formations

[nelson]

Where on the pitch are we getting beat? well i don't have much if any pace at the back, and any sort of slide rule pass creating a 1-on-1 situtation with one of my centre-backs and an opposing striker always sees their striker win and run through on goal, i've tried defending deep, but this causes us to invite pressure as the oppo can really play in front of the back four and get shots in...

my midfield becomes stretched then also....i'm considering chainging the formation as i've noticed that at this age group U-11. Most if not all goals come through he middle, there's little wing play as such. But again i'd worry playing 3 at the back with no pace !

again, thanks for your comebacks mate.

[Chezz]

I think that 2-2-2 does encourage a long ball game to an extent? As i have said previously i much prefer 2-3-1, which is more fluid and aids itself well to 'triangles'. I am a strong advocate of triangles and encourage my 3 midfield players to link with the lone forward to from these triangles. You do have do practice it and keep reinforcing it but it does work at under 10 level because it did work for me at under 9's (boys mainly but a few girls here and there in this part of England).

I'm not sure that 2-2-2 does encourage long ball? I don't think long ball is needed or works for the under 10's. However I do agree that 2-3-1 is good for playing with triangles which I do belive to be the best way to play football. At the moment I am trying to team partnerships which would appear to be working. My back two are excellent and play very well together, they have learnt that one of them puts pressure on the attacker with the ball and the other one covers. The two midfielders know to work with each other to defend and attack and give each other an option when they have the ball. The forwards work with each other to make space for themselves and midfielders. I'm working on the triangles which is working also, but I do know that 2-3-1 would be best suited. Problem is I have 2 excellent defenders (quick and strong), two excellent midfielders (a ball winner and a playmaker) and two excellent attackers (pace and skill). I have won my first 3 under 10's games 3-0, 3-2 and 4-0. I think that once the girls get more used to playing as a team I will look and changing the formation, or even asking one of the forwards to drop back when needed.

Steve

[MikeLovell]

Hi everyone, first post!

Just wanted to see what peoples thoughts are on using a 3-3 formation. We're U10 and playing 7v7

Its actually a lot more attacking than you might think, and usually ends up been 1-2-3 going forward and 3-2-1 defending. It relies on hard working players for the 'wing' possitions, both in defence and attack, so they can come back and push up when needed. We begin the new season next week, and this is something we've spent a lot of time on in training with the theory that the other teams will face us set up 2-3-1.

My thought process behind this was we have a big squad (13 players and a Goalkeeper) and effectively have 2 players for each possition. I have 2 very solid defenders who take turns in that center defence role and they can sit and mop up counter attacks without too much fuss, and this allows the 'full backs' to play like 'wing back' and push up at every oppotunity.

Can anyone advise on any weaknesses that we might experience with this?
Has anyone tried it?

We have the first game on Wednesday, so I'll report back, but would be nice to get feedback before hand

Cheers, Mike Lovell
Ottawa, Canada

[mcolwell1959]

3 0 3 does sound flawed to me! Why would you not want to have anyone in a midfield role? Why would you want wing backs with 3 up already in 7 a side? In this part of England almost everyone plays 2 3 1 and so if you went 3 0 3 you would get over run in midfield and would be encouraged to play the long ball a lot.

I will be interested to know how you get on and maybe things are different in your part of the world?

[Val]

My teams play a 3-2-1 just because it is easier, human nature really, to move forward aggressively when we have the ball than to run back and defend. I agree with mcolwell, a 3-3 is really a hole in the midfield approach.

[MikeLovell]

Thanks for the imput, were going to give it close attention in the upcoming game and see how we perform. I'm lucky enough to have a very experienced footballing man, who's done a bit of scouting, coming to the game to assess. We're actually playing a higher division team in a friendly, so they are certainly more experienced than us.

I understand what you're saying about the midfield hole, and believe me I have absolutely no intention of playing the long ball!
My intention with this was to actually have it so that we are playing what effectively be 3-2-1, but I wanted to put it to the players that when attacking they should push up where possible, almost creating a 1-2-3. 3-0-3 would I suppose be something that actually on the field will rarely happen, but if you like is the 'default' or 'starting' formation

By the way, I wanted to thank everyone generally on this forum, I've very much enjoyed reading the posts.
Mike

[MikeLovell]

So had the pre-season game last night. We were playing a team from a higher league. We lost the game by a few goals. I must say, I work as a coach for a large proportion of the year, and my players during this game had the worse touches and control I have ever seen a group of players have. If they managed to control the ball, it was only maybe once each the whole game. Anyways, this is not what this thread is about.

Considering we lost, I was actually fairly happy with how this went. The 3-0-3 formation worked very good. They were instructed to fall back to a 3-2-1 while defending and 1-2-3 while attacking and they did it really well. Actually the forseen problem of the hole in midfield didn't happen at all. In fact the exact oposite problem occured and it was too packed.

Width is an issue, but we're going to work on that this week and I'll report back on Monday after the next game.

Thanks
Mike

[mcolwell1959]

In terms of 11 a side formation is also dependnet on what suits the players you have best i think? If you have palyers who like to get forward and shoot or have natural strikers or wide players, you should set up your formation accordingly. If you have midfielders who struggle to get back for instance play 4-1-3-2, so that someone protects the back four a bit. If the midfield are good at getting back but are not natural goalscorers go 4-3-3 for instance. 4-4-2 is a solid place to start from but see what suits you best by experimenting. If you play 3 at the back i would always sit someone in front of them, 3-1-4-2. I do not like just one up front as i like to have different options to play ball down the channels.

In 7 a side 2-3-1 has always brought me succees although the midfield need to work hard and use the space and link with the striker, and 2-2-1 at 6 a side (won tournament yesterday at under 10 level).

[MikeLovell]

Quick report. Tried mixing things up on Monday, as we were playing a team near the top of the league. Started with my 'weaker players' in a 2-3-1 to hold things together, and they did really well. Full line change to 3-3 really then rocked the opposition and completely confused them. Line change again, and back to 2-3-1 (and a couple more times) and they other team just couldn't keep up. finished 8-2 to us.

The 2-3-1 formation really did work brilliently, but that 3-3 is a great change of gear and as long as your 'wingers' know to come back for the ball, its really effective.

Tournement this weekend, so chance for a quick experiment with some others