Which positions are most in demand

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listen, I don't know what your issue is, but I'm telling you what is happening right now. There's nothing to stop. It is reality, right now. Another player who was also placed there last year didn't remake the team.

It's nothing personal for you to get offended at.

This may indeed be happening in your DC's team, but it is not a reflection of what happens elsewhere.

I did say different people have different experiences. Nothing is every 100% across the board, ever. But I saw it at the CCL level, then the ECNL level and now the DA level, for 4 different kids of different genders, so it does happen.

The biggest advantages to hiding them in the midfield is you can surround them with stronger players and also their mistakes are not in critical areas or stages of the game.

Everyone agrees ideally, there are no weak players that need to be worked in. When all players are strong, the entire tone of the team is different.

What are these teams' style of play? I cannot see a team playing a high possession game with a weak MF.
Also are you talking about starters of end-of-the-bench players? I would be surprised if a DA or ECNL team plays starts with a weak MF.

[Anonymous]

I've seen it done with different formations over the years, but most teams play a 4-3-3. I don't mind answering. I'm just wondering if it even matters, since you don't accept it regardless.

To your question on starters vs bench players, it's always a question of talent pool depth. At the ECNL, the player was a non-starter. The DA hasn't quite gotten the talent pool depth yet, though I know it will.

[Anonymous]

Thanks. I do not know anything about girls soccer, so I trust you're right. What you described just did not correspond to what I have seen in boys soccer (EDP/DA).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks. I do not know anything about girls soccer, so I trust you're right. What you described just did not correspond to what I have seen in boys soccer (EDP/DA).

Oh sure, I can see that totally. And I don't even claim it as a universal. It's just a common strategy. I also noticed boys' DA and EDP teams do a better job of spreading the field. Which I prefer. I don't favor these compressed strategies where so many players are playing very compact and close to each other.

It's just what they are doing. They compress in the midfield and clog it up with players, while having the wingbacks and wingers cover the outside.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listen, I don't know what your issue is, but I'm telling you what is happening right now. There's nothing to stop. It is reality, right now. Another player who was also placed there last year didn't remake the team.

It's nothing personal for you to get offended at.

This may indeed be happening in your DC's team, but it is not a reflection of what happens elsewhere.

I did say different people have different experiences. Nothing is every 100% across the board, ever. But I saw it at the CCL level, then the ECNL level and now the DA level, for 4 different kids of different genders, so it does happen.

The biggest advantages to hiding them in the midfield is you can surround them with stronger players and also their mistakes are not in critical areas or stages of the game.

Everyone agrees ideally, there are no weak players that need to be worked in. When all players are strong, the entire tone of the team is different.

If you get dispossessed in midfield in your own half you’re most likely going to get scored on

[Anonymous]

Gaps are gaps. Wherever they are, they are exploitable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP - I respectfully disagree, I have rarely seen coaches hide weaker players in the midfield. I think they seem to get parked in outside back positions, assuming there's a strong center back or two to defend the goal.

You put the weakest at forward, as 1 of 3 or 1 of 2 on the field. Let them run a bit, tire out or bang a defender. You'd never put the weakest player in midfield or at ANY spot on defense. Outside backs are supposed to be part of the attack, as well as defending. Have to be able to get up and down the field.

Different experiences then. Multiple times I've seen it and not only that, some of them don't even remake the team. Now, as I said, that doesn't mean that if your DC is in midfield, they are the weakest. That's just usually where a coach hides them - in the club's ibe been involved with.

Even now, our 2 weakest players on the team are both put in MF. One has been tried literally almost everywhere else, and this just is the easiest place to put the player. All it requires is simple passing and when you surround the player with stronger players in front and behind, they can hp compensate for the gap.

To be clear though, I'm not saying that being in MF - or anywhere - means a player is weak. Ideally, you want a side of a strong 11 players.

Last year our team put both strongest and weakest players in MF.

[Anonymous]

No DA or ECNL team puts its worst players in midfield. Physically weakest? Maybe. Slowest? Sure, sometimes. But "hiding" its worst players in midfield? No. Not ever.

The poster who suggests otherwise understands the game the way a a 1st grader understands math.

"All that's required is simple passing, ...."

I guess that's why Barca and Spain always "hid" Xavi in midfield. Lord knows he couldn't have played anywhere else, what with his lack of aggressiveness and failure to win 50/50 balls.

[Anonymous]

I think they may have meant physically weakest. That’s not how this sport works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP - I respectfully disagree, I have rarely seen coaches hide weaker players in the midfield. I think they seem to get parked in outside back positions, assuming there's a strong center back or two to defend the goal.

You put the weakest at forward, as 1 of 3 or 1 of 2 on the field. Let them run a bit, tire out or bang a defender. You'd never put the weakest player in midfield or at ANY spot on defense. Outside backs are supposed to be part of the attack, as well as defending. Have to be able to get up and down the field.

Different experiences then. Multiple times I've seen it and not only that, some of them don't even remake the team. Now, as I said, that doesn't mean that if your DC is in midfield, they are the weakest. That's just usually where a coach hides them - in the club's ibe been involved with.

Even now, our 2 weakest players on the team are both put in MF. One has been tried literally almost everywhere else, and this just is the easiest place to put the player. All it requires is simple passing and when you surround the player with stronger players in front and behind, they can hp compensate for the gap.

To be clear though, I'm not saying that being in MF - or anywhere - means a player is weak. Ideally, you want a side of a strong 11 players.

Last year our team put both strongest and weakest players in MF.

That's a common strategy too. That way, the strongest can offset the weakest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No DA or ECNL team puts its worst players in midfield. Physically weakest? Maybe. Slowest? Sure, sometimes. But "hiding" its worst players in midfield? No. Not ever.

The poster who suggests otherwise understands the game the way a a 1st grader understands math.

"All that's required is simple passing, ...."

I guess that's why Barca and Spain always "hid" Xavi in midfield. Lord knows he couldn't have played anywhere else, what with his lack of aggressiveness and failure to win 50/50 balls.

Listen coach, how many years have you been coaching? What level teams? Not ever is just factually incorrect. Sorry coach. Seen it too many times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think they may have meant physically weakest. That’s not how this sport works.

No, I meant the worst player on the team: the weakest technically, not necessarily the slowest but definitely not the fastest and in general the player with the lesser skills. What people fail to understand is that doesn't mean all of the midfielders are the weakest. You can't have all 3 be the weakest. But you can have 1 weak player with 2+ others (depending on formation). The point is to reduce the impact. Because you sure can't have the weakest on defense. Then you get killed. And you don't want them on offense, or you won't be able to score (which is still something every coach tries to do).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they may have meant physically weakest. That’s not how this sport works.

No, I meant the worst player on the team: the weakest technically, not necessarily the slowest but definitely not the fastest and in general the player with the lesser skills. What people fail to understand is that doesn't mean all of the midfielders are the weakest. You can't have all 3 be the weakest. But you can have 1 weak player with 2+ others (depending on formation). The point is to reduce the impact. Because you sure can't have the weakest on defense. Then you get killed. And you don't want them on offense, or you won't be able to score (which is still something every coach tries to do).

If you play 4-3-3, I see no reason for team not being able to score if you hide a weak player at right forward, for example. It seems like a safer place to hide a weaker player than midfield, provided you have a good right back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they may have meant physically weakest. That’s not how this sport works.

No, I meant the worst player on the team: the weakest technically, not necessarily the slowest but definitely not the fastest and in general the player with the lesser skills. What people fail to understand is that doesn't mean all of the midfielders are the weakest. You can't have all 3 be the weakest. But you can have 1 weak player with 2+ others (depending on formation). The point is to reduce the impact. Because you sure can't have the weakest on defense. Then you get killed. And you don't want them on offense, or you won't be able to score (which is still something every coach tries to do).

If you play 4-3-3, I see no reason for team not being able to score if you hide a weak player at right forward, for example. It seems like a safer place to hide a weaker player than midfield, provided you have a good right back.

I'd say either works, but generally you want your right and left forwards to be able to beat players and create plays. You also want them to be able to track back defensively, so they need some speed. Typically, I have seen coaches put better ball handlers on the wing. Our old ECNL coach explained that he did it on purpose to give his technically sounder players opportunities to create space and form the attack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think they may have meant physically weakest. That’s not how this sport works.

No, I meant the worst player on the team: the weakest technically, not necessarily the slowest but definitely not the fastest and in general the player with the lesser skills. What people fail to understand is that doesn't mean all of the midfielders are the weakest. You can't have all 3 be the weakest. But you can have 1 weak player with 2+ others (depending on formation). The point is to reduce the impact. Because you sure can't have the weakest on defense. Then you get killed. And you don't want them on offense, or you won't be able to score (which is still something every coach tries to do).

The only reason a coach would put their weakest player at midfield would not be to hide them but to develop them. The whole definition of hiding the player is putting them in a position where they would have less of a negative impact on the game. You do not hide them where they would have greatest potential touches and possible influence on the game.

This whole rationale is just plain bizarre.