11 Captains

I believe this article is the handiwork of Graham Ramsay who I have referenced on this site before. A quick google search of his name will result in numerous hits.  I re-discovered this article when going through some soccer files. It goes well with some of the themes I have recently been posting on.  Enjoy!

Eleven Captains

Wherever the soccer ball goes, the well-coached team will float mini-teams of three or four players toward it (1 v 2, 1 v 1, 2 v 1, etc.) throughout a game. The more times these duels are won, the greater your chances of victory.

To make this a reality, a coach needs 11 captains to organize, encourage and influence the play. One captain cannot do it, unless he is wearing a big "S" on front of his shirt.

Nor can Superman's dad, resplendent with cape and kryptonite shinguards, help as the all-seeing, all-knowing coaching expert on the sidelines. They are often too far from the critical plays, and this is why coaches must educate their players to create a "captain/coach on every play."

The nearest player to the teammate who is involved in the "eye" of the game action becomes the captain/coach for that vital moment. He has the best seat in the house to coach and to advise his teammates how to win the duel.

The more times you put verbal oil into the team engine, the smoother it will perform. Quality information "in" creates quality play "out."

Screaming instructions at the last moment is no way to win anything. It will probably reverse your strategy of getting ahead of the play and coaching your teammates to win. You have to develop the art of reading the play early and preparing your teammates for the next action.

Good players are like detectives--spotting clues to outwit their opponents (visual cues, body language, and habits).

For example, their last look at a play is often the first choice of what to use when play is resumed. A savvy defender might use such a clue to determine how to defend.

For example, if the head of the opposing passer goes down as he is about to pass and he winds up kicking the ball, the defense can channel the play. The information will allow the nearby defender to get ahead of the game by planning his move--maybe intercept or contain,

At that very same moment, the nearest teammate will be alerting/coaching his teammates. Sending them good advice.

The "real coach" must educate his players into this winning mode of thinking by:

1. Playing small-sided games where it's easier to spot and have many opportunities to "captain" each other.

2. Playing one-on-ones with a third player on the outside coaching one of the players.

3. Going to pro or college games. If possible, let them be ball-boys/girls.

Its vital for the coach to both highlight good examples and correct the "non-coaching" efforts of the players.

A team of captains, coaching each other, is like facing a team that's playing with 30 players--it intimidates.

As one coach said after his team had lost to Liverpool, "I'm certain they cheated. The Mighty Reds (Liverpool) seemed to be everywhere with their support play and verbal enthusiasm. To play that way, they had to have had two teams out there!"

Such was their energy level. Great teams know the power of knowledge and enthusiasm--coaching each other and encouraging each other to play brilliantly.

This is particularly so whenever things are going against your team. Too often youth or high school teams tend to clam up when the going gets tough.

 Potholes, red lights and  conceding goals are part of life's rich canvas. The teams and players that can rebound from these setbacks with renewed vigor are the ones to stay away from, as you know they are going to compete to the final whistle. They are mean.

When is the right time to start addressing this black hole in the vast majority of youngsters' soccer education? The earlier the better--and keep adults far away. How can a child learn to be a captain/coach when they have a dozen parents screaming 20 pieces of expert advice per second?

We have had a generation of subservient non-talking players because of this assault. Who can blame them? Haven't the parents been their verbal life support system since infancy?

You know the picture is wrong whenever the parents become the dominant vocal force and the players remain verbally invisible. Sadly, it should be the other way around.

For proof go out and listen or probably not listen to a couple of games. Another indicator is watching/hearing a high school game.

Most of these youngsters have played for nearly a decade and yet cannot read nor coach nearby teammates. What have they been doing all these years? It's almost as though they have been playing in their own bubble or world.

In fact, trying to correct this fault in older teenagers is almost impossible, as their habits have, for the most part, been set in stone. You cannot over emphasize the need to start creating thisverbal intelligence in the pre-teenage years.

POSTSCRIPT

To help understand the learning process, you must understand the three main cancers in fighting the development of skillful  players. They are:

1. Fatigue. Players simply don't learn when they are tired.

2. Verbal interference. Yelling  names ("Carlos!") as you receive the ball is of little use.

Hopefully you've learned your name by your teens. What you do need is simple, vital information to help you and the team retain the ball--"Man on!," "Time!" 

Giving misinformation or poor advice, or worse still, no verbal help whatsoever is a major soccer crime!

As one coach, upon seeing one of his starters about to be tackled hard, said: "It's like watching your girlfriend or mom about to be mugged on the other side of the street. Don't you have an opinion? Don't you care?" Can't you even shout, "Man on!"

3. Coach dependence. Where the coach dictates every play and shouts constantly. He winds up with non-thinking robots who traditionally get their speed pass and sprint out of the sport as fast as possible.

As you can see, these verbal skills, allied to "soccer savvy," are like secret weapons that very few players or coaches understand or use.

Can your team be the first in your area to create 11 captains on the field? If you can mold a squad of individuals into a real team, you will deserve a new Superman uniform for the play-offs.

Go for it!

Denying Negative Space

I learned about negative space and early retreats at a coaching clinic in Florida conducted by our USMNT staff a few years back.  I want to share some of the things gleaned from those sessions.

What is negative space?

Negative space is the area located behind the backs and in front of the goalkeeper.

This is the area that teams attacking a zonal defense want to play in. 

The preferred method for attacking negative space is through balls or dump and runs. When done successfully, breakaways occur with defenders in a foot race with opposing forwards to see who can get to the ball first.

Naturally zonal defenses have a strategy to defend against balls being played through or in behind their backs. This strategy is known as Early Retreat.  There is a very simple cue to be read for when to begin an early retreat:  When an opposing ball carrier is not being pressured, the backs must begin an immediate retreat.

By giving ground the backs are shrinking the amount of open space behind them and in front of the goalkeeper.

They are also providimg themselves time to solidify their spacing and support angles amongst themselves.

Executing an early retreat also provides midfield and forward teammates time to gain proper position behind the ball and bring pressure to the ball carrier.

So, how far back should the backs retreat before making a stand?

The backs Hold! once pressure on the ball has been re-established in front of them.

OR

The backs retreat until they reach a position approximately 25 yards from their own goal. At this point the 4 backs and goalkeeper should normally be able to defend until help arrives in the form of midfielders and / or forward teammates.

Key Consideration for backs playing near the center line:  Normal spacing when defending in the defensive third is approximately 10 yards between backs. They can fairly easily cover the width of the penalty area (44 yards) and a bit more.  However, when the ball is in the middle or attacking thirds of the field the spacing of the backs is often much greater. Typical horizontal spacing between backs near the center line can be as great as 20 yards.  It is much more difficult to support one another at that spacing than it is at 10 yard intervals.  The spacing is greater near the center line or in the attacking third because the backs are in support of the attack more so than in support of one another.

Another Key Consideration for backs playing near the center line is when one or more of them push forward into the attack.  The vertical spacing between backs can go from relatively flat to the normal 7 - 10 yard support drops all the way to one or more backs being pushed 25-30 yards forward in support of the attack.  Early retreats allow the backs to consolidate their shape and regain the necessary angles for properly supporting one another before fully engaging the attack.

The strategy behind early retreats is to slow the opponents attack thereby providing time for the team to regain its shape.

Teams that allow their backs to step to pressure the ball in the middle third of the field before their spacing is consolidated open themselves to being attacked via through balls. It can lead to a lot of unnecessary running towards your own goal and having your team strung out over 40-60 yards of play from which it is nearly impossible to support on defense or on attack. It's a recipe for disaster.

An amazing thing often occurs when a team executes early retreat properly. Players are taught that when they have open space in front of them they should take it via the dribble.  Is it faster to advance the ball via the dribble or by passing the ball forward?  Yep, inviting the opposing ball carrier to dribble at a retreating back line is all part of the strategy of slowing the attack while actively denying negative space thereby allowing teammates time to recover and pressure the ball.

Backs in a zonal defense also need to realize it is not a ball tackling defense.  It is a defense based on support and designed to intercept passes to start counter attacks from.  Therefore it is helpful to know another set of cues that provide a guideline for when to attempt to tackle the ball away from a ball carrier.

1) Establish containment of the attack.  Slow forward progress by giving ground while staying in front of the attacker.

2) Make the attacker predictable. Force the attacker to move laterally in one direction towards support provided by a teammate.

3) The time to attempt a tackle is when the ball is outside of the attackers footprints or has been mis-touched too far away from him to maintain control.  When the ball is between the attackers feet, the defender can be defeated to either side - the attacker has the advantage. WAIT, be patient until you have the advantage.

What about backs stepping to win 50 / 50 balls?

I will answer that question with one of my own:  Do you have teammates in support of your attempt to win a 50 / 50 ball?  If not, you must be 100% confident that you will win the 50 / 50 ball. Otherwise, organize as a back line unit and  prepare to play the second ball by getting into the anticipation area. In this case the anticipaton area can serve dual purpose by also being the start of an early retreat giving the backs options for play.

Okay, that is a brief overview of negative space and the strategy behind early retreats. Watch the USWNT and USMNT as they both practice early retreats. Especially the women's side.  It is a terrifically sound strategy once it is understood and executed properly. Hope this has been helpful to you.

Be Cool Coach!

Good coaches know that their attitude filters down to their players. When a coach is calm and poised their players tend to be as well and play reflects this. These teams overcome adversity by “playing through it”. They tend to be empowered problem solvers, creative and resilient.

If a coach is constantly yelling, arguing with referees and seemingly angry about every little thing, his team will be as well. Play is often rushed, desperate, out of control and punctuated by “unforced” mistakes. Everyone is blamed but no one is held accountable.

Not only will players follow the coach’s lead, but so too will parents. The coach who berates officials, yells at his players and is quick to find fault is likely to have an unruly parents sideline as well. There is often a general sense of unhappiness and anger that permeates the entire team. Soccer becomes a chore instead of being fun.

Calm, poised and in control does not equate to being cold, emotionless and overly analytical.  It simply means being in control of those things that can be under your control.  I’m not sure if I have ever witnessed a referee change his call because he was berated by a coach or parents, have you?  Yelling at a player for every mistake he makes is hardly a good way to go about instilling confidence, is it? Blaming your team for playing poorly is certainly shirking responsibility on the coaches part for it was his responsibility to prepare the team to compete, correct?

Good coaches maintain an even keel when coaching. They don’t get too excited when goals are scored and do not get too down when goals are allowed. The adjustments made are of a thoughtful and reasoned variety instead of knee jerk reactive decision rooted in the emotions of the moment.  Good coaches tend to use their heads more so than their mouths.  Thoughtful analysis when assessing on-field in-game situations instead of panicked chaotic solutions thrown out hoping something will eventually work.

I try to always keep in mind that my teams are never as good as they appear to be when winning and never as bad as they appear to be when losing. Teams are generally somewhere in the middle of the peak performance and worst performance. It’s important to be realistic about your team and focused on continuous progress and improvement over the course of a game and a season.

Even in the most dominant wins there are weaknesses to be found in your team’s play. And in the most lopsided losses there will have been some positives. It is important to recognize both positives and negatives in-game, but equally as important to share them with your players after the match has finished.

Do your best to remain calm, cool and collected for the good of your team. Don’t cast blame. Do empower the players to embrace on-the-field problems and adversity that they can solve and overcome these things. Do not become angry at players who are giving the best effort they have that day. Encourage players struggling with their play by lending them your confidence and letting them know you believe in them.

Have a vision for how you want your team to play and conduct themselves then be the embodiment of that vision for them. Lead by example… for that is what you do regardless of how you act. Be a positive example, a positive role model and your team will fall in line behind you. Success and wins will follow.

Ask for help.

One thing I have learned from coaching is the necessity and benefit of asking for help. The more perspectives on a matter, the better in many cases.  I value assistants who will speak up and offer input even when... perhaps especially when... their opinion differs from my own. That has never been more true than this spring.

In coaching two teams I am sometimes spread pretty thin. Admittedly this accentuates the tunnel vision I am prone to during a season anyway.  In recent matches I asked assistants to manage the game for me, give the half time talk and generally assume the responsibilities of a head coach in the game.  I learned a lot through how they interpreted the games they managed.  Their substitution rotations and patterns differed from my own.  The positions they played some in differed as well. Not only did I take notice of all this, but I embraced some of the things the assistants did and incorporated them into my own management of games.

Another thing I do is to seek input from players on a wide range of matters. I will ask players to suggest starting line ups.  I seek their input on positions.  I encourage their input during matches, at half time and in post game evaluations. I have found a players perspective can be among the most enlightening.

I will also ask coaching peers for their input. Sometimes I ask someone to come observe a match. Other times I will send video of a game to colleagues and ask for their impressions.  I did this very thing recently as I struggled to find the 11 best to start games and the substitution rotations that would keep us well balanced throughout the game. I went so far to seek input on who the 10 best field players were on the team and how they might fit into a lineup.

One observation from a group of colleagues was that opponents seemed to pick on our left back position.  I knew this was happening, but assumed it was because most teams are right foot dominant.  My peers thought that was not necessarily the case and suggested I move the left back(s) to the right back spot to see what happened. It did not take long to discover teams were "picking on" players more so than the left back position.  One player really struggles with first touch and opponents seem to sense they can pressure him into mistakes.  The other was very offensive minded and slight of build. Opponents seem to think they can out-muscle him and take advantage of his aggressiveness in attack.

An associated observation was that we were wasting the talent of the player manning the right back position. It was suggested he needs to get a lot more touches on the ball.  That was one I had wrestled with quite a bit as it was my son manning the right back position.  We were told he is the best right back in the state by ODP coaches. So, right back seemed to make sense, but it appears it really doesn't in this case.  We were probably wasting his talent at right back when he could use it as a center mid.

Fitting a formation to the talent on hand can also be a difficult.  In terms of center midfielders the talent we have suggests playing 3 of them.  We tried this early in the season and it was a disaster. I perhaps abandoned the 4-5-1 formation to quickly, but the team settled in pretty well in a 4-4-2 before opponents began exploiting our aggressive attacking mentalities at the position by counter attacking directly down the middle of the pitch.

To say the team was underachieving and that my inability to uncover the 11 who would play best together was a root cause would be a significant understatement.  So, as I have already stated, I asked for help.  I spoke with coaching colleagues and peers. I shared match video with them. I spoke with players. I asked referees I know and who had officiated our matches for their input.

Position and personnel changes have followed.  We now play a 4-1-4-1 having inserted my son in as the one holding midfielder. We had one very accomplished forward and playing him as a lone forwarded opened space for him to play in.  We have strengthened the back line and improved the defensive presence in the midfield. And tonight the final piece may have fallen in place for us - thanks to input from an assistant coach we found a second player more than capable of playing the target forward position.  The team is beginning to play closer to their potential. Possession and ball movement has improved. Varied attacks and multiple goal scorers are becoming the norm.

Some feathers have been ruffled. With every decision there are consequences and as I alluded to earlier some players have lost starting positions leading to dissatisfaction with my decision-making. I have had to speak with some individuals about accepting new roles for the good of the team. Some embrace this idea while others are more selfish in pouting about the change in their role perceiving it as a demotion or a reduction of their importance to the team which isn't the case at all. It's nothing other than a change - no more and no less.

However, there have been rewards as well.  The former left back who struggled with first touch has had much better touch as a midfielder and forward.  I am not yet quite sure how to interpret this.  He had several "whiffs' in the games before the position switch and not a one since?  He has played as defender for a couple of seasons and I wonder if he became bored with the position or perhaps merely wanted to play a different position? It might be that I rarely substitute backs and he has been fresher physically and mentally in playing fewer minutes thereby reducing mistakes caused by fatigue.  He is now playing in 12-15 min shifts with short breaks between them and making far fewer mistakes. 

The new right back has a tremendous leg he is using to switch fields and explosive speed he is using in combination play with midfielders to get himself into the attack.  The new left back has given us a physical presence, improved and increased distributions in starting the attack.  Our new holding mid is protecting the center backs, providing the pivot in transition, switching play and distributing the ball extremely well. A former forward is being allowed to play to his strengths as a midfield wing.

Overall the team is beginning to click. I take the blame for it taking this long, but also accept the credit in the sense that I am the one who ultimately makes the decision. However the real credit goes to Steve, Marc, Phil, Bruce, Randy, Keith, Mac, Billy, Kyle, Dave, Greg, et al. and our players who have provided input and insight. Without contributions from our coaches, colleagues, peers, players and officials I fear my tunnel vision would still be inhibiting the teams ability to play closer to their potential.  So it is, that on behalf of our team, I thank each and every one of you who have shared thoughts and suggestions with me to date. Please, please, please keep up the good work!

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.

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.

Plain and Simple, it is Leadership that makes the Difference.

I am at a high school soccer match nearly every day and if it is a Saturday I will often take in multiple matches. I have seen some very good teams and some not so good teams over the course of my travels. Teams that clearly overachieve and others that just as clearly underachieve.  It occurs to me that one thing makes more difference than all others in determining whether a team succeeds or not -Leadership.

A coach can often make the difference in a program by setting a wise course and having a firm, steady hand upon the rudder, but it still takes player leadership for a team to be successful. Senior leadership is especially important on high school and collegiate teams. This is why even the best of coaches can suffer a down year now and again. Sometimes the leadership from amongst players just isn't up to par.

It has become clear to me that coaches need to make a very real and concerted effort to train leaders on their teams. It is every bit as important as training technical and tactical aspects of play. Sometimes more so.

What prompted this great revelation?  As is usually the case it is personal experience that provided the catalyst.  During my last stint as a high school coach the athletic director forbid me from conducting leadership training with the senior class. I had wanted to use Jeff Janssen's The Team Captain's Leadership Manual as a guide with the senior class. It seemed to be a matter of economics that blocked this proposal although the fact I had grown the program from 17 players to 29 in a single year seemed to be perceived as a threat to other sports at the small school as well.

I knew there was enough talent on that team to win a league title and make a deep, very deep, run in the state tournament. I also knew there were "strong personalities" in the senior class who could derail everything if they did not put the team first.

Great Leaders are Mission-focused

Poor Leaders are Me-focused.

I recognized we had two strong willed individuals in that senior class who were poor leaders. Not allowed to work with them on training to become good, effective leaders as I had planned it was necessary to become creative in doing so.  I did not reach those individuals with the message of mission-focused leadership.  More precisely, I could not find a way to override their me-focused attitudes in favor of a mission-focused attitude. As a result, the team had its best season ever, but still underachieved.

In the last 10 days I have seen two teams that are underachieving, in my opinion.  In both cases a lack of proper leadership amongst the student athletes is a primary reason.  In one case, it is good kids with no idea how to lead and probably receiving little training on how to do so.  In the other case it is more than likely me-focused vision amongst key senior players. To watch either of these teams it becomes apparent they have talent and play some great stretches of soccer, but just cannot put it all together consistently enough.When faced with adversity, they struggle to overcome it despite having the technical and tactical ability to do so. Something is missing. Something is preventing them from playing to their full potential. I am convinced that something is a lack of proper leadership from amongst the players.

As a fan of University of Michigan athletics I am familiar with Bo Schembechler's The team, the team, the team! speech. It is one of the legendary motivational speeches in the history of sports.  That team went on to greatness because they bought in, they believed in something greater than just themselves as individuals. Personal agendas were put aside. They played for one another. This is what great teams do.  I feel that environment can be taught and nurtured or in the very least enhanced through proper leadership training especially of key individuals.

The quality of leadership is the difference.

Make it work for your team.