Anyone have experience coaching unbalanced formations? For instance, a base 4-2-3-1, but push 7 or 11 up wide to join 9. Obviously, a 6 has to “cover the gap.”
-
-
I'm not a huge fan of "formations" per se as it's more about space management to me. But it sounds like you're essentially moving into a 4-3-3 (in attack) and playing a triangle in the middle with 6/8 and 10. This shouldn't be a huge stretch for the team. I also assume, if you're doing this you aren't advancing the outside backs as much as the 4-2-3-1 tends to be more narrow and allow for the 2/3 to push high. Basically you're killing their channel.
In training I'd play a narrow game with outside channels for 7/11 and restrict them from receiving the ball until they are in the wide attacking channel. This forces them to move wide upon possession and open the width/depth of the field. In a game building up to that I'd play a narrow field with goals high/wide and outside the field, for the team to play attacking/penetrating passes towards (puggs will work) to get the team prepared to play the high/wide players. You shouldn't have to do much coaching as the game will force the 7/11 to go wide. But if they don't and the 2/3 push into the space you get the same width/depth, just from another player.
As for unbalanced. I've often run a 4-4-2 (diamond midfield) and pressed the two strikers to one side of the pitch against the weakest opposition outside back. I've found most teams don't know what to do and they leave us against even numbers and struggle to defensively support. To train for it we'll play a penalty area to penalty area game with four 9v9 size goals set up between the edge of the penalty area and touch line. I'll then tell the teams that goals from one side or the other are worth more, and explain to the strikers I'd like them to play on that side and maintain their close-supporting proximity.
Good luck -
Understand what you’re saying regarding formation verses system of space management.
What I’m trying to describe is a base 4-2-3-1 system that keeps say the 7 high almost on the same line with the 9. So, it looks like a 4-2-2-2 whereas the 6’s continue to stay central (with one wrinkle I’ll describe later). The remaining midfield line is shifted to the left whereas the 7 and the 9 are positioned to the right. The 9 stays central and the 7 is relatively square to the right the 9.
The left 6 and 2 have to cover the gap behind the 7.
I see this as a possible solution to a team that can either defend well or attack well, but can’t do both well with the squad.
Also, the gap can obviously be created on either side behind the 7 or 11 to potentially draw an opponent into it away from their strongest attackers. And, as you said, you can overload the attack on a side to go at a weaker fullback.
Thoughts?Comment
-
Hoping this graphic works. Something like this:Originally posted by Guest View Post
^ ^
9 7
^ ^
11 10
^ ^
6 8
^ ^ ^ ^
3 4 5 2
To me the solution is really impacted by personnel and style of play. I would say you'd only be able to press high on the right, but the 8 has to be attacking minded (and the 6 would either have to move more central or you'd have to advance the 5 (or 2, then move the 5 outside more). I'd say you could get away with it if your two is more attacking and the 3 more defensive. But you're right the management of space behind the 7 (more so than the 11) is problematic defensively.
Training for it? I'd consider gridding the field (depending on the age) into zone and make sure each player knows the box they have to be responsible for covering based upon where the opponent is in possession. But most of this will come down to the personality of the 2 and 7. I've never seen it done this way. But if I had an opposition try this I'd probably try to push my outside left back into the space behind the 7 and pin him into a defensive posture. Or possibly even go to a 3-5-2 and play a wide midfielder into that gap.
Good luck, really wondering how this works out. I've done a 4-2-2-2 before, but I didn't have any true strikers and a lot of MF players so the pairings often shifted (we also pressed all of the pairs to the a side when the opponent in possession wide)
Comment
-
Thanks. If you were to push your left back behind my 7, what if I told my 7 that they ignore you. Granted, you would have attacking numbers on the left that I’d have to cover with my 6 and 2 (and possibly 4). But, if you get dispossessed, you’re wide open to a counterattack as your back 4 has become a back 3.
Granted, there’s risk, but trying to generate a credible attack/counterattack when I know we have defend well in some semblance of depth and width.Comment
-
I agree, but I'm still numbers up with a three back against the 9/7. And if I play a 4-3-3 (and I keep two holding in the MF), you have an attacking 4 vs. 5. I'm numerically down at the 10, but where you used to have your 6/8 covering him, you'll be numbers even if you have to push your 8 outside.Originally posted by Guest View Post
I think it's a problematic system vs. 4-3-3, which (unfortunately) is almost all I tend to see nowadays. I do like the thought of this because it seems to feel a lot like how we play a 4-4-2 diamond midfield vs. 4-3-3. It has a similar drawback if the opposition is willing to push (at least) one outside back high. But that's when we tend to try to play our strikers unbalanced into the exposed space. Let me know how it goes, this is really interesting.Comment
-
Great points!
I love intelligent tactical discussions.
I see the problems you mention with my counterattack. But, if I could get my 8, one 6 and my 11 up the field quickly in transition, maybe I could turn the numbers around. I do realize you have to assume your midfielders will recover also.Comment
Comment