Book: Revised Chapter 14

Copyrighted material, page 1 of 13

14

Penny Goes to Work

Penny entered Oodles of Poodles for her first day of work. After graduating from the poodle hair styling academy, she had finally found a job. Soon, she’d be cutting the hair of her fellow poodles.

143

.........................................................................................................................

Copyrighted material, page 2 of 13

144

When the shampoo pooch dumped hair clippings on the floor, Penny began to have doubts about the shop. She also noticed an unusual sign in the window: “No Tips, No Clips.” And the shop manager informed her that hair must be cut and then shampooed. What a strange place!

Business was slow, but Penny finally had her first customer. She hacked through the poodle’s hair as best she could, and then sent him back for a shampoo. He soon returned, and Penny held up her mirror for the final okay.

The butchered beast howled, and the manager came running. Penny was fired on the spot, despite her protests. From the shop door, a Help Wanted sign again hangs upside down.

Clippings on the floor? Enforced tipping? Haircuts before shamppos? No wonder the shop was always hiring. It had serious system problems.

System problems might also be to blame for those 7-0 losses you’ve endured. Poorly positioned players? Confusing responsibilities? You need a thoughtful defensive system, as explained in this chapter. The next chapter will provide an example.

When your team allows a goal, it helps to understand why. Perhaps your defensive system is flawed. But perhaps a defender or two didn’t follow your system. A breakdown in defensive skill is another possitiblity. Your defensive system is just one piece of the puzzle.

Imagine the Possibilities

A defensive system includes two items. The formation gives a general idea of who will play where, while the responsibility plan explains who does what in different situations. You could say the formation diagrams the positions as if they were stationary, while the responsibility plan puts those positions in motion. To think clearly about defensive systems, keep these two items separate.

Looking first at formations, they're usually represented with a sequence of three numbers. The first number refers to the Fullbacks, the second to the Halfbacks, and the third to the Forwards. The formation to the left in Scene 14-1 would therefore be a 4-4-2, while a 3-5-2 is shown to the right.

........................................................................................................................

Copyrighted material, page 3 of 13

145

Formations are a bit more complicated, though, because the players in each position might be staggered in various ways. For example, one of the Fullbacks or Halfbacks might be in front of or behind the others. Each formation below could be called a 4-4-2 (Scene 14-2). But in the 4-4-2 to the left, the four Fullbacks are staggered, with one (a Sweeper) placed behind the other three. (You could call this a 1-3-4-2, but long sequences of numbers can be annoying.) To the right, the Fullbacks are lined straight across the field—a Flat Back Four—while one of the Halfbacks is placed behind the other three.

Looking next at responsibility plans, these should answer some important questions. How will the defenders work together? Will they guard specific opponents, or protect different zones? When the ball is here or there, who will move to the ball and who will hang back a bit to provide backup? If the ball gets past one defender, how will the other defenders respond?

................................................................................................

Copyrighted material, page 4 of 13

146

The 4-4-2's below share the same basic formation. Each has a Sweeper behind three Fullbacks (Scene 14-3). But the responsibility plans are entirely different. To the left, the Fullbacks are guarding various zones and will let opponents come and go through those zones. To the right, they're guarding specific opponents wherever they might run, and would be called Marking Backs.

Given all the possible defensive systems, which one should you choose? There isn't one single best system! If there was, every coach would use it and there would be no surprises.

While there isn’t one best system, here's a logical way to navigate through the possibilities. First, figure out the qualities you'd like in your system. Such qualities could also be called logical criteria. Then, look at the possibilities in light of those qualities.

The process won’t yield one defensive system to be used in every situation. You might modify your system due to the team you’re about to play, the strengths and weaknesses of your players, or the match situation. And the system you begin a match with might not be best if you’re down a goal at the end. Flexibility with defensive systems is always a plus.

Don't Neglect the Middle

Here's a useful quality for formations. Your formation should place enough players in the middle areas of the field, as opposed to around the field's edges. Middle players are always close to the action, while players near the edge can left out occasionally. Middle players can more easily shift between defending and attacking. And they can protect your goal from two serious threats: dribbles up the middle, and shots from the middle.

................................................................................................

Copyrighted material, page 5 of 13

147

In light of this quality, the 3-3-4 in Scene 14-4 appears weak. Only your Middle Halfback is positioned in the middle. Your other Halfbacks are spread wide, and your Middle Fullback is sagging back. Your Middle Halfback has too much to do and too little help.

That doesn’t mean a 3-3-4 is unworkable. Much depends on how your players are staggered and coached. In the 3-3-4 below (Scene 14-5), your Middle Fullback is pushing forward, your Outside Halfbacks are pinching toward the middle, and your Outside Forwards are back a bit to help with the wider areas. The numbered name is still 3-3-4, but the middle coverage is much different.

Reconsider That Sweeper

Here's another useful system quality. Your formation should position more than one defender along the imaginary offside line. I believe at

..................................................................................................

Copyrighted material, page 6 of 13

148

least two defenders are required along the imaginary offside line, to protect the field's width in the back. And my preference is to have exactly two. Other coaches might prefer having three or four defenders there.

The term Sweeper refers to a lone defender along the offside line. In other words, your Sweeper is positioned behind the other Fullbacks. What's the primary attraction of this formation? If one of your Fullbacks is beaten, your Sweeper is there to provide backup.

Personally, I dislike Sweeper formations. The key triangle tends to point away from the ball, producing three geometrical issues (Scene 14-6):

1. Only your Sweeper is guarding the width of the field in the back. If he is pulled to one side, the other side might be unguarded for a moment.

2. Opponents can move behind the other Fullbacks without being in an offside position, since your Sweeper determines the imaginary offside line.

3. An opponent dribbling through the middle has only your Sweeper to beat. Your other Fullbacks are too far forward to back the Sweeper up.

These challenges can be overcome if your players know how, or if your Sweeper is outstanding. Many great teams and coaches have used Sweeper formations. But Sweeper is not a required position. If you agree that a Sweeper creates more problems than it solves, you'll want to find a more useful spot for that player.

..................................................................................................

Copyrighted material, page 7 of 13

149

Marking Back Problems

The next three qualities involve responsibility plans:

* Your system should make sure there are no wide open spaces in dangerous places.

* Your system should facilitate keeping possession of the ball.

* Your system should enable players to switch easily from defending to attacking and back again.

In light of these qualities, a system with Marking Backs and a Sweeper might have issues. Your Marking Backs will guard specific opponents—Forwards, usually—until the ball is regained. Your Sweeper will provide backup in case one of your Marking Backs is beaten. What's the appeal of such a responsibility plan? Guarded closely, the opposing Forwards might not get many touches on the ball. And when one does get the ball, he must beat a Marking Back as well as your Sweeper. Your team can quickly regain the ball and launch attacks of its own.

The problems? You’ve got that one-player offside line again, with all its geometrical issues. Also:

* Opponents can create open spaces too easily. Your Marking Back might shut down an opposing Forward, but that Forward isn't required to stay in one place. If he cuts to the other side of the field and your Marking Back follows, an open space has been created for another opponent (Scene 14-7).

* It's not a possession-friendly approach. Once your team regains possession, your Marking Backs might not be in the best spots for keeping possession. Why? They’ve just been following opponents

.................................................................................................

all about the field (Scene 14-8). And before your Marking Backs reach their best spots, your team might lose possession again.

* It's not an energy-efficient approach. Your defenders must burn a lot of calories getting from their defensive locations to their best offensive locations and back again. Is all that running really necessary?

Exploring Flat Back Formations

If you place more than one Fullback along the imaginary offside line, you've created a Flat Back formation of some kind—meaning that your rearmost Fullbacks are flat across the back. A Flat Back Four is probably the most popular variation (Scene 14-9), followed by a Flat Back Three. The formation I’ll describe in the next chapter is a Flat Back Two of sorts, although I don't call it that.

..................................................................................................

Copyrighted material, page 9 of 13

151

Flat Back formations get a thumbs up. They eliminate the Sweeper and its related problems. There is more protection of the field's width in the back. The space behind the Fullbacks is now off limits because of the offside rule. And if one Fullback is beaten, another Fullback can easily provide backup. Also, the players are well situated for keeping possession.

How many Fullbacks should you place along the imaginary offside line? Instead of a single best answer, we have tradeoffs. Four Fullbacks can more easily protect the field's width in the back. That might be critical on a wide field, or against opponents who effectively use the field’s width. But if you place only three or even two Fullbacks along the imaginary offside line, you'll have one or two players to place somewhere else—such as the vital central areas. Would you rather have more players along your back line, or more players controlling the central areas? The choice is yours.

Here's the system quality that's involved. Your formation should consider the tradeoffs between width protection and central protection.

Placing fewer defenders along the offside line has another subtle advantage. With four defenders back there, the offside line can easily get out of sync. If one defender sags too far behind, or if three attempt an offside trap while the fourth isn't paying attention, a breakthrough might be allowed. Two defenders can more easily move the offside line up and back. And for all its weaknesses, the one-player offside line represented by a Sweeper is the easiest to pull forward and back.

It’s another system quality worth considering. Your formation should create an offside line that's easily pulled forward and back.

Exploring Flat Back Responsibility Plans

How does the responsibility plan work with a Flat Back formation? Trick question! A term like Flat Back Four refers only to a formation. It doesn't dictate a particular responsibility plan. If you choose a Flat Back formation, you may set up the responsibility plan however you like. But keep three system qualities in mind.

First of all, your responsibility plan should depend primarily on a zonal approach to defending. You wouldn’t want your Fullbacks operating as Marking Backs, following specific opponents all about the field. This could allow wide-open spaces in the worst possible places. As opponents come and go through their zones, your Outside Fullbacks should stay on the outside, and your Central Fullbacks should remain central.

Secondly, your responsibility plan for a Flat Back formation mustn't allow your Fullbacks to remain flat. Scene 14-10 (next page) shows why.

..................................................................................................

Copyrighted material, page 10 of 13

152

Your four Fullbacks are flat across the back as the ball approaches. They'll now have a hard time backing each other up, and there is only one layer to get past. A well-timed pass or a slick dribbling move can beat all four defenders at once. While flat sounds fine in formations, it's disastrous in responsibility plans!

Thirdly, your responsibility plan should explain in detail how pressure, cover, and balance will be provided. Scene 14-11 illustrates those three standard soccer terms.

Rather than your Fullbacks remaining flat, here’s what typically should happen:

1. One Fullback steps forward to the ball to stop its advance, prevent dangerous actions like open shots, and win the ball back if possible. That first Fullback is said to be providing pressure.

.................................................................................................

Copyrighted material, page 11 of 13

153

2. At least one of your defenders remains close by but hangs back and to the side a bit, in case the first defender is beaten. That second Fullback is said to be providing cover—not to be confused with covering an opponent. Note that if the pressuring defender is beaten, the covering defender will suddenly become the pressuring defender.

3. Rather than having all our defenders congregating around the ball, some will operate further from the ball. These defenders can guard vulnerable areas, deprive opponents of open space, and prepare for the ball to come their way. Defenders performing one or more of these tasks further from the ball are said to be providing balance.

A moment without pressure, cover, or balance can quickly result in a goal. But there isn’t one correct responsibility plan for providing these items. Imagine a particular situation on the field. Coach A might provide pressure, cover, and balance in one way; Coach B in another. No two coaches will agree completely about every situation.

One possible formula for providing pressure, cover, and balance—based on distance from the ball—goes something like this: “The defender closest to the ball should immediately pressure the ball. The next closest defender should provide cover at the correct distance and angle. And defenders further from the ball should provide balance.”

Could such a formula constitute one correct responsibility plan that every team should use, in every situation? I think not, because questions like these could still be raised:

1. The term balance can refer to several different actions, such as guarding a vulnerable space or tracking down an opponent. What if a defender must choose between two of these different actions?

2. Sometimes, two different defenders might be equally close to the ball. Which one should provide pressure or cover?

3. If we can provide cover on both sides of the ball, would that be a plus?

4. Sometimes, the nearest defender to the ball might have other worries. Must he still go immediately to the ball?

Consider Scene 14-12 on the next page. Our Left Fullback is closer than our Middle Fullback to Opponent A, who has the ball—but not by a wide margin. Whether or not he goes to the ball might be influenced by his assessment. Can anyone else get there in time? Are there other concerns? He's also protecting a very important space. If Opponent B receives the ball, a goal could result. It would be entirely reasonable for our Left Fullback to stay put while our Middle Fullback goes to the ball.

.................................................................................................

Copyrighted material, page 12 of 13

154

Or consider Scene 14-13. Once again, our Left Fullback is closest to Opponent A, who has the ball. But Opponent A isn’t the greatest danger. He’s too far from the goal to shoot, and by the time he’s close enough another defender might arrive. Opponent B, upon receiving the ball, will have only the Keeper to beat. Who could blame our Left Fullback for not pressuring the ball immediately? Since no teammates are providing cover, he must concern himself with pressure and cover at the same time, without tipping off his choice.

It would be a shame if our Left Fullback prevented a goal in these scenes, only to be corrected by the coach: “No, no, no! The closest defender should always pressure the ball!”

Moral of the story? Be open to different ways of providing pressure, cover, and balance. A formula based on distance from the ball isn’t some ultimate truth. I’ll soon provide a different way, of which you should be equally skeptical!

..................................................................................................

Copyrighted material, page13 of 13

155

Think For Yourself!

When coaches talk about defensive systems, word issues usually creep in. System is a broad term that could refer to most anything on a soccer field. For example, we could also speak of our system for attacking, for taking free kicks, or for keeping possession. Many coaches use the term system of play—a formation with defensive responsibilities and attacking responsibilities.

Here’s why you need only speak of defensive systems at this point. When your players are defending, they can fulfill their obligations in a very structured, systematic way that can be rehearsed in practice. The same degree of structure isn't possible when your players are attacking. Too much depends on the location of opponents and of open spaces. If your players hope to break through and score, they must read the situation, venture into open space, and attempt the unexpected.

As we've seen, though, your defensive system will have important implications for attacking. For example, your formation and responsibility plan should facilitate keeping possession. Your formation should position enough players in the middle, where they can switch quickly from defending to attacking. And if you place six players along the back line, you won't have much of an attack.

With defensive systems, your thought process is even more important than your final choice. Don't settle on a system just because you grew up with it, or because everyone else seems to be using it. That system might work fine, if you understand the weaknesses and iron out the details. Then again, it might have more problems than a poodle barbershop. Think independently and critically about defensive systems.

Visualizing the details of a defensive system can be difficult, particularly if you haven’t played much soccer. The next chapter, by providing an example, should help.

Go to Chapter 15: Defensive Systems: a Detailed Example