or square passes are near useless as they do not force a defense to change its vertical positioning on the pitch. The key is for diagonal crosses. This is heretical to traditionalists who have long viewed the flat or square cross from the 18 extended to be the option of choice in attacking the oppositions goal.
Today's crosses must be diagonal, early and repetitive to be effective in moving zonal defenses not only channel to channel but also vertically up and down the pitch. Moving zonal defenses vertically is the key to opening seams to attack through. And you know what? It works against man-marking systems as well! I do not have a formal name like "tiki-taka" for what we do. I call it possessing to attack although possessing to score might be a better description.
Now that the game seems to be catching up with our defensive philosophy I am strongly considering inviting the opponents to cross the ball in a traditional sense. We have the results and the stats to prove we can win convincingly by possessing to score through intentionally manipulating a defense. From what I am seeing the game is moving in this direction on the world stage right on down to the club and now high school ranks. This is the driving force behind the ever more popular 4-2-3-1 formation we are seeing - opening flank play for the purpose of early crosses with an emphasis on intentionally orchestrated versatility in the attacking third of the pitch.
Traditions are great but like everything else in life they must also change with the times The new traditional cross is the early and repeated cross before reaching the attacking third. The 4-2-3-1 formation opens the space on the flanks for this to occur. Whereas early penetration followed by successful use of width was once the accepted formula for attacking, the modern game sees utilization of width to open seams through which to penetrate as the emerging norm for attacking play.
For years I have taught my teams to deny the opponents cross. The foundation of any good defensive scheme is to take away what the offense wants to do. In soccer finishing off crosses has long been a staple of training around the globe. So, I have for years instructed my outside defenders to turn the ball inside toward their center backs thus denying the opponents the traditional cross. This simply makes sense and I have noticed ever increasing numbers of teams adapting this strategy.
My own teams rarely practice crossing the ball in a traditional sense - driving the ball down the flank to the 18 extended and crossing into the space directly in front of the face of the goal. We do practice taking the ball to the end line and engaging the goalkeeper then slotting it back between the penalty mark and the top of the 18 - the bangoo.
I always try to stay ahead of developments in the game. My teams played zonal long before it became popular to do so. As I just stated, my teams rarely cross the ball in a traditional sense. We are different yet highly successful. Perhaps we are successful because we are different?
The traditional cross was viewed as a fundamental strategy when playing against a diamond man-marking stopper / sweeper system. It was intelligent play to shift the diamond towards one side of the field and play back against its grain to generate scoring opportunities. With zonal defenses being the staple of todays defending schemes that strategy is not nearly as effective unless a team over shifts its entire back line to ball side. If the backs remain in their channels it renders crossing the ball far less effective.
Changes to combat zonal defending schemes are driving todays game like never before. This is something I noticed 4-5 years ago and resulted in a different approach for our offense being developed. As I said, my teams have never been ones to spend much time in training on finishing off crosses. I have always considered this to be an inefficient means of generating quality scoring chances. We have always looked for different means to advance the ball into scoring position.
The head high school coach I worked as an assistant under was the first to utilize a zonal defense in our area. Our school was way ahead of the game in that regard and it was ultra effective. He was also a possession style coach for attacking the opponents goal. Those teams were great defensively and struggled to score. A typical score would be a 1 - 0 victory and we were the dominant team in the area. I remember countless discussions with that coaching staff on how to generate more goals.
Possession in those days and on those teams saw a primary focus on the number of passes a team could string together. Training games were built around this and those teams became pretty impressive in building up the number of consecutive passes they could make in playing keep-away. That was also the rub - playing keep-away doesn't do much for you if the intent is to score goals.
As a head coach in both the scholastic and club ranks I have stuck with zonal defending and a possession style attack, but it would be unrecognizable to those old teams. The foundation for our attacking philosophies are rooted in my love for basketball. I remember legendary coach Bob Knight instructing at one of his camps that you had to move the ball from side to side to open seams in a moving defense through which to attack. Attacking zonal defenses in soccer works the same way. The beauty of this is it also works extremely well against man marking systems of defending.
So while traditional crossing of the soccer ball has been increasingly looked at as an outdated low percentage means of generating quality scoring opportunities the value of intelligent crossing of the ball has actually risen.
A 2010 study of the UEFA Champions League saw that while 16% of goals scored came from traditional crosses only 1 in 92 crosses resulted in a goal being scored. An efficiency rating of .01%. Yikes! Here's another interesting statistic from that study, possession was lost 73% of the time a traditional cross was made. In fact, the study suggests the cross is so inefficient teams would score .57 of a goal more per game if they abandoned the cross entirely.
Comparisons between qualifying matches for the 2010 World Cup and qualifying for this summers World Cup also bolster the idea traditional crossing is becoming less prevalent in the game. There were over 3 fewer crosses per match in this last round of qualifying than there had been in the previous.
Tiki-Taka or touch-touch is surely responsible for some of this as possessions became longer and by extension fewer over the course of a match. Yet, tiki-taka was exposed in this summers World Cup for being nearly as ineffective as the traditional crossing style has become. So, what's going on?
To begin with, tiki-taka is basically what those high school teams I referenced earlier played in the late 1990's and early 2000's. Those teams won games with typical scores of 1-0 or 2-1. They possessed the ball. They made opponents chase the ball. That is tiki-taka soccer. The underlying premise being the opponent cannot score if you possess the ball. However, the priority in tiki-taka is not about possessing to attack.
Over the last half dozen years I have directed and urged my teams to find the path of least resistance to goal. We do not work on traditional crosses at all. We do still work on the bangoo cross. And we work on early crosses as if it were a religion. I provide two simple templates or patterns for advancing the ball up the field with both relying heavily on having at least two complete changes of field. If we can change the point of attack with one huge cross, I love it. If it must be done by 2 or 3 shorter passes, I still like it. But then the ball must immediately begin it's journey back across the pitch as we enter the final third. This can be done by another cross or by a player carrying the ball across. The entire premise is to force a defense to move to one flank then catch them moving in recovery to the other flank. Flat or square passes are near useless as they do not force a defense to change its vertical positioning on the pitch. The key is for diagonal crosses. This is heretical to traditionalists who have long viewed the flat or square cross from the 18 extended to be the option of choice in attacking the oppositions goal.
Today's crosses must be diagonal, early and repetitive to be effective in moving zonal defenses not only channel to channel but also vertically up and down the pitch. Moving zonal defenses vertically is the key to opening seams to attack through. And you know what? It works against man-marking systems as well! I do not have a formal name like "tiki-taka" for what we do. I call it possessing to attack although possessing to score might be a better description.
Now that the game seems to be catching up with our defensive philosophy I am strongly considering inviting the opponents to cross the ball in a traditional sense. We have the results and the stats to prove we can win convincingly by possessing to score through intentionally manipulating a defense. From what I am seeing the game is moving in this direction on the world stage right on down to the club and now high school ranks. This is the driving force behind the ever more popular 4-2-3-1 formation we are seeing - opening flank play for the purpose of early crosses with an emphasis on intentionally orchestrated versatility in the attacking third of the pitch.
Traditions are great but like everything else in life they must also change with the times The new traditional cross is the early and repeated cross before reaching the attacking third. The 4-2-3-1 formation opens the space on the flanks for this to occur. Whereas early penetration followed by successful use of width was once the accepted formula for attacking, the modern game sees utilization of width to open seams through which to penetrate as the emerging norm for attacking play.
Sunday
Outside backs in the 1-4-2-3-1 and 1-4-1-4-1 formations
Previous articles in this series:
The Goalkeeper
The Linking Midfielder
The Center Midfielder
The Attacking Midfielder
The Central Midfield Triangle
The Center Backs
How the Center Backs and Linking Midfielder interact.
The technical considerations for the outside back positions center around speed - physical, pace of play and especially in decision making ability. The ability to run onto the able coupled with a high quality of first touch and the ability to run with the ball / speed dribble. Outside backs must be able to cross the ball early and effectively along the ground and through the air. They also need to be able to finish around the net with a high degree of accuracy and pace.
Tactically outside backs must be defenders first. They have a responsibility to cover the inside back nearest them and defend either at the outer edge of the 18 or on the flank in the defending third dependent on the teams philosophy for covering width in the final third. Outside backs must be astute game watchers especially on the attack as they will be called upon to make frequent calculated runs up the field in support of the attack and as vital main contributors to the attack.
Physically we like otsider backs to be runners. Work rate is extremely important and arguably second only to that of central midfielders. Endurance is key. Speed of play is essential. Patient on defense and aggressive in the attack.
Psychologically these players need to have to be disciplined on defense and risk takers in the attack. They are defenders of the goal, but also man the position most capable of forcing a defense from its preferred shape through their runs up the field and long early crosses to switch the point of attack.
I recently conducted camp at Piqua High School and it came to pass that I coached the team in a preseason tournament as well. For that tournament match I place, arguably, the teams two best players at the outside back positions and asked of them that they be very offensive minded. I saw the look on their coaches faces when I did this - they were skeptical. Piqua won that match 2-0 despite being down some players and facing a decent side. Now, the success did not lie solely in playing these two at outside back, but their presence there did not hurt the team defensively and did create problems for the opposing side. My point is simply this, we as coaches must be mindful of our ability to manipulate the opposing defense. We must be able to stress the opponents defense to identify and expose where it is weakest so that we might take full advantage.
The rule of thumb for placing players in positions is to build a strong spine in your formation and fill outwards. All I did with the Piqua team was to build a strong defensive spine and place the emphasis for attacking on the flanks... (hopefully) away from the opponents strength which I assumed would be their central players. It worked.
The Goalkeeper
The Linking Midfielder
The Center Midfielder
The Attacking Midfielder
The Central Midfield Triangle
The Center Backs
How the Center Backs and Linking Midfielder interact.
The technical considerations for the outside back positions center around speed - physical, pace of play and especially in decision making ability. The ability to run onto the able coupled with a high quality of first touch and the ability to run with the ball / speed dribble. Outside backs must be able to cross the ball early and effectively along the ground and through the air. They also need to be able to finish around the net with a high degree of accuracy and pace.
Tactically outside backs must be defenders first. They have a responsibility to cover the inside back nearest them and defend either at the outer edge of the 18 or on the flank in the defending third dependent on the teams philosophy for covering width in the final third. Outside backs must be astute game watchers especially on the attack as they will be called upon to make frequent calculated runs up the field in support of the attack and as vital main contributors to the attack.
Physically we like otsider backs to be runners. Work rate is extremely important and arguably second only to that of central midfielders. Endurance is key. Speed of play is essential. Patient on defense and aggressive in the attack.
Psychologically these players need to have to be disciplined on defense and risk takers in the attack. They are defenders of the goal, but also man the position most capable of forcing a defense from its preferred shape through their runs up the field and long early crosses to switch the point of attack.
I recently conducted camp at Piqua High School and it came to pass that I coached the team in a preseason tournament as well. For that tournament match I place, arguably, the teams two best players at the outside back positions and asked of them that they be very offensive minded. I saw the look on their coaches faces when I did this - they were skeptical. Piqua won that match 2-0 despite being down some players and facing a decent side. Now, the success did not lie solely in playing these two at outside back, but their presence there did not hurt the team defensively and did create problems for the opposing side. My point is simply this, we as coaches must be mindful of our ability to manipulate the opposing defense. We must be able to stress the opponents defense to identify and expose where it is weakest so that we might take full advantage.
The rule of thumb for placing players in positions is to build a strong spine in your formation and fill outwards. All I did with the Piqua team was to build a strong defensive spine and place the emphasis for attacking on the flanks... (hopefully) away from the opponents strength which I assumed would be their central players. It worked.
Coaching the Details of The Process
After conducting a recent training session I found myself approximately 15 minutes away from a high school scrimmage featuring 3 time defending Division II State Champion Dayton Carroll against Sidney so naturally that is where I headed next. I was not disappointed in Carroll's performance. A week into practice and they looked as if they were in mid-season form. Skill, size, speed, strength and tactical understanding were all in Carroll's favor, but that is not what really caught my eye.
Five minutes into the game I noticed how quiet the Dayton Carroll bench was. If I recall correctly there were 7 players and 3 coaches sitting on the benches and no one was talking. It looked like they were watching a professional golf match or perhaps a tennis match as they sat quietly observing the action.
At the 25 minute mark Carroll went up 2 - 0 and things remained pretty much the same on their bench. That was about to change. As the kickoff to restart the game was about to take place the Carroll head coach arose from his seat on the bench and began stalking the touchline. Not understanding what had him so agitated I found myself watching him as much as I was watching the game. I soon learned he was coaching the details of the process. He did not want his team to lose focus or let up. Yes, they had controlled run of play and were leading 2-0, but there was still over a half to play. I, myself, have often cautioned teams that the most dangerous score in soccer is 2-0. The message behind this is to not allow yourself to believe you have the game won. The team needs to keep doing what they have been doing in gaining the 2-0 advantage. Now, I witnessed that concept actually being coached to its fullest.
Carroll won possession soon after the kickoff to restart play and immediately began to switch the ball through their backs. The right center back (RCB) received the ball, looked up and played a ball diagonally forward into space down the right flank. Absolutely the correct read as the Sidney defense was slow in shifting over. They were moving on the completed pass as opposed to moving with the pass. The ball ended up being played too long and rolled out of bounds before the right wing midfielder (wing) could catch up with it. I am thinking "good read, but poor execution" in regards to the RCB and his pass. The Dayton Carroll coach saw it a bit differently. He admonished the wing for not having started wide enough. "If you had been heels to the touch line when the pass was made, you would have gotten to the ball!"
A simply brilliant observation.
Mind you. the wing was only 5 yards off the touch line when the pass was played, but the coach was 100% spot on in his observation and coaching point. If the wing had been on the touchline he would have had a much better / wider angle of pursuit to the ball. Great coaching point!
The head coach continued to make this type of observation and coaching point for the next 10 minutes until his team scored again to go up 3-0. He then spent the rest of the game on the bench watching his team play. I believe the final score was 6-1 in favor of Carroll with the result never in doubt. Many coaches would dismiss this scrimmage as being so lopsided neither team could learn much from it, but they would be dead wrong in this instance. At least as it concerns the Dayton Carroll team, their coach and ... me.
Carroll's coached actively "coached" for 10 minutes of an 80 minute match and his team came away with a lopsided win. Quality over quantity. I found myself thinking how well he had handled keeping his team focused on the details when they went up 2-0. I also found myself thinking how well he had used the scrimmage to prepare himself for the regular season. He was very cognizant of the game situation and on guard for the tiniest sign his players were not focused on the details of the process. The coaching points he made were outstanding. Even more impressive was the teaching manner he used in addressing and correcting the slips he saw. An outstanding job of in-the-game coaching that was even more impressive than his teams performance in a 6-1 win.
Five minutes into the game I noticed how quiet the Dayton Carroll bench was. If I recall correctly there were 7 players and 3 coaches sitting on the benches and no one was talking. It looked like they were watching a professional golf match or perhaps a tennis match as they sat quietly observing the action.
At the 25 minute mark Carroll went up 2 - 0 and things remained pretty much the same on their bench. That was about to change. As the kickoff to restart the game was about to take place the Carroll head coach arose from his seat on the bench and began stalking the touchline. Not understanding what had him so agitated I found myself watching him as much as I was watching the game. I soon learned he was coaching the details of the process. He did not want his team to lose focus or let up. Yes, they had controlled run of play and were leading 2-0, but there was still over a half to play. I, myself, have often cautioned teams that the most dangerous score in soccer is 2-0. The message behind this is to not allow yourself to believe you have the game won. The team needs to keep doing what they have been doing in gaining the 2-0 advantage. Now, I witnessed that concept actually being coached to its fullest.
Carroll won possession soon after the kickoff to restart play and immediately began to switch the ball through their backs. The right center back (RCB) received the ball, looked up and played a ball diagonally forward into space down the right flank. Absolutely the correct read as the Sidney defense was slow in shifting over. They were moving on the completed pass as opposed to moving with the pass. The ball ended up being played too long and rolled out of bounds before the right wing midfielder (wing) could catch up with it. I am thinking "good read, but poor execution" in regards to the RCB and his pass. The Dayton Carroll coach saw it a bit differently. He admonished the wing for not having started wide enough. "If you had been heels to the touch line when the pass was made, you would have gotten to the ball!"
A simply brilliant observation.
Mind you. the wing was only 5 yards off the touch line when the pass was played, but the coach was 100% spot on in his observation and coaching point. If the wing had been on the touchline he would have had a much better / wider angle of pursuit to the ball. Great coaching point!
The head coach continued to make this type of observation and coaching point for the next 10 minutes until his team scored again to go up 3-0. He then spent the rest of the game on the bench watching his team play. I believe the final score was 6-1 in favor of Carroll with the result never in doubt. Many coaches would dismiss this scrimmage as being so lopsided neither team could learn much from it, but they would be dead wrong in this instance. At least as it concerns the Dayton Carroll team, their coach and ... me.
Carroll's coached actively "coached" for 10 minutes of an 80 minute match and his team came away with a lopsided win. Quality over quantity. I found myself thinking how well he had handled keeping his team focused on the details when they went up 2-0. I also found myself thinking how well he had used the scrimmage to prepare himself for the regular season. He was very cognizant of the game situation and on guard for the tiniest sign his players were not focused on the details of the process. The coaching points he made were outstanding. Even more impressive was the teaching manner he used in addressing and correcting the slips he saw. An outstanding job of in-the-game coaching that was even more impressive than his teams performance in a 6-1 win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)