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