The Paradox of Possession

Anyone who has read this blog may well have noticed that I consider possession to be a vital part of my philosophy on football. One might say that possession is a vital part of any philosophy, unless the coach prefers to watch his side lose. However, in this case I mean that my entire philosophy is built around holding the ball. This is something which I have spent the last few months attempting to teach my youth team, with varying levels of success. A question has since sprung to my mind - how much possession is too much?

The core of this question refers to possession in the attacking half. I have a team that is excellent on the counter attack and has a quick, direct (not long ball, but a quick succession of forward passes) style of play. The fear our coaching team had was that this, in the higher division in which we now find ourselves, would leave us open to more intelligent sides who would pick us apart.

The image on the left shows in red, our formation for last season (one that I have not seen another 9-a-side team use, they all seem to prefer 3 man defences) and in blue, the one we plan to use for this season.

This season we have moved to a five man midfield, which I have yet to see in 9-a-side. The reason for this is that it would give us three central midfielders who would be able to dominate the middle and control possession, with one pushing forward to join our striker when the opportunity presented itself. The central midfielder (holder) at the base of the three would pick up the ball from defence and begin attacks, either passing out wide or to a team mate in midfield who made themselves available.

I firmly believe that this is a system that should work. It allows us to dominate the middle and has width in the two wide midfielders who have more licence to push forward when the midfield are on the ball. It also offers flexibility as the extra central midfielder can shift positions when required. It can easily revert to a 3-4-1 when the team is under heavy pressure or to a 2-4-2 if we are dominating the game.

The problem seems to be that the players don't understand why we should hold the ball in the midfield zone. Many of them do not appear to be comfortable enough on the ball to keep the ball for large periods of time. I would prefer for us to dominate possession and move the ball until we make ourselves room for a throughball which leads to a quality chance. The difficulty is that U12s rarely have the patience or concentration to keep the ball until that opportunity arises.

The players seem to be happier playing in the very effective 2-4-2 formation. They can attack teams with speed and intensity. We have a striker who seems to have taken elements from the new emphasis on possession and creating our goals (i.e. passes and moves that we make because we know they will get to a player, rather than hitting forward to chase in hope) and is playing some superb through balls. Our players seem to be slowly understanding the need to retain possession and create opportunities through movement, rather than forcing a pass that just isn't on. It would now seem to make sense to use 2-4-2 on teams that will be weaker than us as it gives us many points of attack and makes it difficult for the opposition defence to play out (a 3v2 situation for them at the back often leads them to hit long, rather than pass out, giving opportunities to win the ball back). Against stronger teams it still seems sensible to use 2-5-1 to give us control of the game and allow us to create enough chances to win the game. The players simply need to take on the philosophy. When teams start to cause us real difficulties, perhaps this will happen.

Andrew

The Difficulty of Possession

Possession football is not, as some would have it, possession for possession's sake. Possession of the ball has many notable advantages, the most obvious being that with the ball you can score and without it, barring a catastrophic error, the opponents cannot score. The main benefit of possession football over a more direct style is that it allows you to work and create opportunities even when the opponents defence is organised.

A direct style of football has a time and place. It is essential in a counter-attack. The counter-attack should be a weapon in the armoury of every team. Ideally from a set piece, players can burst forward and exchange quick passes to create an opportunity whilst the opponents defence is disorganised. The counter-attack should allow you to create 2v1 situations against a defender, thus avoiding the need to attempt to defeat a defender in a 1v1 situation. 

However, many teams will look to play direct football when the opposition defence is organised. They will often play it long to an attacker who will look to header the ball into the path of a team-mate. This, again, leaves a great amount to chance and to 1v1 battles. If this fails, which it can often do, then the team must win the ball back. This will cause them to expend energy and will waste time that could have been spent attacking.

A style of football based on keeping the ball in this situation seems far more effective. It does not have to be played like Spain or Barcelona, where the ball will be kept around thirty yards from goal for an extended period of time, until a lightning fast succession of passes/dribbles leads to a shooting opportunity in the box. It can simply be a case of looking for opportunities as and when they arise, waiting until a forward has found a half yard of space and then playing him in, or trying to build 2v1 situations against defenders. It can involve attempting to drag the play to one side of the pitch, thus creating space on the other side, then quickly switching the play to that side and exploiting that play. This style of football can also recognise where there is not an opportunity or where it may be more expedient to pass to back to defence or square to a midfielder and start again. 

What this style doesn't do is leave things to chance by hitting the ball long and hoping for an error. This style of football leads to playing intelligently creating opportunities. The high line this style would produce should also lead to the ball being recovered more easily.

This is a style that I have found incredibly difficult to implement at youth level. It comes in patches, wonderful patches, but when the pressure is on, players often resort to playing quick, direct football. It is a complete project as it encompasses an entire philosophy. It seems entirely worthwhile. Players must understand that this style should be the ultimate goal. Success at youth level is fleeting and can often be something of an impediment to development if trophies are the only goal. I hope to report in six months that the players have begun to understood this.

Re-boot

I'm going to reboot this blog and give it another go. I need to write in order to truly think through my philosophy on football. I would like this blog to become a useful source of information and opinion for youth football or to at least make people think about why it matters. We can create clever, self-sufficient , ambitious, hard-working and dedicated footballers and people if we try. This can only happen if you want it to. If you are prepared to take the easy route of training and playing to win - and while this may seem like the harder route, it is not - then you have missed the greatest opportunity that working with young people will give you. This is the opportunity to give them the tools to maximise their own potential. It is never the case that you, as coach, have made the player into the player he is today. You have provided him - or not, as the case may be - with the opportunity to develop as far as you can teach him.

In addition to those thoughts, I have ideas about the way football should be played and what the purpose of football is. It is a game, yes, a sport, but it provides children with the opportunity to be heroes. I have no doubt that people who have played sport will look back fondly on times where they have achieved something that they thought beyond them. A volley into the top corner perhaps. A full length diving save. A dazzling piece of skill performed subconsciously because the player had trained and muscle memory took over. This gives great excitement and confidence. Some children may not be particularly good at school and may lack social confidence. Football or any other sport may act as an escape, or a great source of comfort. It is important to note that many children may not always equate success with winning. This is an adult mentality. Children tend to enjoy football a lot more when they have a job they understand and are good at. They often enjoy the game a lot more when they feel confident in what they are doing rather than being in a team that wins.

However, that is often balanced by the fact that few children enjoy losing. It is the environment which they are in which can determine the reaction to the loss. If the coach has framed the game as a win/draw/lose scenario then the child has clearly failed at the scenario they were presented with. As such, they will probably feel upset. If the coach frames the game around performance, then even a loss can have good and bad points. Goals scored to goals conceded will always be one of the primary ways of measuring a performance but if the coach highlights certain things he would like to see in the game rather than 'a victory' then he will see the players attempting that rather than going straight for victory. Children can often play a more direct game when victory is the end goal in an attempt to score as quickly as possible. This can do little for their development.

Anyway, this is just a general introduction to my philosophy. It always makes things clearer to have them written down (or typed out!).

Andrew

The PR problem of defence in youth football

Children often see being placed in defence as some sort of insult or punishment. Youth coaches also see it as somewhere to stick big kids who can win the ball and kick it away. In reality, especially at the younger ages, playing in defence offers considerable development opportunities. It helps the player develop a sense of positioning and allows them to build defensive skills of tackling and heading which are useful in any position. A coach who encourages his defenders to pass and improves their ability to do so will create a team with a counter attacking capability. Many players actually enjoy playing in a defensive position as it allows you to be involved in the game. Your responsibilities are often much clearer than they can be in midfield.

However, the fundamental attraction of football for many children is the excitement of scoring a goal. Players of this age place huge importance on the scoring of a goal. I have been asked by children this season that if they will be able to score a goal if they are in a certain position as their first thought about the role. This is never going to change and should be encouraged. The negative connotation of playing in defence needs to change however.

I feel that some of this comes from the parents. While many parents are absolutely perfect and understanding, a minority can cause problems. They will tell their child that they should be playing in attack - as if it is some form of promotion - and will often first ask "did you score today?" rather than "did you have fun today?". The child will sometimes lose self-confidence or self worth as they did not score and therefore did not do well. One of the greatest problems for a manager in youth football is the unhappy parent. However much a player may like and respect you, the parent's opinion will almost always trump your own (usually more qualified) opinion. A source of considerable parent dissatisfaction is the position their child is placed in. This almost always seems to stem from their child being placed in defence and not being rotated. The parent rarely seems to have a problem if their child is playing as a forward or a midfielder every week. This problem is deeply rooted within the physche of the casual observer of football.

Ray Winstone demonstrating
correct practice

I have heard of several instances already this season of parents expressing dissatisfaction with the manager because they have "stuck" their child "at the back", as if the manager is attempting to ignore the child. Whilst I have no doubt that some coaches operate that way, the majority do not and the attitude of the parent is unhelpful. It strengthens the fallacy in the player's mind that the coach is punishing the player or does not rate them. It is strange that this is far less of a problem at the professional level. Defenders such as John Terry, Rio Ferdinand and Carlos Pujol are feted as world stars and many children wear shirts bearing their name. Some of these children then get upset if they are placed in defence.

This is not a critical problem for youth football. Many children do in fact realise the value of defending and many actively enjoy it. Children should be rotated and given chances to play in different positions as it develops their game and I am certainly not suggesting that players should be played in defence all the time. The PR problem that defence seems to have in youth football is one it could do without and as we continue to develop our grassroots techniques and philosophy I'm sure it will be worked upon. Until then, individual coaches will have to work hard to rid defence of its stigma.

Language in Amateur and Youth Football

The lexicon of football has long been ridiculed and rightly so. British football, at its lowest and highest levels, finds itself in the grip of phrases so absurd and counter-productive that even saying them makes you a worse player or coach. This is with the exception of the smug blog poster, in which case it makes you a worse human being.

A player showing textbook technique to get rid of the ball
his team spend the game trying to win

The old classic, "get rid", has long been a staple of the amateur coach and competitive parent. This usually leads to the young - or in some cases old - player treating the ball as if it is an unpinned grenade that should be smashed forward lest it explode in their penalty area. The phrase suggests that having the ball at your feet is a dangerous exercise and it is better to get the ball as far away from "the danger area" as fast as possible. It is a well known fact, of course, that anyone who plays in defence is not a good footballer and is just about capable of kicking the ball a long way and getting in the way of the better players.


Another favourite of the amateur coach is that his team have "stopped talking" or a similar variant. Whilst I agree that a good conservation can really liven up a dull game I can't say it is what I went into football for. If I had, I would certainly have been disappointed. Sometimes, players will be told that they are in possession of "time". Regrettably, I have yet to see any opposing players pull out Bernard's watch and manipulate time.  Players will also often find that they have left their four leaf clover and horseshoe in the changing room as they are often told that they are "unlucky", when in fact they have committed an error that is really their own fault. Rather perversely, if a player does eventually receive the luck that has previously deserted him he is often treated by opposition coaches and players as if he has cheated in some way. The definition of luck is for something to happen by chance rather than through ones own endeavours.

My favourite instruction that I have heard from an opposition coach was a desperate call to his team: "Come on guys, play better". Whilst this did not appear to set off any eureka moments for the players involved, at least the players knew exactly what the coach wanted.

The Introduction of 9v9 Football at Youth Level – Its Benefits, Weaknesses and Long Term Ramifications

Andrew Findlater discusses the implications of the introduction of 9-a-side football for youth football next season.

In September 2011, a large shift in youth football will begin. The introduction of 9v9 football at the Under 11 and Under 12 levels in many leagues nationwide is one of many changes proposed in youth football but it may well become the most significant. Other proposals, such as the removal of league tables at U9 level and a possible summer season indicate a desire to improve the structure and effectiveness of youth football. However, here we shall focus on 9v9 football, which is seen as a ‘stepping stone’ from 7v7 to 11v11. The structure of9v9 football, its benefits and weaknesses and the potential tactics will all be examined in order to really understand what these changes mean.

Whilst an ordinary 11v11 pitch is roughly 105 metres by 65 metres, 9v9 will be anywhere from 70m by 40m to 80m by 50m. This means that the pitch could be around a third smaller. In addition to this, goal sizes will come down from the senior size of 2.4m x 7.3m to 2.1m x 4.8m. This is a significant reduction in the width of the goal and a small reduction in the height of the goal. This small reduction may have a large effect on the ability of younger goalkeepers to save shots high the goal. This is clearly the intention of the change. Many of the rules of 9v9 football are the same as the full 11v11 game, including offside, throw ins and the penalty area. A maximum squad size of 18 has been established by the Football Association, however many leagues including the Surrey Youth League have established limits of 13 players to be brought to each game. The games will last 70 minutes over two halves of 35 minutes.

What do these rules and changes mean? It is hoped that the smaller pitch and player numbers will allow players to be more involved in the game. Players should spend more time on the ball on average than they would in an 11v11 game. This ought to lead to players developing greater technique and being more comfortable on the ball. It is often said that one of the greatest failures of the British youth setup is that it does not develop players who are comfortable on the ball and have the technique to keep possession under great pressure. The shift to 9v9 alone will not solve this but if it is combined with good coaching then it should produce players who are used to being on the ball. The size of the goals is also a positive development. Many at youth level have been witness to goals scored against ten year old goalkeepers that sail over their head with no chance of being saved. The smaller goals will have the double effect of giving goalkeepers a fair chance and forcing players to actually beat the goalkeeper, rather than getting their goals at a young age from hitting the ball where the goalkeeper cannot reach and struggling as the goalkeepers grow taller.

The use of 9v9 as a stepping stone has been supported by Trevor Brooking, an ex-England international and Director of Football Development at the FA. Whilst speaking to Club Website he commented that "Any skill I might have had as a player was almost there when I was 11 and I don’t see that in sufficient 11 year olds these days… If your technical skills aren’t there when you start playing 11v11, you’re never going to cope with the game." As one of the driving forces behind 9v9 Brooking hopes that the two years spent playing 9v9 will allow players to develop the technical skills required for 11v11. The change in size of the pitch will hopefully see a drastic reduction in the use of the long ball over the top to a quick striker and a greater focus on passing and moving and quality technical play.

The weaknesses with the change to 9v9 are mostly financial. Whilst County FAs are renting and selling goals at relatively cheap prices, many clubs are struggling financially during this time of austerity and the challenge of marking out specific pitches and hiring specific goals for just two age groups may be one that some clubs may struggle with. However, the costs associated with the project are relatively small and are mostly in respect to its initial set-up. Some may feel the use of a stepping stone at U11 and U12 levels is a waste of time but instead I applaud the FA and the regional leagues that have taken this project on as anything that can improve the development of players must be at least given a trial.

The introduction of 9v9 throws up some interesting challenges for the youth manager. The choice of two defenders or three could possibly be the key to success next season. A two man defence is susceptible to goals from midfield runners and could be pulled apart by clever forwards. However, the two man defence does allow another man to be placed in midfield which could hand the team control of the match. The three man defence is solid and allows cover from both flanks and the centre, but may leave the team exposed in midfield. Then there is the choice of a midfield three, four or even two.  Ultimately, it will be up to the manager and the players at his disposal. It is likely the following season will see a huge range of tactical setups which will be a nice break from the stagnation in tactics that 11v11 has seen. Where most teams settle for a 4-4-2, next season at 9v9 could see formations as diverse as 2-4-2, 3-4-1, 4-3-1 or 3-3-2. What is certain however, is that the next twelve months will see a great deal of discussion amongst youth managers and coaches over tactics and it is to be hoped that players will learn greater flexibility in this system as managers change numbers in defence, midfield and attack to adjust to the teams they play.

In conclusion, it seems that the introduction of 9v9 could be very advantageous to youth football. It has the support of parents and coaches, with some 74% of those asked on ClubWebsite.co.uk saying they would favour the introduction of 9v9 at U11 and U12 levels. It should provide a more stimulating, interesting and fair platform for youth football whilst improving the technical abilities of the players involved. I expect that 9v9 will be a great success but it could be at least three or four years before we truly know how successful it is.

The Pros and Cons of Mixed Football

Chris Galvin examines the benefits and also the problems that mixed gender youth football can produce. 

There have been arguments and differences in opinion on mixed football at the grassroots level during my seven year involvement in youth football and for many years prior to that. However it’s only now that I’m starting to have reservations to the concept, having once being an advocate. I am by no means suggesting the abolishment of boys and girls playing football together, I have simply amended my opinion in the last few years to the point where I believe it has got to the stage where a sensible judgement on the ability of the players needs to be made before allowing mixed football. I do not wish to come across as an elitist, my time in the Sunday Football environment has made me truly understand the importance of organisations that provide “football for all” and how they assist player development.

The FA has recently announced that rules regarding mixed football have been amended to the U13 age group. This rule covers girls and boys being able to play with each other in the same teams at U12 and U13 level from next season (2011-12).

I am pleased to see that the FA have allowed this age extension as it will allow female players of a high ability to play at a challenging level. It’s only logical they play with boys who are of a similar ability in order to develop their own game. For me mixed football really needs to be centred on player development and enjoyment (as should all grass roots football) I fully support the idea of girls playing alongside boys who are able to hold their own physically and be integrated into a team of boys where they are developing their skills and enjoying their football. Personally I really draw the line on mixed football for the sheer sake of it, and feel there is a genuine risk of damaging a player’s development if they are playing at a level that is beyond them, and offloading girls into boy’s team to simply make up the numbers is incredibly irresponsible. I don’t apply this concept to girls alone; I have seen many young boys who are not of the ability to cope with team sport and from my own observation don’t seem to enjoy their football, which surely is the most important thing at a young age. I have been involved in grassroots football for seven years and I have witnessed mixed football first hand seeing both the advantages and disadvantages it offers. The coaches can play a significant role in the progress of mixed football. A coach who encourages girls who are good enough to play with boys can really aid those players with their development, but those coaches who resent the idea of girls playing with boys can not only slow down players development but can also severely damage the players confidence. I would like to think that most coaches and grassroots specialists would share this view.

One of the organisations I work with strive to get all-girls teams playing in a league with boys teams, as this allows girls to become more confident playing with other girls and educates them on the physical nature of the game. This has enjoyed success as I have witnessed all-girls teams displaying signs of improvement when playing against boys. The flip side of the coin is to encourage those girls who would benefit playing with boys and finding the best way to develop the players. It is therefore become more important to further engage the managers, coaches, the players and the parents to establish whether a girl would benefit from mixed football or by playing amongst other girls.