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..