|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 532
goal
|
goal
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 532 |
good points, but i dunno, i've always thought that man2man defense for yth hoops should be a mandate over zone.
& with every season of rising clueless current college hoop players, i'm convinced even more.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062
brace
|
|
brace
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062 |
The point is, there is no SINGLE answer.
Why not teach it all? Why not mandate that coaches develop "total" players -- a la Netherlands -- as opposed to single-minded defenders or attackers?
If you want kids to understand the relevance of formations/strategy/etc., you show them the benefits/pitfalls of each.
The analogy was made to the man vs. zone argument in basketball. While I agree that "man" provides a foundation, "zone" is a relevant and viable strategic option. Indeed, any accomplished coach, including those who preach 100% "man" defense, would tell you that the best "man" defenses include "zone" principles, and vice versa.
The answer is not to limit; rather, it is to open minds to possibilities.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062
brace
|
|
brace
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062 |
The point being: If I were limited to teach only one, I'd teach man. But why would I limit myself (and my players)?
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 532
goal
|
|
goal
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 532 |
i agree & my point regarding man2man was directed at yth hoops, maybe 10 & under
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,826
world cup
|
|
world cup
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,826 |
Quote:
The point is, there is no SINGLE answer.
Why not teach it all? Why not mandate that coaches develop "total" players -- a la Netherlands -- as opposed to single-minded defenders or attackers?
If you want kids to understand the relevance of formations/strategy/etc., you show them the benefits/pitfalls of each.
The analogy was made to the man vs. zone argument in basketball. While I agree that "man" provides a foundation, "zone" is a relevant and viable strategic option. Indeed, any accomplished coach, including those who preach 100% "man" defense, would tell you that the best "man" defenses include "zone" principles, and vice versa.
The answer is not to limit; rather, it is to open minds to possibilities.
Where do you think the Aussies (or Reyna, Barcelona, etc...) got the idea from? The Dutch have taught a "mandated" 4-3-3 since Cruyff.
I think people are getting caught up on the word "mandate," rather than thinking about the benefit of a simplified, yet very specific, approach to presenting the game to youth.
Even if it were a hard mandate, no federation has the resources to enforce it.
So the purpose then is to have a clear idea of what kind of player you want to develop. Ibrahimovic or Carlton Cole?
The job of parents, mentors, teachers, coaches is to guide youth and prepare it to make decisions for itself once it reaches a mature age, no?
The Dutch identified the 4-3-3 as the "total" formation and have used it as a platform to teach their philosophy. With that unified approach they have produced players that can play in any league/team/formation in the world. The Spanish have adopted and retrofit this philosophy..with pretty stellar results.
I'm not saying the answer for us is to copy them, but we shouldn't try to reinvent the wheel either..
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062
brace
|
|
brace
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,062 |
Understood. And interesting points, all.
First and foremost ...
Don't believe I said there is anything wrong with 4-3-3. I like the 4-3-3 (or virtually any reasonable formation) as a single platform FOR TEACHING. However, I also believe that mandating a single national system across thousands of clubs in a country the size (and population) of ours is not necessarily the way to go. If sport teaches us ANYTHING, it's that there are many strategic ways to skin the metaphorical cat, assuming you have enough physical/technical know-how (skill). Our players lack that physical/technical know-how. Maybe, it's because we lack a monolithic, unified national vision. Or maybe, just maybe, it's because we have failed to maximize our greatest strength -- diversity.
That said ...
My overall sense of the Dutch (in essence, Ajax) philosophy is extremely positive. And of course, I'm not interested in reinventing the wheel. I would point out that our (uniquely American) wheel tends to be geometrically larger, more populated and more diverse than the Netherlands' small, though extremely passionate, wheel. Our very size presents roadblocks to a single national philosophy, ALTHOUGH I CAN UNDERSTAND IT AT A NATIONAL TEAM LEVEL ... OR EVEN ON A CLUB-BY-CLUB BASIS.
I also like the idea of simplifying the game for younger players. It only makes sense. But I would point out that there's nothing inherently more "simple" about 4-3-3 than there is about 4-5-1, or 3-5-2, or a diamond midfield, or any REASONABLE system. 4-3-3 glows when played by kids who are the survivors of a multi-dimensional training system that hinges on oh-so-much more than "formation." (Like what they experience at Ajax.)
Who can argue with the results? You cite Spain and The Netherlands -- each a threat to win any and all competitions it takes on. And yet, I think many would argue that those nations' greatest periods of international success are every bit as contingent on a "golden generation" of uniquely talented players as opposed to the system that develops them. We are blessed to witness Spain's golden generation now. You can make the case that the Netherlands' golden generation flowered in the '70s-80s. Some would argue that Mexico is on the verge of a "golden generation."
Guess my point is, before we choose a model, let's be certain it's the right model for us.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 541
Goal
|
|
Goal
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 541 |
Coaches should keep formations simple and basic until players learn how to play and exceed in a couple or 3 positions. imo most coaches are not doing a very good job teaching player what to do and how to be supportive in the position they play. how can a player excel in a funky formation when he/she isn’t even proficient in the position they play? KISS
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,826
world cup
|
|
world cup
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,826 |
Quote:
Maybe, it's because we lack a monolithic, unified national vision. Or maybe, just maybe, it's because we have failed to maximize our greatest strength -- diversity.
We do need a monolithic, unified national vision—development. My original point was that “mandating” a single formation at the youth level is not solely about control or even the 4-3-3. It’s about creating an environment where players, coaches, and parents can focus on learning/teaching the game – rather than competition first, everything else second.
I completely agree that utilizing our diversity is our greatest challenge and our greatest asset. For me, this is what makes American soccer so exciting. At some point though, the Wild West has to become Silicon Valley. The lawlessness of self-determination has to morph into a free market of innovation. I think we’ve made progress in this, but we still have a long way to go. Viewing recommendations or “mandates” as repressive is only going to make more room for the shysters (clubs/coaches) that pedal the quantity of wins rather than the quality of talent they produce.
Further on this (and relating to our uniquely American “wheel”), I think one biiiiiiig step USSF can take in this direction is to increase involvement of former internationals in the organizational structure, Earnie Stewart comes to mind. Former players that are familiar with our advantages/limitations and have DIVERSE opinions as to how to make the best of it.
Quote:
I also like the idea of simplifying the game for younger players. It only makes sense. But I would point out that there's nothing inherently more "simple" about 4-3-3 than there is about 4-5-1, or 3-5-2, or a diamond midfield, or any REASONABLE system. 4-3-3 glows when played by kids who are the survivors of a multi-dimensional training system that hinges on oh-so-much more than "formation." (Like what they experience at Ajax.)
Agreed. The point is to create a consistent environment for kids to learn..rather than changing formations every week/game/half! thinking that they’ll be able to execute a tactical masterpiece when they don’t even have a firm grasp of how to move off the ball!
Quote:
And yet, I think many would argue that those nations' greatest periods of international success are every bit as contingent on a "golden generation" of uniquely talented players as opposed to the system that develops them.
True, it was a bit of a cheap shot… still, I think it’s important to have a distinct (yet evolving) idea of the type of players you want to develop. To me, it would be a luxury to begin worrying about when our “golden generation” will come along, because that implies we have some standard to judge from.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 57
throw in
|
|
OP
throw in
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 57 |
Part of learning the game is learning different formations and learning to play in situations where you are not comfortable. Seriously I read these posts and I always see where we look at this European country, this South American country. At the end of the day kids everywhere are different. As soon as American soccer tries to put it's own identity on it's game things will go improve. I don't like teaching one way of doing anything. We need to teach the kids to understand the game and situations that arise during the game. I encourage my kids while on the sidelines to let me know what they think or what they are seeing. I really believe that kids need to be students of the game and learn all that they can, physically and mentally.
|
|
|
|
