Playing styles

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have you had a chance to observe Vienna? Very impressive ball handling skills.

Hmmm - that doesn't sound good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have you had a chance to observe Vienna? Very impressive ball handling skills.

+1. Vienna is a very well run organization.

[Anonymous]

People continue to refer to possession soccer when they are in fact referring to nothing more than playing with structure and shape. This is fundamentally the system that is taught at a few clubs in this area at early ages, along with playing out of the back. Let’s be really specific about what this means and what the alternatives would be. First, anybody on the field is likely to receive a pass and must make a decision about where to go next. Not just the goalie, a preferred defender, a wing and a striker. Everybody. Second, everybody must be aware of where they need to be on the field. If they are not working in proper spaces, the possessor of the ball cannot make any decisions because he won’t have good options. This is nothing more than playing in triangles, which everybody eventually learns to do (and was taught even in the 80s in youth soccer in this country, albeit when we were too old to do much with it). Third, and this is really the least understood part of what a few of these clubs do, they have a very specific shape and approach to defending. This is actually the most difficult part for kids to understand and apply. The reason these clubs appear to play possession is because they are often playing with more structure and shape than their opponents, who can neither possess the ball for long nor understand how to defend spaces against an organized team. There is nothing magical about this. Just very few clubs are willing to do it at younger ages. You have to have patience for losses and tolerance for risk. Not a lot of those qualities in this area. These clubs are not encouraging creativity. They are consistently encouraging the easy way out and a lack of discipline that results in fewer options for more skilled players and therefore less reward for creativity. I don’t like dogmatic approaches to anything, and I agree that players should learn a variety of ways to play, but I strongly disagree that structure cannot or should lot be taught to younger players. It is essential for all that follows, and kids who are able to play in this system will have far confidence than all of the players on more direct teams who get very few touches or decisions on the ball. Just my opinion and of course reasonable people may disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People continue to refer to possession soccer when they are in fact referring to nothing more than playing with structure and shape. This is fundamentally the system that is taught at a few clubs in this area at early ages, along with playing out of the back. Let’s be really specific about what this means and what the alternatives would be. First, anybody on the field is likely to receive a pass and must make a decision about where to go next. Not just the goalie, a preferred defender, a wing and a striker. Everybody. Second, everybody must be aware of where they need to be on the field. If they are not working in proper spaces, the possessor of the ball cannot make any decisions because he won’t have good options. This is nothing more than playing in triangles, which everybody eventually learns to do (and was taught even in the 80s in youth soccer in this country, albeit when we were too old to do much with it). Third, and this is really the least understood part of what a few of these clubs do, they have a very specific shape and approach to defending. This is actually the most difficult part for kids to understand and apply. The reason these clubs appear to play possession is because they are often playing with more structure and shape than their opponents, who can neither possess the ball for long nor understand how to defend spaces against an organized team. There is nothing magical about this. Just very few clubs are willing to do it at younger ages. You have to have patience for losses and tolerance for risk. Not a lot of those qualities in this area. These clubs are not encouraging creativity. They are consistently encouraging the easy way out and a lack of discipline that results in fewer options for more skilled players and therefore less reward for creativity. I don’t like dogmatic approaches to anything, and I agree that players should learn a variety of ways to play, but I strongly disagree that structure cannot or should lot be taught to younger players. It is essential for all that follows, and kids who are able to play in this system will have far confidence than all of the players on more direct teams who get very few touches or decisions on the ball. Just my opinion and of course reasonable people may disagree.

Too long, no paragraph structure, couldn't be bothered to read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People continue to refer to possession soccer when they are in fact referring to nothing more than playing with structure and shape. This is fundamentally the system that is taught at a few clubs in this area at early ages, along with playing out of the back. Let’s be really specific about what this means and what the alternatives would be. First, anybody on the field is likely to receive a pass and must make a decision about where to go next. Not just the goalie, a preferred defender, a wing and a striker. Everybody. Second, everybody must be aware of where they need to be on the field. If they are not working in proper spaces, the possessor of the ball cannot make any decisions because he won’t have good options. This is nothing more than playing in triangles, which everybody eventually learns to do (and was taught even in the 80s in youth soccer in this country, albeit when we were too old to do much with it). Third, and this is really the least understood part of what a few of these clubs do, they have a very specific shape and approach to defending. This is actually the most difficult part for kids to understand and apply. The reason these clubs appear to play possession is because they are often playing with more structure and shape than their opponents, who can neither possess the ball for long nor understand how to defend spaces against an organized team. There is nothing magical about this. Just very few clubs are willing to do it at younger ages. You have to have patience for losses and tolerance for risk. Not a lot of those qualities in this area. These clubs are not encouraging creativity. They are consistently encouraging the easy way out and a lack of discipline that results in fewer options for more skilled players and therefore less reward for creativity. I don’t like dogmatic approaches to anything, and I agree that players should learn a variety of ways to play, but I strongly disagree that structure cannot or should lot be taught to younger players. It is essential for all that follows, and kids who are able to play in this system will have far confidence than all of the players on more direct teams who get very few touches or decisions on the ball. Just my opinion and of course reasonable people may disagree.

Too long, no paragraph structure, couldn't be bothered to read.

Sorry. I will tweet next time. Forgot the target audience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People continue to refer to possession soccer when they are in fact referring to nothing more than playing with structure and shape. This is fundamentally the system that is taught at a few clubs in this area at early ages, along with playing out of the back. Let’s be really specific about what this means and what the alternatives would be. First, anybody on the field is likely to receive a pass and must make a decision about where to go next. Not just the goalie, a preferred defender, a wing and a striker. Everybody. Second, everybody must be aware of where they need to be on the field. If they are not working in proper spaces, the possessor of the ball cannot make any decisions because he won’t have good options. This is nothing more than playing in triangles, which everybody eventually learns to do (and was taught even in the 80s in youth soccer in this country, albeit when we were too old to do much with it). Third, and this is really the least understood part of what a few of these clubs do, they have a very specific shape and approach to defending. This is actually the most difficult part for kids to understand and apply. The reason these clubs appear to play possession is because they are often playing with more structure and shape than their opponents, who can neither possess the ball for long nor understand how to defend spaces against an organized team. There is nothing magical about this. Just very few clubs are willing to do it at younger ages. You have to have patience for losses and tolerance for risk. Not a lot of those qualities in this area. These clubs are not encouraging creativity. They are consistently encouraging the easy way out and a lack of discipline that results in fewer options for more skilled players and therefore less reward for creativity. I don’t like dogmatic approaches to anything, and I agree that players should learn a variety of ways to play, but I strongly disagree that structure cannot or should lot be taught to younger players. It is essential for all that follows, and kids who are able to play in this system will have far confidence than all of the players on more direct teams who get very few touches or decisions on the ball. Just my opinion and of course reasonable people may disagree.

Too long, no paragraph structure, couldn't be bothered to read.

Betting your kids are the ones who cannot learn systems of play at earlier ages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:but I strongly disagree that structure cannot or should lot be taught to younger players. It is essential for all that follows, and kids who are able to play in this system will have far confidence than all of the players on more direct teams who get very few touches or decisions on the ball. Just my opinion and of course reasonable people may disagree.

This is spot on. Kids on teams who play this way develop technical skills because they are using them all the time. Kids on teams playing direct soccer do not develop in the same way.

A parent I know, when recently attempting to describe a local team's style of play, described the number 10 as their "front defender". How do players get the practise they need to develop in such a system?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People continue to refer to possession soccer when they are in fact referring to nothing more than playing with structure and shape. This is fundamentally the system that is taught at a few clubs in this area at early ages, along with playing out of the back. Let’s be really specific about what this means and what the alternatives would be. First, anybody on the field is likely to receive a pass and must make a decision about where to go next. Not just the goalie, a preferred defender, a wing and a striker. Everybody. Second, everybody must be aware of where they need to be on the field. If they are not working in proper spaces, the possessor of the ball cannot make any decisions because he won’t have good options. This is nothing more than playing in triangles, which everybody eventually learns to do (and was taught even in the 80s in youth soccer in this country, albeit when we were too old to do much with it). Third, and this is really the least understood part of what a few of these clubs do, they have a very specific shape and approach to defending. This is actually the most difficult part for kids to understand and apply. The reason these clubs appear to play possession is because they are often playing with more structure and shape than their opponents, who can neither possess the ball for long nor understand how to defend spaces against an organized team. There is nothing magical about this. Just very few clubs are willing to do it at younger ages. You have to have patience for losses and tolerance for risk. Not a lot of those qualities in this area. These clubs are not encouraging creativity. They are consistently encouraging the easy way out and a lack of discipline that results in fewer options for more skilled players and therefore less reward for creativity. I don’t like dogmatic approaches to anything, and I agree that players should learn a variety of ways to play, but I strongly disagree that structure cannot or should lot be taught to younger players. It is essential for all that follows, and kids who are able to play in this system will have far confidence than all of the players on more direct teams who get very few touches or decisions on the ball. Just my opinion and of course reasonable people may disagree.

Too long, no paragraph structure, couldn't be bothered to read.

Betting your kids are the ones who cannot learn systems of play at earlier ages.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you had a chance to observe Vienna? Very impressive ball handling skills.

+1. Vienna is a very well run organization.

Very cool, Kevin!

[Anonymous]

There should be a possession style league where all of the teams participating agree to play in a possession style

[Anonymous]

Liverpool has 78% possession today and lost 7-2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liverpool has 78% possession today and lost 7-2

Perhaps they were possessed by possession?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Some thoughts.

1) Most of the clubs have a hard time retaining coaches from year to year. There are a few marquee coaches at some clubs,, but the majority are unknowns. I would be hard pressed to state definitively that any specific club has good coaching across all their teams. Kids/parents should know who will coach them before they pick a club.

2) At the younger ages, there is no need for a style of play. In reality, it shouldn’t even be part of the discussion. The physical space and drill design should be planned to encourage good decisions. I see far too many clubs run 30 minute passing and pattern drills every practice to make the kids look like the club has a style. This time would be better spent working on technical skills. Patterns and styles should come later. If I give a 10 yo a hammer and a nail, it may take him a full minute to nail it into a board. A 15 yo will take a couple of seconds. Introducing concepts too early is painful for everyone, but takes away from the kids developing.

3) Alexandria is one of the clubs where they do a lot of pattern play with their younger kids. Is it attractive soccer, sometimes. Unfortunately, the kids are told at a young age that there is a right way and a wrong way to play. When they get older, they are trained to make what they were taught was the right decision. That passing system is not always the best decision, but the kids have not been trained to make decisions, only execute their rote patterns. After the kids go through puberty, 13/14 for girls 15/16 for boys, that singular style of play isn’t working for the teams. (The teams underperform). Sometimes the best decision is to kick it to the fast kid and score instead of trying to build out of the back under high pressure. I’d be suspicious of any club who claims they are teaching a style because they are likely not teaching the whole game.

Coach here -

1) Agree wholeheartedly. Coaching retention is very difficult for clubs, especially the smaller ones. It can make things very difficult for parents to determine which club is best for them.

2) I agree that pattern play isn't the best use of time for the younger ages. I slightly disagree when it comes to the wording of style of play. Drills should encourage good decisions indeed, but we also need to help players see what good decisions are and why. That being said technical ability is paramount at the younger ages.

3) Alexandria certainly has a style of play as part of their curriculum. I'd say it's evolved a bit over the years, but you still know it when you see it. While I wouldn't say it's bad, it does seem to limit some options and therefore some decision making for the players.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Some thoughts.

1) Most of the clubs have a hard time retaining coaches from year to year. There are a few marquee coaches at some clubs,, but the majority are unknowns. I would be hard pressed to state definitively that any specific club has good coaching across all their teams. Kids/parents should know who will coach them before they pick a club.

2) At the younger ages, there is no need for a style of play. In reality, it shouldn’t even be part of the discussion. The physical space and drill design should be planned to encourage good decisions. I see far too many clubs run 30 minute passing and pattern drills every practice to make the kids look like the club has a style. This time would be better spent working on technical skills. Patterns and styles should come later. If I give a 10 yo a hammer and a nail, it may take him a full minute to nail it into a board. A 15 yo will take a couple of seconds. Introducing concepts too early is painful for everyone, but takes away from the kids developing.

3) Alexandria is one of the clubs where they do a lot of pattern play with their younger kids. Is it attractive soccer, sometimes. Unfortunately, the kids are told at a young age that there is a right way and a wrong way to play. When they get older, they are trained to make what they were taught was the right decision. That passing system is not always the best decision, but the kids have not been trained to make decisions, only execute their rote patterns. After the kids go through puberty, 13/14 for girls 15/16 for boys, that singular style of play isn’t working for the teams. (The teams underperform). Sometimes the best decision is to kick it to the fast kid and score instead of trying to build out of the back under high pressure. I’d be suspicious of any club who claims they are teaching a style because they are likely not teaching the whole game.

Coach here -

1) Agree wholeheartedly. Coaching retention is very difficult for clubs, especially the smaller ones. It can make things very difficult for parents to determine which club is best for them.

2) I agree that pattern play isn't the best use of time for the younger ages. I slightly disagree when it comes to the wording of style of play. Drills should encourage good decisions indeed, but we also need to help players see what good decisions are and why. That being said technical ability is paramount at the younger ages.

3) Alexandria certainly has a style of play as part of their curriculum. I'd say it's evolved a bit over the years, but you still know it when you see it. While I wouldn't say it's bad, it does seem to limit some options and therefore some decision making for the players.

On the last point, when a team has shape, it enhances options for players. It does not limit them. Your teammates are supposed to be in particular areas at particular times to give people on the ball maximum opportunities when they make their next decision. If you are not in the right places, the options narrow for the worse. Passing options also enhance the likelihood that you can retain the ball and dribble between lines and creates advantages in particular space.. And more generally, whether or not you have shape, there are good and bad decisions, just like there in absolutely every other sport where you have pass, retain, run, dribble, shoot options. People who grow up in systems learn how to make these decisions, and more of those players learn how to make them because more of them get touches on the ball all over the field. Again, this is not possession soccer. This is just soccer with shape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liverpool has 78% possession today and lost 7-2

Perhaps they were possessed by possession?

Something was possessed...three goals off of deflections, wow