[Archie Graham]

Yup, I'm kinda with the 4 vs 4 boys on this. Through theory and through practice.

However..... I often find myself running drills that are 2 vs 2 and 3 vs 3 more often than 4 vs 4 (yes, I know we are talking about ssg here, bear with me).

This is usually because I'm trying to get a session topic across to my players. Coaching Cover Play, for example, is easier with 2 vs 2 than with more players at an early stage of 'understanding' (in my opinion).

But I agree - 4 vs 4 gives width on BOTH sides (r flank & l flank) as well as depth (backs) and length (forwards). If you want the text book then the FA coach that this formation can be identified in all areas of the pitch with a 11 vs 11 set up. But this is spurious at best because you could also identify other formations - 3 vs 3, 5 vs 5 etc.

Yes, if you are looking to mimic the dynamics of a 'full sided' game then 4 vs 4 works. But you could argue that you need a fifth player to play in the middle to represent the midfield option and linking play. You could argue that 4 vs 4 encourages the ball to be played out of the back straight to the forward(s) and by passes the midfiled. It depends how you view the purpose of a 4 vs 4.

One of the undeniable advantages of SSG whether 4 vs 4 or slightly more or less players, is that the players get more touches of the ball. This has to be a good thing.

Jury still out then?