Coaches' discussion...not much action...why not?

[dins8]

Which way to force an opponent?

 

It seems odd that there are so many discrepancies and ambiguities regarding which direction an opponent should be forced when he is in the attacking third. I have inquired about this situation to collegiate coaches, ‘A’ licensed coaches, Regional ODP coaches, and even the former Nigerian National coach. Oddly enough, each coach whom I have asked has been confident and obstinate with his answer, yet each coach’s answer seems to blatantly contradict another successful coach. Therefore, this question remains the biggest enigma for me as an evolving student of the game. Do we instruct defenders to force a player to the touchline and teach them that the line provides adequate cover, or do we take away the line and force them to the covering central back, thus eliminating an easy path for a talented attacker to get behind the back line of defense?

 

From years of inquiry and years of encountering so many paradoxes in the game, I have started to teach my players never to say never and never to say always. This mantra encourages them to be innovative in the offensive third, but defending is more black and white, isn’t it? After all, the object of defending is to eliminate creativity, make play predictable, and frustrate dynamic attackers.

 

But, in my opinion, there are holes in each approach to defending, hence the fact that inventive players always seem to find ways to beat even the most organized defense. Take the first approach, for example: the novice coach is comfortable telling his players to force an opponent to the touchline because the coach can myopically point out that the line personifies another player or serves as appropriate cover. Or does it? In all actuality, a line isn’t a defender; it is merely a limitation of space. Indeed, talented attackers love it when a defender gives them line, for some players can dribble on a string. After all, who in their right mind would give Ronaldo line? I guess the best support for the argument that defenders should force opponents to the touchline is that it kills an opponent’s shooting angle, thus preventing him from penetrating centrally where he can have a decent crack at goal. However, if a team fields a modern day flat back, forcing a player line (that player who can dribble on a string) gives him the easiest path to get behind the last line of defense, and, further, forces a center back to cover for the OB who just got burned. That is what a center back is there for though, isn’t it? Hogwash, argues the Nigerian National coach. The worst thing defenders can do is provide easy access for a solid attacker to get behind the back line—even if that attacker has no shooting angle. Now the center back is forced to pick up the OB’s man, leaving the most dangerous area of the eighteen and possibly his mark; moreover, the far side backs are all sprinting toward the goal, unaware of their marks because they are no longer facing them. He also contends that an insightful attacker will quickly slip a ball to the center back’s mark (who is most likely in a scoring position) during the transition process when the CB covers for the OB who allowed his opponent to dribble line. Keep the attacker in front of you, he says; force them in a negative direction; keep your shape; apply back pressure from the midfield.

 

So always take away the line and force players centrally, right? Wrong (at least in my opinion). Taking away that line is only appropriate when there is proper cover. What if the opponents are in transition and the back line has lost its shape or is numbers down? If it is two vs. two, do we want to force a talented attacker centrally where he can easily blast a shot on goal? Would anyone in their right mind force Lionel Messi inside where he can instantly unleash his patent left foot? Hence, it is often appropriate to delay the attacker, kill his angle, and never give him a wider look at the net. In a recent tournament, I watched a KFC keeper scream to his defender, “no line” in a numbers down situation. Thus, the attacker took the central path to the goal, fired a rocket in the back of the net, and shook the keeper’s hand for giving him such a warm invitation to goal. (Okay, I’m lying about the hand shaking part).

 

If you are confused about the best defending approach, you are in good company. Kill an attackers angle, or keep him in front of the back line? Rely on the touchline for cover, or only depend on the center backs for support? Maybe defending isn’t as black and white or as simple as everyone says it is. Maybe there isn’t a definitive answer regarding which way to force an opponent. Maybe that is why I tell my kids that in attacking AND defending, we should never say never and never say always. Thoughts?

[BigG]

Man, Dins... you have a lot of time on your hands! (Not for long, however!)

 

Tough decision. The answer is "yes" to all of your defensive strategies. Sometimes you will have to force line, sometimes you will have to force inside, sometimes you will have to jockey, and sometimes you will have to give them the shot. The smart defender knows when to do what. As you said, never say never and never say always.

 

My answer is to play to the offensive player's (or teams') weakness. One also has to have good speed on the outside defenders, as well as a VERY smart sweeper that knows when to cover. Also, a coach needs to train how to "recover" defensively. That is something many teams don't do.

 

Looking forward to the season starting! Gonna be a cold one!

[dins8]

Man, Dins... you have a lot of time on your hands! (Not for long, however!)

 

Nah, just copied and pasted one of the things we were required to write for a coaching course this summer...added part about keeper from KFC.

[MVM]

I prefer....If you can't stop them, foul'em at the half line. Get your numbers back and defend the free kick. Then Counter, counter, counter.....

[DeKalbsCoachK]

I prefer....If you can't stop them, foul'em at the half line. Get your numbers back and defend the free kick. Then Counter, counter, counter.....

 

Wow, we've actually played teams that do that. I never really considered it to actually be a strategy, but it is really frustrating when you can't build any momentum because you get fouled at the mid line continually. That's why I've started to teach my team to take free kicks very quickly at the mid line to prevent the other team from getting numbers back.

[zizoufan]

I prefer....If you can't stop them, foul'em at the half line. Get your numbers back and defend the free kick. Then Counter, counter, counter.....

 

This conduct should be considered a tactical foul and the offender should be carded. See explanation at: http://www.oregonyouthsoccer.org/assets ... onduct.pdf

 

In practice, you rarely see high school referees or even club referees in Tennessee issue a card a tactical foul. I know a club player, a center back, who routinely trips opposing players when he gets beat on a breakaway. I've seen him do it three and four times a game often sending the opposing player flying. Instead of carding him, the referees just as routinely award the other team a meaningless free kick near the half line, giving the other team time to get back and defend. Saw the same kid get three yellow cards (ending in ejection) in an out-of-state tournament with refs who saw this conduct for what it was and put an end to it.

[MVM]

I prefer....If you can't stop them, foul'em at the half line. Get your numbers back and defend the free kick. Then Counter, counter, counter.....

 

This conduct should be considered a tactical foul and the offender should be carded. See explanation at: http://www.oregonyouthsoccer.org/assets ... onduct.pdf

 

In practice, you rarely see high school referees or even club referees in Tennessee issue a card a tactical foul. I know a club player, a center back, who routinely trips opposing players when he gets beat on a breakaway. I've seen him do it three and four times a game often sending the opposing player flying. Instead of carding him, the referees just as routinely award the other team a meaningless free kick near the half line, giving the other team time to get back and defend. Saw the same kid get three yellow cards (ending in ejection) in an out-of-state tournament with refs who saw this conduct for what it was and put an end to it.

 

Ziz I'm going to show my age, but I do see more of this (tactical fouls at mid-field) now days then in prevoius years. Use to be.... everyone played a diamond in the back with a sweeper, to use as a second defender. Now days the "in" thing is a flat 4 which can leave you short in the back if your defenders have pushed up in the attack.

 

I agree... Refs need to be more aware of these types of fouls.