What does everyone think about SYC
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Exactly. And depending on the timeframe you're talking about a few years ago SYC was under different management. |
Anonymous
Oh the irony of feeling compelled to announce your alma mater and then denying that you are strutting. |
Anonymous
Complete nonsense. Liverpool does not play anything remotely resembling what posters are referring to as "kick and run" - they are a little more inclined to utilize crosses from the wings than a club like Man City, but their front three in conjunction with Henderson play beautiful combination soccer that not even Man City or Barca can replicate these days. That is not kick and run and really is not even that direct (though obviously some of the balls from Fabinho reflect a more direct approach when the opportunity presents). What we see from kick and run clubs is really about exclusive dependence on boots from the goalkeeper into the other half or the inability or unwillingness to play through midfielders at all. Even at U12 and U13, we see some of these teams with a fast fullback or winger simply dribble the ball from one end to the other and launch the ball into the mixer. Cut the crap with your assumption that we are American dads (some of us are not or grew up abroad) or that we don't know as much or more about soccer than you. |
Anonymous
Of course not, and I didn't mean to make that implication. There was an earlier note about what successful clubs do that as a negative attack, so I picked a good professional high level example of a very direct game with the backs dropping the ball directly into the attacking 1/3. But either way, I don't see how your response is relevant - you could say that about any style. Tell me you love Spanish tiki-taka and I can respond that U13's aren't world cup finalists. It's not an argument against style, and it implies that 13YO aren't capable of it because of skill, which just isn't true. The other piece that I would personally argue for in a direct game is that it frequently allows a focus for individual 1v1's. It forces players into a position most frequently where they get the ball at their feet with 1 defender to beat to either make the next pass or go to goal. |
Anonymous
I'd agree with you that you can call kick and run those blasts up from the goalie into nothing. But many, many teams employ that particular style still to this day. And your argument on the distinction between direct vs blast ball is completely fair and you've obviously watched a number of games. But the descriptions from a number of these posters, including just saying "they were faster" implies they have no idea. I'm sure many of you know as much and probably much more about soccer than I do, but lazy posters who want to trash any club either because of a different style or coaching philosophy without actually describing it is amusing and deserve to get called out. |
Anonymous
| ^ blasts from the backs too. Clear it no matter how much space or time default. Ugh. Hate that |
Anonymous
| It is not trashing a club to say that observers have not seen any soccer IQ demonstrated on the field across age groups and gender at a particular club. Its also not trashing to say that another club has clearly better coaching. Must have hit a nerve. huh. |
Anonymous
LoL,Liverpool averaged around 64 percent possession last year. They are not a kick and run team. |
Anonymous
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesnalton/2020/02/06/liverpool-long-balls-sam-allardyce-jurgen-klopp-stats/?sh=5c99f51f5164 and there's more to "long ball" than direct play (which I don't think most of you understand) |
Anonymous
|
Statistic Brazil Germany
Goals scored 1 7 Total shots 18 14 Shots on target 8 10 Ball possession 52% 48% Corner kicks 7 5 Fouls committed 11 14 Offsides 3 0 Yellow cards 1 0 Red cards 0 0 |
Anonymous
|
I think there are a lot of straw men arguments on this thread.
There is a difference between the best way to win a game and the best way to develop players. In order to develop, players need to touch the ball in competitive situations. Clubs which emphasize playing styles which encourage all players to touch the ball frequently tend to end up (a) with players who are more capable because they have developed (b) winning more games than they otherwise would have, as result of this better player devlopment Development in this context means that these players have devloped a better first touch, the ability to make quick decisions under pressure, and the ability to pass quickly and accurately. Irrespective of playing style, these clubs tend to retain possession better (even if they are not playing a strictly possession style) than other clubs because the kids make better decisions and more accurate passes. The clubs which do this best tend to stress the importance of making good decisions. In particular the balance of risk vs reward. So (1) In defense, look to pass out if possible rather than hoof the ball away giving it straight back to the other team. Hoofing is still allowed if there really is no good pass available - or of course if there is a good high reward long ball pass on. But well coached teams will usually have a pass available because the kids know how to move, create space, and show behnd the line. (2) When considering a riskier pass (and most longer passes fall into this category) weigh the reward correctly against the risk. Sure - if you can see that a long ball can be played into an area where there is a high chance of a scoring opportunity devloping then go ahead and play it. But if your long risky pass isn't going to result in a significant advantage then take a different option. (3) If nothing is on - do not mindlessly play the ball forward simply to lose it. Instead move the ball around the field quickly forcing the defense to react until something opens up. None of this precludes playing long balls. And you will see the best youth teams in the area play long balls when a defense is holidng a high line in an attempt to crowd the midfield. And because they have kids who can play those balls accurately and wingers who can run on to them and finish, what usually happens is that the defenses change their strategy. They start to defend much deeper and the good teams are able to change the way they attack in response. That is how the good teams play. Now - what about "kick and run" teams? I have never seen SYC 07 play - so I have no idea if this applies to them. However there are many clubs who don't manage to effectively teach the above - perhaps because it requires the acceptance of losing games while the kids are learning - or perhaps because they're just not very good teachers - or maybe because they're working with kids whose technical skills are just not at a level where they can be successful trying to do this. In any event there are many teams where the kids play a lot of long balls. Not "good" long balls where they see a chance of completing a dangerous pass - the defense just hoofs the ball almost every time they get it. 90% of the time it goes straight back to the opposition. They don't play through the midfield - not because they are making tactically sound decisions in response to the way the defense is set up as they continue to play this way even against a defense playing deep to cover the long ball, but because they simply can't do it - they can't complete the short, quick passes with a high enough success rate not to give the ball away after two or three passes. And defenders, when they win the ball, do not calmly take a second to look up and evaluate their options - confident in their ability to mantain possession; instead they panic and apply the boot as the first option. And at younger ages this style of play can be successful even against teams of the first type for two reasons: 1. The opponents are still young and developing themselves - they are far from perfect and their decisions are neither as good as they will become later, nor is their execution always perfect. As I noted above, learning how to play this way involves losing games sometimes while sticking to the plan anyway. Teams trying to play in a way which develops the kids are prone to making mistakes in dangerous positions and giving away soft goals as a result. The good coaches will encourage the kids to keep playing this way though as they know that the only way for the kids to learn to do it well is to live with the mistakes while they are learning. 2. An early developer - big, fast and strong - can physically dominate defenders. This kid will get on the end of more long balls than the quality of decision/pass deserves and he can score goals. BUT teams who learn to depend on the big, fast striker, while they might well win games for a while, do NOT improve. Because they are not practicing any of the skills which will allow them to improve, and because over time their opponenst do improve and the big, fast kid becomes less physically dominant. |
Anonymous
Fascinating. Do you have the stats from a more recent match, you know, between Spain Germany, which went 6-0? I watched that match in real time. Germany was more dominant than the stats suggest and the goals were gimmes because the Brazilian defense was a mess. |
Anonymous
Thank you for actually taking the time to lay all this out. For everybody else: does anybody disagree with any of this here in developing too teams at area clubs? If not, why aren't more top teams playing this way at younger ages? |
Anonymous
Possession Spain 69 percent - Germany 31 percent; Shots (on goal) Spain 23(10) Germany 2(0); Fouls: Spain 6 - Germany 12 Corners Spain 9 - Germany 2 Yellow cards Spain 0 - Germany 2 No red cards. |
Anonymous
If only I'd taken a little longer, I might have fixed all the typos / spelling errors. Oh well 
|