We were watching the GA cup the other day and Philadelphia Union U17 has a 6'6" center back who seemed to spend more time in the opponent's box than his own...Some players go box-to-box, but 3's go end line-to-end line.
Playing Positions
- Thread starter lulu9155
- Start date
Perhaps the funniest scene and the funniest movie of all time. Growing up in the 80s, man, we were lucky!
Demagoguery? Really...?
Did you take your pill today?
The DM certainly get the best education at this age. Has to defend, but needs to know how to attack. Has to master passing (under pressure) but also needs to learn how to shoot.
The CB also gets a really great education if the coach doesn't limit the role to the CB just booting it up the field. Downsides are since they are usually the last man back at the circle, aren't in a position to shoot which frustrates some kids, you don't know if they'll be good at the position (height wise and headers) until later so unless they are rotating (which is what the recommendations say should happen at this age) they'll have more learning to do later, and it's a high stress position (having to sweep, watch for breakaways, and watch for shots, plus be an outlet for the first pass or to take the first long boom kick). My son had a coach, an Englishman, who never yelled at the strikers except if they went off the rails for fighting, would yell fiercely at the GK for even for things beyond his control, but reserved his special vitriol for the center back. What was really funny is the center back's dad was the assistant coach and they were buddy buddy including going golfing all the time. Head coach dropped his son for upgrades once they got promoted...rather than play the B team the assistant coach walked back to their former club. That experience was also the moment I learned all the talk about "we're a family" they try to sell is just nonsense: if you can drop your friend's kid, not much family there.
Said the analogy before. Soccer is like a band. The strikers are the singers...up there looking for glory, they make or break the music, are hard to replace, and the competition is fierce since everyone thinks they can sing. The attacking midfielders are the lead guitarists...a dedication to the craft, some glory, harsh competition, easier to replace. The DM is the keyboardists...a jack of various trades and has all around the best understanding of the music, a true musician. The GK is the drummer....in the back, removed from the others, sometimes an afterthought, can really f up things if they don't know what they are doing but contribute little to the success of the group. The CB is the bassplayer...none of the glory, can much more than the drummer mess things up but doesn't make or break the band, but if they are good they will always work.
Absolutely love it when I see a team effectively use it's wing backs and complement with inverted wingers.Some players go box-to-box, but 3's go end line-to-end line.
I know every circumstance is different but it irks me when I see a 3-2-3. Given most clubs run a 4-*-*....why not just get them used to a 4-3-1 in 9v9. Everything is situational I'm sure...
4-3-1 is nice for the backs and for the goalkeeper...less stress, can work on building out from the back early (the CBS are in the correct position instead of 1 CB standing where the DM would be)....RB & LB are free to attack higher since they have two in the back...recognizes that the GKs are fairly worthless at this age...allows for much more creative play. Going full circle though, it doubles down on the problems raised by the OP...the CBS become really indispensable because really on a breakaway you are now operating with only 2 instead of 3 in the back, and the emphasis on the striker is to be that one kid that can either boot the ball over the GKs head or to put the ball over the top for a footrace. I agree the 4-3-1 is a better formation for a more competent organization (and that doesn't need to rotate kids through the DM slot or a RB or LB that are holding back)...the assumption is you are teaching all the kids to know what they are doing rather than just holding some slots for weaker kids who have yet to achieve competence. However, I used the 3-2-3 for illustrative purposes since the 4-3-1 just doubles down on the issues the OP very astutely noticed.
Great observation!
p.s. the big thing that happens with the GK from this formation is that you lose the CB at sweeper. One of the big complaints from GK parents at this age is their kids then get blamed for certain situations a sweep would take care of when the GK hasn't been taught how to sweep yet and the coach is yelling at them to fall back into goal (assuming they are floating at all).
The breakaway is a very real threat to a 4-3-1 from what I've seen because those teams are also trying to execute a high press with an emphasis on possession. Especially at that age where an athlete with little technical skill can torch the CBs. At the end of the day, though, it's the long game.
You have a good read on it. Really savvy. But there is collateral damage, in that the blame falls then on the CB for losing the footrace and the GK for letting it in. The English guy I referred to above used to work off a 4-3-1. It really is no wonder why the strikers were his golden boys and the GKs and CBs got the treatment they did, despite the fact that the team crushed everyone in league (which coast made them start at bronze). The fall out came at tournaments and league cup once they advanced to play silver teams with faster strikers. It's a long game, but then it's a question of whether kids like the OP's son can hang in there, or if they get discouraged in the role and walk away from the game. Double down because a chunk of coaches don't know enough about goalkeeping to understand what's happening back there, other than the CB is too slow and the GK can't jump high enough.
Oh this is what i was alluding to earlier about coming out stronger as a CB if the player can handle the finger pointing. Most parents don't understand the pressure the CB/GKs are putting under depending on the style of play. Nor do they understand the long game. If these teams make it to U13 they will be better for it because, like I said, 99% of teams play some form of a 4-*-*. I also think this is why the schedule a coach plans out is vital. If you have your team constantly playing premier level matches/tournaments and the team isn't collectively "there" yet, then, yeah you will have morale issues without a doubt. Mix it up -- setup some friendlies -- create opportunities where the players can see how the style of play is really fun. It truly is a fun thing to watch when you see the kids organically create triangles all over the place.
As a bassist and a former CB, this rings very true...
Good comments except for this… If the kid is on the club’s A team, then I would believe the coach has a plan. If he is on the B team, then the coach is probably just winging it. Further more, if the club does not have access to the right letter leagues, forget about having a plan at age 9. The team will likely disintegrate before age 12.
For sure, the one certainty I've learned about competitive youth soccer is there is no certainty. Clubs/Coaches/Players all come and go. In the case with no team stability, the player will still be stronger for it at U13. I personally would struggle going to a club that doesn't emphasize a 4-3-1 at 9v9 as it would be indicative of a larger problem in my mind (not focused on development, results matter most, training sessions likely aren't focused on building cognition, etc). Obviously it also depends on the kid and their interest level. But I'm a believer that if you're going to learn something, you might as well learn the "right" way. I fully realize my vision of what is "right" can be completely different than what others think....which is fine.
Why is not emphasizing a 4-3-1 at 9v9 indicative of a larger problem?
It’s just a flight 1 team, not pre MLS next. I am only focused on developing the player and having fun.
I would guess the implication is that @NorCalDad believes a club should focus on possession control and defensive emphasis at that age level, for optimal player development, as opposed to another formation/strategy which might have better winning chances. This is fairly subjective, though (as I think he also recognizes, vis-a-vis a vision being "right"). I have different things I want my son to focus on learning, for example, but that's working out fine so far imho (he gets one perspective from his coach, another from me, and he blends them reasonably effectively on the field).
Yeah, 100% subjective. You summarized what i was trying to say much better than I could
Tangential unsolicited follow-up: my son's club very much emphasized possession soccer (to the frequent frustration of some of the parents), with a focus on player development and based on a perception that this is the best strategy to install at that age (ie: up until high school, at least).
I don't fundamentally disagree (broad strokes), but I would prefer they spent a bit more focus on creating attacking chances (generally), and knowing when to play "safe" vs making more risky plays. My son's current team struggles a lot with scoring, and a lot of that is because they are largely following the coaching emphasis, and always trying to play safe, possession oriented soccer. Consequently, I have tried to teach my son to also consider position on the field and in the game, and consider more risky plays when the positive outcome would be more significant (and the negative outcome less so). As a result, he has been one of their stronger offensive players on his team this last season (both personally scoring and setting up opportunities), even playing from his normal DM position.
That said, I walk a line to some extent, because I'm also not trying to undermine the coaching he's being given by the club, even though I would focus slightly differently if I were coaching. I just want my kid to have the best chance of overall success.
I don't fundamentally disagree (broad strokes), but I would prefer they spent a bit more focus on creating attacking chances (generally), and knowing when to play "safe" vs making more risky plays. My son's current team struggles a lot with scoring, and a lot of that is because they are largely following the coaching emphasis, and always trying to play safe, possession oriented soccer. Consequently, I have tried to teach my son to also consider position on the field and in the game, and consider more risky plays when the positive outcome would be more significant (and the negative outcome less so). As a result, he has been one of their stronger offensive players on his team this last season (both personally scoring and setting up opportunities), even playing from his normal DM position.
That said, I walk a line to some extent, because I'm also not trying to undermine the coaching he's being given by the club, even though I would focus slightly differently if I were coaching. I just want my kid to have the best chance of overall success.
From my experience this is super duper normal. My kids teams ran a 2-3-1 in 7v7 so the CBs, DM, and strikers were ready to go in 9v9, but there's a massive shift for the 2,3,8,10. Specifically the wing backs have a heavy physical burden and the midfielders have a ton to learn cognitively. Scoring was always an issue the first year of 9v9. If you have a great 9, then it's not so bad. It takes a lot of work and time to get to a good place. I do think this is where it's important the coach has a well thought out schedule for the year. Mix it up with futsal, etc. It starts to click over time.