Impressive Style of Play

[speno]

Firstly I enjoyed the blog immensely ridges 82. I think we all agree that possession is the correct way to go. Although I do believe possessi on for possession sake can be counter productive, they must be some intent. The book the numbers game has a thought provoking chapter on possession.

 

I do believe that youth coaching should be linked to possession, England is having a big change in both format and coaching in the youth area, as too much emphasis has been placed on winning and promoting bigger and faster players, to the detriment of the national team.

 

However I do agree with soccerintennesseethat school football is a little different and a range of tactics only helps players to adapt and increase their ranges of experiences. Academy teams in England do not have leagues etc, they just play friendlies where scores are not kept afterwards. They may play an occasional tournament, this happens Upto u16. I think there is nothing wrong with coaching them how to win and adapt according to the situation.

 

I thought it was a little harsh labeling the state final as ugly, but I definitely agree that possession coaching is the correct go at a young age and a move away from bigger and faster players with little technical ability that dominate football further up the pyramid.

Edited January 2, 2014 by speno

[SoccerInTennessee]

Again all great reads from my perspective as well! I guess I ramble a bit as well ridges and simply meant to say the Seymour video is irrelevant in terms of it being successful. Sure it was successful against lower teams and some evenly matched, but a lower level team will really struggle beating a better team playing possession soccer. That was really what I was trying to get across. That you can play a possession orientated game but when it comes to knock out games, etc, it's okay to play an uglier brand of soccer to win. Assuming you believe that gives you the best chance to win.

 

Club soccer absolutely has to go this way. The number of youth players that getting ruined through direct play is terrible. Club coaches often put the first two kids to hit puberty up front and play long ball. Looking for nothing more than to win games and collect a check. It is really sad. This stops the entire team from developing. I am not saying everyone is like this, I know from personal experience they are not, but it exists a LOT.

 

Sorry, but if you have waited for a player to develop technically until high school, it is far too late. This stuff should be done from a young age and as I stated earlier, it is not done enough. Other coaches then inherit these players and the parents wonder why the kid is now struggling, etc. They have been scoring 3 goals a game his/her entire life. In business, you hear of the "inertia trap". If you stay pat, eventually you will get passed by companies trying to improve and get better. This is so similar to youth soccer in the US that it is not even funny. And it comes down to a warped view of coaching.

 

I don't think high school coaching needs revamping as much as a lot of people argue (not that any of you have, I'm just rambling again ) We need better coaching from a young age. Teach your backs how to play out of pressure, not to just kick it. Having a technical games allows you to adapt much easier than the other way around. Please above all things make the reason you coach to improve players as footballers and people. No different than teaching: most good teachers in class I have ever had find joy in watching students grow. They are not paid enough and they realize that because they see the value in it. If you want to win games, coach high school or college or Sunday league.

 

Until this occurs in this country, we will remain far behind. Parent influence is a whole new ball of wax. An example I once shared with some parents: Do you think when the Everton youth team subbed Wayne Rooney out of a game his parents asked for a meeting with the coach? Of course not. Demand a high level of coaching and let them do their job. Also, I have had the luxury in playing three tournaments as a youth player in Europe. Between matches, we would walk down the block to a hard court field and play pick up with locals. These courts are everywhere. In America, basketball courts are everywhere. That's a large part of why we are so good at basketball and they are at soccer. Sorry to ramble again, I could talk about all of these topics for days. Happy New Year to everyone!

Edited January 2, 2014 by SoccerInTennessee

[ridges82]

 Although I do believe possessi on for possession sake can be counter productive, they must be some intent. 

 

 

We're now getting into very specific issues within the broad topic of this thread, but I'm going to run with this one real quick.     And it is very nit-picky, but I'd like to use some of my recent readings on this kind of "new-age" tiki-taka thinking...  

 

Those who support the extreme possession game will argue there is no longer such a thing as "possession for possession sake".  The best form of defense is a good offense.  Keeping the ball for ages assures that your opponents do not possess the ball.  And without the ball, they cannot score.  This is something that is really difficult to do, for sure.  But I like the idea of it! 

 

Whoever runs the Seymour channel on YouTube has actually posted numerous videos, of various game highlights.  Through this, I discovered more about some of those games from the "Top 20" video.  The clip that is labelled #5, is actually from their district semi-final game against Jefferson County (a knock-out game).  I don't know how much you guys know about some of these high school teams around the area, but I know Jefferson County's talent level has not been bad the last few years.  And they in fact eliminated Seymour in the same game in 2012.  So, most would argue, pretty level teams, albeit neither would be considered top-tier.  In that clip (#5), I counted Seymour having 44 passes without Jefferson County possessing the ball.  I found this to be pretty impressive.  It also looks like a classic "possession for possession sake".

 

Here is one of the best examples of "possession for possession sake" I have found recently.  There are many videos like this out there, but this one is really exaggerated tiki-taka: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLYosZ-Cc74

 

Happy New Year to you guys as well!

[TinMan87]

I think there is a philosophy that direct styles of soccer are not good soccer.
I played against Lindsey Wilson many times. They are NAIA's powerhouse team and have 9 nat'l championships.
If they can play direct, they play.

I just think that its the coaches job to find what is best for his/her team and than truly form them to that style. It would be difficult to turn a possession team into a direct style, just like it would be hard to turn a team with only wingers and strikers into a possession oriented team.

I agree that coaches have been getting better at determining styles of play, I just dont want to see everyone thinking that direct style does not have its place.

Bearden high school has a very set style. Some years the players do not match the style and the team does not do well. I think it was year '04.

[SoccerInTennessee]

While some may argue that teams play "possession soccer just for the sake of keeping the ball", I don't see many teams do this.  At least at a high level.  There are two purposes to keeping possession: 1. The other team can't score when you have the ball (as ridges mentioned). 2. To connect passes and pull the defense out of position, creating better gaps to go forward.  A backwards pass is nothing more than a means of opening up a better penetrating pass somewhere down the line.  The ultimate goal of this game is to score goals that will never change.  Much of Barcelona's possession comes from these two philosophies.  When consistently under pressure, Barcelona's back 4 can and has been shown to be exposed.  They are, however, fantastic on the ball.  If they keep possession, they are not asked to defend as much.  The same offensively.  Teams often pack it in and play for the counter on Barcelona.  A direct style would not work for Barca.  The movement side to side pulls players out of position and allows Barcelona to play deeper penetrating passes that can create chances for Messi and company.  It is a style that is perfect for them.

 

Even more impressive, and I'm sure Ridges can attest to this as he watches Barcelona a lot, is how quickly they get the ball back.  Their players work twice as hard to get the ball back as they do when they have it.  Their pressing is awesome to watch.  "Tiki-taka" is not played to just keep the ball.  There is much more behind that style of play.  

 

Tin brings up good points as well. Who is to say one style is better than the other? Bearden is a good example of that, as you brought up.  Great teams when the players fit the style and not so good when they don't.  That is why I think it is crucial that every season, your tactics and formation suit your players.  

[ridges82]

Yes.  There is much more behind tiki-taka than to just keep the ball.  But make no mistake about it, that is a huge part of it.  You keep the ball well enough, you're playing a great form of defense.  The key is being able to do it well enough.  At their peak of tiki-taka (2010-2011), the way they make the ball move with almost exclusively 1 and 2 touch is amazing.  Aesthetics, many argue, almost took over as the overall goal.  Of course, anyway you cut it, aesthetics or not, it is still hugely effective.  This being because you're always doing the 2 things SoccerInTennessee describes above, when you're keeping the ball.

 

The defensive part, when at it's peak for Barcelona, was just as incredible as their ability to keep the ball, if not more so - as you mention.  They had the energy to work that hard defensively because they were not wasting huge amounts of energy kicking and chasing, like so many other teams do.  Unfortunately (from my point of view), Barcelona do not play this way anymore.  Over the last 2 years, it has become evident that Pep Guardiola was the driving force behind that very distinct style of play.  They still are one of the better possession teams in the world, but that very exaggerated form left with Pep.  He is now gradually implementing it at Bayern, btw.

 

I am who says one style is better than the other!!    LOL.  This is absolutely an opinion based thing, but one of my main points in this thread is that I do believe a team - a high school program - over the course of a few years can make an exaggerated form of possession soccer  their sole identity, and it be effective.  Maybe even very effective.  There is something to be said about a coach who can adapt their tactics to the players they have - no doubt about it.  But I also believe, with the proper implementation and coaching, a program can become so good at this that they can rely almost exclusively on this style of play.  That is just my opinion.  

 

We have no case study as of yet, to my knowledge, in Tennessee high school soccer.  I hope one day we will.  I think there needs to be some degree of technical skill already possessed by players coming in as freshmen, in order to implement such a drastic possession style of play (this of coarse means they have been receiving the proper type of training at a high-level club for most of their young lives).  However, I don't think this is as essential as some of you may think.  And herein lies where we differ on this subject.  I believe what some of you have said, or hinted at, is that a good coach will realize if he doesn't have enough players with great technical skill and so he will have his team play very direct to make up for the lack of skill.  Well what if they also have a lack of speed?  What I am learning, especially from the 3four3 blog, is that you can implement the required technical skill, as you implement the tactical system.  Let's be honest, it is much easier for a coach to teach his team to play direct.  It is easier for them to say, "we're lacking in technical skill, it'll be easy to just tell them to kick the ball up the field," instead of making a real effort to teach them possession tactics.  Also, and this would probably be more often the case, many coaches do not possess the knowledge / ability to coach a tight possession style of play.  This is really the main obstacle, I believe.

 

As I keep saying, this is an opinionated thing; and to each his own.  I just like to throw my ideas out there.  I know there are fundamental differences in our philosophies.

[TinMan87]

I agree that there are many coaches who cannot teach a tight possession game. but than again there are a lot of coaches who can, but cannot with the level of play they have.

Tight possession is very difficult because one mistake from a key player at a key moment creates a counter attack situation.

I think you would see Seymour getting scored on quite a bit against a top tier opponent  by counter attacks.

I disagree, I think that technical ability is a HUGE factor. Bad touches in tight possession lead to turn-overs. 

A direct style does not always mean kick and run. I would say Holland play a direct style in the last World Cup finals. That game was truly a difference in style where both were very very effective. Holland lost, but had many good opportunities to score.

Direct can mean, play the ball to a mid, play it back, play it to a big man striker (even in the air), play it back and than hit a midfielder making an overlap run. 4 passes. The first two take you 30 yards up the field, the next two take you another 30 yards up the field. its controlled, its effective, its safe. 
Or, play the ball to a midfielder, he plays it back to the center D, who plays a long switch high to the winger, who finds a midfielder, who finds the opposite winger on a diagonal. Once again, going distances fast, but doing it controlled.

To be honest, I think that possession style teams have to be able to play direct sometimes for two reasons:

1) it can create a surprise attack with a high rate of success
2) once the above happens the other team will have to drop of a tad (opening the middle for possession)

I think for technical ability to be adapted (in a short season) there has to be a level of ability already in place. This can happen by two ways (IMO)
1) You have good technical players and can use them as like a goal for others
2) you train your freshman for 2-3 years and than the above level is in place and now your sophomores are already there and your freshman are able to get there quicker, and your 8th graders are seeing the level and trying harder, so they are a tad bit ready when it comes to their freshman year.

If you have a lack of speed you are in trouble either way you look at it. Barcelona does not have a lack of speed. 

[SoccerInTennessee]

Tin, I think you and I seem to feel relatively the same about this. Technical ability is the BIGGEST factor in my opinion as well. I won't reiterate what you said, but I strongly agree. The above training regimen you described is grasping for a lot to happen. To make that style work, you have to have a consistent influx of talent. I don't think a public school could do this CONSISTENTLY. There are some private schools that I think could do it, as doing it successfully would attract players. The closest team I have seen play this style, at least when I played, was Christian Brothers HS out of Memphis. From what I know, they get a large portion of club players from the area. As long as drawn lines define where your players are coming from, I wouldn't rely on fitting constantly varying talent into a style of soccer.

 

I think the fact that not many coaches have tried to do this speaks volumes about it. High school coaching has come a long way and as I stated earlier, most I talk to about this say it is near impossible. And many of them have won multiple state championships. I never played against a team, in high school, that had 4 backs comfortable enough technically to play this. I don't think it is realistic to train kids for 2-3 years and then have them only play as juniors and seniors. Again, that's my opinion. My philosophy is that you take your best 11 and put them in the best position to succeed. The next year, you do the same. That may change. If you started 11 seniors that all played club together and had no depth and played possession style, it's unlikely you could do that next year. The talent to do it is not there. You could say this is possible, but I strongly believe it is not. There are some players no matter how well you train them, CAN'T do it. In my humble opinion, high school is strongly suited to fitting talent to formation. Not trying to fit your talent into a set formation.