Freedom comes with Responsibility

We must not take our teammates freedom away by avoiding or abandoning our own responsibilities.

As a functioning member of a team each individual player has a role he must buy into and fulfill through his play. There are expectations for positions within a system and for the players that fill those positions.  While we encourage freedom of movement on the pitch we also stress the increased responsibilities that come with such movement. In essence, we seek free-thinking game watchers. Some players eagerly embrace this concept while others really struggle before "getting it", if they ever do.

Those who struggle with freedom of movement and the associated responsibilities are the players who seek to infringe upon their teammates freedom of movement. These players tend to be ball watchers instead of game watchers.  They follow the ball about the field with their eyes without seeing the game in its entirety. Their body also often follows the ball about the pitch without consideration or regard for their teammates. Essentially they steal their teammates rights to freedom of movement by avoiding or abandoning their own responsibilities.

The selfish, ball oriented player, takes their freedom of movement without accepting responsibility for the freedom they have been given. In doing so, they restrict their teammates freedom of movement.   Teammates are forced to "cover" for the wandering teammate. The selfish player also transfers a greater burden of responsibility onto their teammates by ignoring or eschewing their own responsibilities.

One ball watching, ball chasing player can disrupt an entire system of play. 

This cannot be allowed to happen.

 

When Plans Go Awry

Here is west central Ohio it has been a difficult winter to prepare for the spring soccer season. As we approached our first tournament we had been able to get outside exactly one time. Such was the snow and cold weather this winter.  I'm not complaining. We played indoors and practiced in gyms as we could.  As the weekend of March 15 & 16 approached I made formational, system and lineup plans as best I could.  They night before the tournament began I went so far to script the line ups and rotations for each of the three games we would play that weekend knowing full well I would not stick to the script.

Our first opponent had already played a few games so we were playing catch up from the start, so to speak.  Although they had a much better run of play early we found ourselves up 1 - 0 on a penalty kick.  The opponent quickly asserted itself and won the match 1-3.  They were certainly ahead of us at this point in the season so the loss itself was not disappointing. They way we played did concern me though.

To be honest, there were so many issues to address I struggled to find a starting point.  Thankfully we did not play again until the next day so there was some time to gather my thoughts.  I spoke with various team members and listened to their input, but still struggled with where to begin addressing things. So, I did what I often do in such situations - I said my prayers, went to bed and slept on it. 

When I awoke in the morning I did not go off script, no, I tore the script up and started over.

I had had it in my mind that we would play a 4-5-1 formation with a zonal system defensively and a wide open counter attacking style of play.  We have the wings to do this both in quality and in quantity.  It just didn't click in that first game and the question I ended up struggling with was whether to stick with the script or scrap it in favor of something else.

I had to consider the experience level and soccer IQ of the players we were dealing with.  I do not think I over estimated either, but I also did not factor in the rather limited experience playing in different systems.  "My" system was far different than what most, especially the new additions, were accustomed to. I allow a huge amount of freedom of movement and play. The exchange is the players must take on a huge amount of responsibility for this freedom. In hindsight, I was too ambitious too early in the process.

So, my solution was to scrap the formation while maintaining the zonal defending system. The freedom of movement remained but the rotations were also simplified by reverting to a 4-4-2 formation.  This is a formation predicated more on channels or lanes to align in than is the 4-5-1. It is far easier to understand and requires less thinking in the moment.

We begin clicking in the second game of the tournament.  Although we lost 0 - 2 it was light years better than the first game with credit going to the "new" formation and simplified play with in it.  I would go so far as to say, we were the better team in many facets of the game. Just not in the one that counts the most - the scoreboard.

The third match of the tournament went our way. We played our best match of the tournament against an opponent that had fared well against our two common opponent. We ended up winning 1-0 and generally controlled the run of play. The opponents generated too many chances for my liking, but our goal keepers were up to the task. Our attack missed too many chances but converted on the one we needed to for the win.

A week later we played our first league game.  We were able to practice outside twice and that undoubtedly helped. Still, I was nervous about the match.  To make matters worse we would be missing 4 key players for this match.  We came out strong and although the match was tied 0 - 0 at half there was little doubt about who the better team was that day. The second half things began to click as we scored 3 while maintaining the shutout. 

The point I seek to make to fellow coaches is simply this - when things are not going as expected you face two basic choices: 1) persevere with the belief that what you are doing will work with time or 2) go ahead and admit you might have had it wrong and change things up.

I recall a coaching mentor early in my career who never changed formations or systems of play. He steadfastly believed in "his" way.  Any changes he made were to try different combinations of personnel in an effort to find the right combination.  It quite literally took almost 4 years of discussions before he decided to finally change formations within his program. It didn't seem to matter that current personnel were better suited to playing something else.

I also witnessed another coaching colleague who changed formations and systems of play on a match by match basis which was no good either.  His players were largely inexperienced and his reason for the constant changes was in trying to find a competitive edge against each opponent.

My reason for change was grounded in the recognition that nothing was working as I had envisioned. Even when I narrowed it down to a few specifics to focus on improving I realized the players were likely lacking confidence in what I was asking them to do.  The formation and system were fine. They players are sound. The two just were not as good of match to one another as I had thought. No problem.  It was easier for me to change than to ask eighteen 17 & 18 year olds to do so.

Who influenced my vision of and for soccer?

As the regular season wound down teams throughout Ohio celebrated Senior Night usually recognizing players playing in their final home match of their high school careers.  Through the teams I coach, train and conduct camps for I am sometimes mentioned as someone important in a players soccer development. One such player recently turned the tables on me asking who made the biggest impact on my soccer career. Two names immediately came to mind; Graham Ramsay and Greg Shak.

Now, some of the readers of this blog will know both of these individuals as people who were at one time associated with Lima Shawnee High School Boys Soccer. Graham is an internationally known coach and soccer personality whose annual late July camps were instrumental in building a winning tradition at Shawnee. Greg was a superior student athlete with a stubborn vision of how he fit into the program. The two of them combined have served as catalysts in evolving my own vision of what the game can and perhaps should be.

How can two such disparate people combine to influence my vision of and for the game of soccer?

On one of Graham's visits to Lima we had a long discussion on the concept of Total Soccer which is a Dutch method of coaching based on utilizing small sided games in training to develop players capable of playing anywhere on the pitch. The theory is there should be complete interchangeability among the 10 field position players.

Let's allow that to sink in for a minute as we consider why Greg was also an big influence in the evolution of the system of play I advocate for and coach.  Greg came to us a physically gifted freshman player.  There was an opening in the back line on the varsity team and it was the consensus on the coaching staff that even as a freshman Greg was physically ready play. There was just one catch; Greg had never played any position other than forward coming up through the youth ranks. His heart was not in being a defender.  Long story short, Greg spent most of his high school career as a JV forward when he might have been a four year varsity starter had he been trained in multiple positions and been willing to initially play as a defender.

Total Soccer as introduced by Graham and rebelled against by Greg has been the strongest influence in the development and evolution of my vision of soccer and how it should be played.

Last years Grand Lake United U17 team came close to being able to play total soccer. It was a slow process encompassing 3+ years and roster makeovers each season to get the right fit of players. A lot of the process involved intentionally moving players out of "their" positions and convincing them they could in fact play elsewhere on the pitch.  As players were moved from their comfort zones and worked to reestablish said comfort zones in new positions our ability to play total soccer grew.

A key part of being capable of playing total soccer is developing a strong Soccer IQ in the players asked to play it.  Perhaps the simplest and most basic recognition of the concept can be illustrated by a defender moving forward into the attack and a midfielder dropping off to fill the defenders role.  A simple interchange of positions. There is bit more to it than that and this is where Soccer IQ comes into play. 

For instance, it is not necessary for a midfielder to drop off every time a back goes forward.  There is advantage in moving a defender into the attack in order to create a numbers up situation or cause confusion amongst opponents and force them to change their defending shape to account for the new threat.  When this happens, when a midfielder does not drop back, then the remaining backs must  play passive defense keeping the ball in front of them and delay the attack until someone can join the back line providing the necessary support for the backs to transition from passive defense to aggressively defending and attempting to win the ball back.

If you watch high school soccer you will often find forwards hanging out with opposing backs watching their teammates defend and waiting for a clearance to run onto.  Some teams successfully employ a target forward who plays back to goal in front of opposing backs or makes diagonal or bent runs onto through balls. It is a very simple and singular role. It is also a very predictable and fairly easily defended role.  What if there is constant interchanging of position by the "forward" or target player with midfield players?  Now the opponents do not know where a double team might originate from and also cannot key on one individual as a target player. Less predictability and a far more dangerous proposition for opponents to contend with and defend against.

Prospective players (and their parents) often want to know what formation we will play.  My answer is our defensive shape will be 4-4-2 played flat / flat and paired up top.  Our offensive shape will be based on what the opponents gives us.  I believe in total soccer, in total freedom of movement on the attack.  Therefore the phase of the game we must master is transitioning from attack to defending.  It is not so important that a specific player mans a specific position within the 4-4-2 shape as it is each position within the 4-4-2 is manned and done so from back to front.  Dead ball situations and the brief moments before a game is restarted are when we reorganize and sort out positions.

As with any system of play, it takes buy in by the players and a patience and understanding by parents accustomed to players "staying in position." I would much prefer that youth coaches rotate players through all soccer positions but am resigned to acknowledging while in pursuit of wins this is unlikely to happen.  Development of total soccer players takes time and an understanding that winning or losing a youth soccer game is not all that important in the long term prospects of players.

Graham Ramsay and Greg Shak planted the seeds for total soccer in my mind. For that I am as grateful to them as some players are to me for the role I have played in their soccer careers... and lives.  For me, it's all about empowering the player to explore the full realm of possibilities in their game. A focus on what they can do  rather on someones perception of what they cannot do so they define themselves as a soccer player instead of a forward or an outside midfielder or a left back.