SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP Mandated formations

So I am watching the women's world cup and they were discussing how in Australia the governing body of their soccer has mandated that all teams run the 4-3-3 like the national team. I think it's very interesting to debate the pros and cons. While all players definitely would know their role and their space, how do you adjust to an opponent and are your taking away so creativity from you players asking them only to play one way. Just curious what others would think if US Soccer told all of us that we were to teach and implement one system.

doesn't make any sense in any sport

Agreed. A stupid mandate. That would be like all football offensive teams having to run the Spread or Wing-T, despite not having the personnel to do so.

Assume that by "all" teams.......they mean all national teams. I wouldn't say thats a dumb thing to do.

If "all" extends out to youth teams at all levels.....yeah, thats pretty dumb.

I'm not sure, I am going to assume all national teams, I hope that they are not mandating it to the youth ranks. I just found it a bit interesting.

Hard to believe anyone would mandate, agree with all your reasons why one wouldn't. Here's a link to a an older article regarding (because of the comma in the address you'll have to copy/paste to your browser)...

http://au.fourfourtwo.com/news/102214,ffas-443-future-in-shakeup.aspx

Link to an article a couple of days ago indicating the Australian women would be "alternate between a 4-4-2 and 4-3-3 formation" at the World Cup...

http://thesoccerroom.com/?p=28617

Pretty certain USSF is "dictating" to a point, the systems of play used by the Development Academy teams.

In two years I have yet to see a 3 back system of play in the Academy, other than in desperation at the end of a game. But never, in terms of a base system.

Formations come; formations go. It's like long hair, miniskirts, wide ties, etc. Everything old is new again.

The reasons NOT to mandate formation are simple:
1) Different players; different skill sets.
2) In-game "time and score" situations affect strategies and dictate formations.

As a coach, what you REALLY want is a viable physical and tactical option for every situation. You want to be able to deal with contingencies and "what ifs".

Of course, that takes vision and flexibility, if you get my drift.

Two points:

1) The rationale behind mandated formations (at least at the youth level) is to de-emphasize the coaches tactical role and to allow players to focus on learning the game.
How often do you see one U12 team trying to play an attacking-possession 4-3-3 get creamed by a 4-5-1 with a physically more mature forward that receives long ball after long ball?
If development is the goal, then mandated formations make sense. If you have been trained in an environment that encourages understanding roles/space - then when you move to a results based environment (professional), you can play in whatever formation is required.

2) A formation is just a tool. Even teams with a more rigid/organized mentality will shift in and out of different formations depending on the situation. A team can play a "4-3-3" but maybe it's a 4-3-3 in attack (could even be a 4-1-5!) and a 4-5-1 when they don't have possession.

----------

It's an interesting debate, but I think you have two separate debates depending on your perspective (competitive-professional or developmental-youth).