|
|
Post by mamampira on Oct 6, 2013 19:56:18 GMT -5
You soak up all the pressure from the opposing team, all the attacks. The near misses. The goalkeeper saves. The opposing team throws everything but the kitchen sink at you. Your defense bends but does not break!
I accompanied a relative this weekend to Jacksonville, Florida. Their U15B Premier Norcross team played two matches. Both games were a throwback to the old days of the English Premier League where the boys played two top teams, one undefeated in 7 league matches, and came back with 3-1 and 2-1 victories. Smash and Grab style.
They did it by taking their chances. They soaked up the offensive pressure in the first half of each game. And in the second half of each game, they did the ultimate - finish.
There was not to much in the possession game, but they were very, very direct in the attack.
They shored up the middle when they had to.
They pressed the ball up top.
They created panic in the defensive end of both teams in the second half of each game.
The injection of creative midfield play and speed on the wings was key.
The center forward play was dynamic.
The impressive thing was that NSA had the right tactics for a technically gifted team that was undefeated.
They were the kind of matches EPL managers would be proud of, e.g., Bolton of Sam Allerdyce (sp?) era, and the Stokes of 2-3 years ago.
It's good to see the team win, and to witness a coach who used tactics effectively to beat teams.
I also heard that another RPL Georgia team - SSA U15Boys played the same two teams. They won one and lost one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Oct 6, 2013 21:37:58 GMT -5
Who coaches that team? Roberto S.
|
|
|
|
Post by zizou on Oct 6, 2013 22:30:11 GMT -5
That is brilliant mamampira. There are many effective ways to play football depending on personnel. But one of the things you mention is "shoring up the midfield". I think this is important regardless of style if play. This is where most of the battles take place. Your forwards cannot score if there is no one to provide them quality service on a regular basis. Your defense is under constant and rapid assault if your midfielders are weak on the ball.
A slight highjack, but I was inspired by your description of the play, mamampira. When teaching 8v8 soccer, one of the formations I do not understand is 3-1-3. I know the party line concerning the usefulness of this formation. I hear it all the time. Forward wingers must track back to help in defending and gaining possession in the midfield, and wing backs in this formation have space to make runs and get involved in the attack (very important in the modern game). But I still do not buy it. One midfielder? Why have 3 players designated as forwards? Why is this superior to a 3-1-1-2, with one holding and one attacking midfielder? The wing backs could still make runs, the forwards can still learn to play wide, make their penetrating runs when necessary, play off of a centrally located teammate (the attacking mid). You might actually be able to control the midfield with 2 midfielders in 8v8 with the correct players. Transitioning the ball from one line to the next must be easier with 3-1-1-2, and it must be easier to both keep spacing and create triangles and diamonds all over the field.
What am I missing here?
|
|
|
|
Post by soccerpapi on Oct 6, 2013 23:17:14 GMT -5
Magic zizou and mamampira!!! Sounds like a pretty exciting weekend (any given Sunday, anyone can win - that's why we play the game). Some on the old forum (not this one, of course) tend to get carried away when a so-called "super youth team" loses. It happens every week in the PROs (particularly EPL), love to see a well thought out tactical game such as what's been described. Agree with Zizou regarding a strong middle, that is where it's at (play making, creativity, defensive battles). zizou...In regards to an 8v8 formation, I personally prefer a 2-3-2 with a GK. Here is why: First, I prefer not to have 3-defenders marking one or two forwards (at most). With three in the back, I've seen teams/players get confused trying to make a decision who stays free and who marks (particularly if other team only has one or two forwards). This confusion can lead to mistakes. My preference is to simply man-mark with two defenders and no sweeper, particularly on a smaller field, short sided game, I like to treat it like indoor or basketball. Secondly, I like 3 mid-players (a center, technical play maker, and two speedy wing players who can also battle, track back, with one who can at least interchange well with the play maker. Lastly (up top)... like a tall target player who plays back to goal (kind of like BA from Chelsea), paired up with a craftier, low center of gravity, technical forward (sort of like Aguiero from Man City) going at players. With at least one forward putting pressure on the back line, when we don't have the ball, and the other being a constant target. Agree, not a big fan of a 3-1-3... |
|
|
|
Post by dreaddy on Oct 6, 2013 23:17:53 GMT -5
"Shoring up the midfield" is key! My team has been having trouble scoring goals. I switched from a 4-4-2 to a 4-4-1-1 with the withdrawn forward helping out a lot in the midfield. We scored 5 goals today and beat a team that was just below us in the table. Winning that midfield battle is a very important part of the game.
|
|
|
|
Post by mamampira on Oct 7, 2013 5:48:28 GMT -5
Who coaches that team? Roberto S. Yes. I believe so. |
|
|
|
Post by mamampira on Oct 7, 2013 5:56:03 GMT -5
That is brilliant mamampira. There are many effective ways to play football depending on personnel. But one of the things you mention is "shoring up the midfield". I think this is important regardless of style if play. This is where most of the battles take place. Your forwards cannot score if there is no one to provide them quality service on a regular basis. Your defense is under constant and rapid assault if your midfielders are weak on the ball. A slight highjack, but I was inspired by your description of the play, mamampira. When teaching 8v8 soccer, one of the formations I do not understand is 3-1-3. I know the party line concerning the usefulness of this formation. I hear it all the time. Forward wingers must track back to help in defending and gaining possession in the midfield, and wing backs in this formation have space to make runs and get involved in the attack (very important in the modern game). But I still do not buy it. One midfielder? Why have 3 players designated as forwards? Why is this superior to a 3-1-1-2, with one holding and one attacking midfielder? The wing backs could still make runs, the forwards can still learn to play wide, make their penetrating runs when necessary, play off of a centrally located teammate (the attacking mid). You might actually be able to control the midfield with 2 midfielders in 8v8 with the correct players. Transitioning the ball from one line to the next must be easier with 3-1-1-2, and it must be easier to both keep spacing and create triangles and diamonds all over the field. What am I missing here? In 8v8 you might be able to get away with the one midfielder because the fields are smaller and it will not be too tasking to demand the outside players to track back. It really depends on the skill set of the players. To your point, it depends on your personnel. From what I have seen some coaches are just stubborn, they stick to their comfort zone, thereby diminishing whatever advantage they might otherwise have, which in turn dilutes the skills of the players and their eagerness to get better. |
|
|
|
Post by mamampira on Oct 7, 2013 6:00:34 GMT -5
Magic zizou and mamampira!!! Sounds like a pretty exciting weekend (any given Sunday, anyone can win - that's why we play the game). Some on the old forum (not this one, of course) tend to get carried away when a so-called "super youth team" loses. It happens every week in the PROs (particularly EPL), love to see a well thought out tactical game such as what's been described. Agree with Zizou regarding a strong middle, that is where it's at (play making, creativity, defensive battles). zizou...In regards to an 8v8 formation, I personally prefer a 2-3-2 with a GK. Here is why: First, I prefer not to have 3-defenders marking one or two forwards (at most). With three in the back, I've seen teams/players get confused trying to make a decision who stays free and who marks (particularly if other team only has one or two forwards). This confusion can lead to mistakes. My preference is to simply man-mark with two defenders and no sweeper, particularly on a smaller field, short sided game, I like to treat it like indoor or basketball. Secondly, I like 3 mid-players (a center, technical play maker, and two speedy wing players who can also battle, track back, with one who can at least interchange well with the play maker. Lastly (up top)... like a tall target player who plays back to goal (kind of like BA from Chelsea), paired up with a craftier, low center of gravity, technical forward (sort of like Aguiero from Man City) going at players. With at least one forward putting pressure on the back line, when we don't have the ball, and the other being a constant target. Agree, not a big fan of a 3-1-3... Interesting formation 2-3-2, I like the idea of the big and small player up top. |
|
|
|
Post by mamampira on Oct 7, 2013 6:02:28 GMT -5
"Shoring up the midfield" is key! My team has been having trouble scoring goals. I switched from a 4-4-2 to a 4-4-1-1 with the withdrawn forward helping out a lot in the midfield. We scored 5 goals today and beat a team that was just below us in the table. Winning that midfield battle is a very important part of the game. So making the switch worked out, that is what good coaches are all about, they know when to make the switch. |
|
