Soccer coaching forum
and-again soccer forum
Register  |   |   |  Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Walrus

Registered:
Posts: 663
Reply with quote  #1 
Weather it be a 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3 or what have you.  Is there any benefit of playing with 4 at the back at a U16 level if the outside backs are not attacking minded and are stay at home defenders?
MrSoccer

Registered:
Posts: 9,198
Reply with quote  #2 
Less chance of an opponents counter attack scoring on your team. More chance of being numbers up on defense.
__________________
Only the unloved hate
Walrus

Registered:
Posts: 663
Reply with quote  #3 
Mr Soccer, as far as numbers being back, all formations of course and players in them have different responsibilities, but if you play say, 3-1-4-2, all of a sudden, you have the "1" in front of your 3 (you have your "numbers up defensively") and you don't have to tackle that 4 at the back issue.
coachkev

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 14,617
Reply with quote  #4 
You could always drill the defence to press further up towards the half way line
MrSoccer

Registered:
Posts: 9,198
Reply with quote  #5 
"Weather it be a 4-2-3-1, 4-3-3 or what have you. Is there any benefit of playing with 4 at the back at a U16 level if the outside backs are not attacking minded and are stay at home defenders?"

There is no future for a back who is content being a stay at home defender especially at under 16.

He will lose his place as a back to second string mids or even a non starter striker. Who can play defense, but who is also dangerous on attack.

Also any coach who does not want his backs to attack when his team has the ball. Those players should leave that team there is no future for them as they get older with that team.

__________________
Only the unloved hate
Walrus

Registered:
Posts: 663
Reply with quote  #6 
Agree Kev.  Im going to be getting a core group of top level U16.  The current coach is decent however in watching their last 4 games, their outside backs stay at home.  I asked their coach why and he said he didn't have any backs who jump up in attack despite him telling his backs to look to jump in attack any chance they get.  I will say, that his back 4 are VERY good and will be a core of this new team i inherit.  Trying to break their "stay at home habit" will be a bit of a task for sure!
paulee

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 7,853
Reply with quote  #7 
Walrus, there's a big difference between telling the backs to jump into the attack at any chance, and actually training them to do it.
If the back 4 are a solid defensive unit, I don't see the point in breaking that up just because the outside backs don't get forward.


__________________
"When you start, you may have to move tons of dirt to find a gold nugget .... but when you start mining for gold, you overlook the dirt."
-Andrew Carnegie
MrSoccer

Registered:
Posts: 9,198
Reply with quote  #8 
From kids are little I would advise them to always dribble up field before they make a pass. Not just make a pass. Also to take on the first defender then pass. Beating the first defender also creates more passing options for the dribbler.

We would work on taking on an beating the first defender by a drill I called the gauntlet.

Coaches like to say work on attacking first before they work on defense. But encourage your backs to attack after they win the ball your doing both and it is more fun for the back.

So they don't get used to that stay at home mentality.

__________________
Only the unloved hate
Walrus

Registered:
Posts: 663
Reply with quote  #9 
Im not sure how comfortable i feel asking my outside back to take a player on when there could be better options for him, like passing it to an open man?  Two different coaching ideas i guess?
Paulee.  You make an interesting point which brings me back to the original question of this thread?
MrSoccer

Registered:
Posts: 9,198
Reply with quote  #10 
Think in terms of beat your first defender it creates space for Others.

the gauntlet for defenders to help them beat their first defenders after they won the ball. They had 10 yard boxes. Go into the first box their was a defender comming at you from a side position. Beat that defender you have a free box with no defender. Then you enter another box and another defender would came at you from a a different side, beat him and you have a free box. Etc etc. beat them all you ran the gauntlet successfully.

Let's try giving your backs confidence to try things instead of feeding your fear of him failing.

__________________
Only the unloved hate
coachkev

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 14,617
Reply with quote  #11 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walrus
Agree Kev.  Im going to be getting a core group of top level U16.  The current coach is decent however in watching their last 4 games, their outside backs stay at home.  I asked their coach why and he said he didn't have any backs who jump up in attack despite him telling his backs to look to jump in attack any chance they get.  I will say, that his back 4 are VERY good and will be a core of this new team i inherit.  Trying to break their "stay at home habit" will be a bit of a task for sure!

Walrus,
Play SSGs where your 'normal defenders' play as attackers and vice versa.
They physically start by positioning themselves ahead of the new 'defenders'

Because they have been so 'drilled' on being passive defenders, they cannot play any other way.

Walrus

Registered:
Posts: 663
Reply with quote  #12 
I recall back in the day playing on a select team, which was not quite a state level team but close.  First day  out the coach at that time asked who played forward and a few kids put their hands up.  He said " Good, you guys are my back 4, i know you won't have any problems getting into the attack"!

Mr Soccer.  Thanks for explaining the Gauntlet.  It's not so much the outside backs fear getting in the attack, it's more like they are just plain old stay at home defenders. I would say in a 90 minute game you might see them getting up the field in attack maybe 3 times.  Excellent defenders, but very poor attacker which got me thinking why go with 4 at the back if they are going to stay home .  Why  not play some version a 3 at the back (3-5-2, 3-2-3-2, 3-1-4-2, etc)
Ned

Registered:
Posts: 5,009
Reply with quote  #13 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrSoccer
There is no future for a back who is content being a stay at home defender especially at under 16.


This.

The primary goal of youth soccer is (or at least should be) to develop players.

__________________
"Be more concerned with your character than your reputation, because your character is what you really are, while your reputation is merely what others think you are." - John Wooden
Giovanni

Registered:
Posts: 9
Reply with quote  #14 
Are you sure that your players when you talk the players listen?
My opinion is that you did not create a relationship of affectivity with the players.
You must create a relationship of affectivity because if not players don't listen you.
It should inform on effective communication.
 
 
 
 
Walrus

Registered:
Posts: 663
Reply with quote  #15 
With all due respect, you are WAY out to lunch!  This has nothing to do with players not listening, it has to due with the fact, that i had outside backs who did NOT feel comfortable jumping in on the attack so i questioned playing 4 at the back when i could have gone with some type of 3 at the back.  As it turned out we ended up staying with our 3-2-3-2 which he had played for some time.
Snicky

Registered:
Posts: 239
Reply with quote  #16 
Playing with three at the back takes away the decision making of the full backs in respect to when to go forward - so problem sorted.  If you play a 3 - 5 - 2,  the fullbacks can play in midfield (a good way for them to learn how to get play more up the field ).  Issue with the 3 at the back is how to deal with a team that plays 3 up top, and stretches the back 3 . . . you have to go man for man, or it turns into a 5 man defense, or holding mid drops in and you are back to a 4 man back.  All good learning opportunities for young players.
__________________
"Football is simple, but the hardest thing to do is play simple football"  Johan Cruyff
MisterLogic

Registered:
Posts: 95
Reply with quote  #17 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snicky
Issue with the 3 at the back is how to deal with a team that plays 3 up top, and stretches the back 3 . . . you have to go man for man, or it turns into a 5 man defense, or holding mid drops in and you are back to a 4 man back. 


In theory yes, but in practice, the problem with only three in the back is picking up the opposition midfielders when too may of your midfielders are caught forward on the counter, or are too gassed (or maybe lazy) to get back and defend.  Of course, if you can discipline your mids to never let that happen, you are golden.  

In addition, the space is often on the wings for your outside backs to overlap.  So, there isn't a huge advantage to clog up the middle of the park with another midfielder stationed in the middle of the park full time that was shoved up there from the back line.  So, with only a back three, you tend to end up having three guys staying home essentially playing as three center backs, as opposed to with the flat back four where you have two center backs staying home in the middle, with overlapping outside backs helping attack the wings.  There is a benefit to the delayed aspect of the overlapping wing back's run that you don't get if he's already stationed forward as a mid.  As a result, you don't really gain as much attack as you might think with only three backs over a flat back four formation anyway.  So, not much added attack and you are at greater risk defensively.

That said, there are still the same number of players on the field.  So in-game decision making can enhance or negate all of the above.  As a result, I never get too dug in to a specific formation.  It's whatever works to help the players understand their role and how they can be effective as a team.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

COPYRIGHT @ 2004 - 2016 AND-AGAIN, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED