01 LH D1 Sept 11, 2013

Man......nothing but a bunch of whining and defensive brats on this thread. Must be something in the air. That or everyone ran out of weed and having a tough time coming back to reality.   

4-3-3 wrote:
There are less than a full handful of possession teams anywhere in LH. 1 in D3 (Angel), 0 in D2, 1 in D1 (SR...Grubb used to be borderline, but now that they have more speed up they've morphed to more jungle ball).

Seriously? And you saw all that from the parking lot?

rtsafft wrote:

4-3-3 wrote:
There are less than a full handful of possession teams anywhere in LH. 1 in D3 (Angel), 0 in D2, 1 in D1 (SR...Grubb used to be borderline, but now that they have more speed up they've morphed to more jungle ball).

Seriously? And you saw all that from the parking lot?

I think 4-3-3 was simply trying to point out that the teams which appear to be more possession based are teaching the game as oppose to "dump and run" type of game which may win games today but not really teach the players how to play the game properly. I also don't want to speak for 4-3-3, so this was just how I interpreted his comments. I believe that there are teams that no one thinks are that good, that play much more possession style.

rtsafft wrote:

4-3-3 wrote:
There are less than a full handful of possession teams anywhere in LH. 1 in D3 (Angel), 0 in D2, 1 in D1 (SR...Grubb used to be borderline, but now that they have more speed up they've morphed to more jungle ball).

Seriously? And you saw all that from the parking lot?

I saw grubb is less often finding feet from the back, and sent a lot more long balls over the top than they used to. They scored their legit goal off a ball booted 40 yards up to a fwd, which I don't recall them doing much of at all in the past.

Nothing wrong with it, my dd's team has scored a boat load of goals over the years with the same approach, but I'm not seduced by homerism enough to call it possession soccer. Everyone has their own idea of what that is, but in my opinion, if Grubb is a possession team, so are the majority of the teams in D1.

There are times when a defense is being pressured and you have to get the ball out of there and there are times that defenders actually make the run and hand it off to a forward or a mid....sounds like you are a little upset about the loss (legit goal) (last time I checked a goal was a goal). I would say that the majority of the teams in D1 are possession teams, except for a few.  Especially the older they get.

Make it fun!!  What few are not possession?

Soccer Fanatic wrote:There are times when a defense is being pressured and you have to get the ball out of there and there are times that defenders actually make the run and hand it off to a forward or a mid....sounds like you are a little upset about the loss (legit goal) (last time I checked a goal was a goal). I would say that the majority of the teams in D1 are possession teams, except for a few.  Especially the older they get.

Yeah the loss stings, but that has nothing to do with my outlook on playing style after the fact. I try to take the emotion out of it and just call it like I see it. We have different criteria defining styles, but that's ok.

4-3-3 wrote:

rtsafft wrote:

4-3-3 wrote:
There are less than a full handful of possession teams anywhere in LH. 1 in D3 (Angel), 0 in D2, 1 in D1 (SR...Grubb used to be borderline, but now that they have more speed up they've morphed to more jungle ball).

Seriously? And you saw all that from the parking lot?

I saw grubb is less often finding feet from the back, and sent a lot more long balls over the top than they used to.  They scored their legit goal off a ball booted 40 yards up to a fwd, which I don't recall them doing much of at all in the past.

Nothing wrong with it, my dd's team has scored a boat load of goals over the years with the same approach, but I'm not seduced by homerism enough to call it possession soccer. Everyone has their own idea of what that is, but in my opinion, if Grubb is a possession team, so are the majority of the teams in D1.

Statements like this tend to make me laugh a little.  As a player who spent much of my soccer field time as a defender, I've always wondered about things like this:

*  A defender sends the ball "40 yards up to a forward", and she is accused of booting it.  It went to the forward, who scored a goal.  That's called an assist.

*  A right midfielder crosses the ball the same 40 yard distance to a left forward who scores a goal, and spectators are likely to say "great switch!"

*  A left forward breaks away to the corner flag, turns, and dumps it into the penalty box.  Another offensive player happens to be in the right place at the right time, and knocks it in for a goal.  Again, the spectators shout "great cross!"

I agree with Soccer Fanatic.  Soccer is a sport based primarily on kicking the ball.  A well timed "clear", "send", "boot", or whatever you want to call it can be very wise.  The very best professional teams in the world do this when the opportunity presents itself.  Just because a team can play it out of the back with precision doesn't mean they always should.  Yeah, if the defense clears every single ball, we wouldn't label them as a possession-oriented team.  But just because a defender does take advantage of an open forward on occasion doesn't mean she is incapable of possessing the ball herself.

justasport dont disagree with any of that...except the legit goal part. You would've needed to be at the game to understand that reference. The rest of your post is entirely true, but not all that relevant to the comparison I'm making between style of play for the same team from one year to the next.

it's all relative anyway...compared to what I saw out of your team at QT all these teams we're discussing are keeping the ball at a totally different level, so I think you should watch some of these games before weighing in too firmly one way or the other.

4-3-3 wrote: You would've needed to be at the game to understand that reference.

I was at the game and lets be honest 4-3-3? The ball that was sent over the top was a one touch flick on by FC central forward that looped over the top of the last defender and was brought down cleanly by another forward en route to goal. Hardly from any distance at all.

Now I will agree the initial pass to the central forward was from distance, however she was playing with her back to goal. With your midfield pressing as hard as they were, what did you want the defender to do? Dribble the ball up and make a short pass to the forward? Take three passes to do what can be done in one? The truth is your center mids left too much space in behind them for the forward to check back. She made a very heads up play, but it was not a 40 yard pass directly to a player running to goal as you would like to make everyone believe.

The second goal was actually a better example of possession. Your opponent was deep in your half passing the ball and looking for a way to penetrate the back line. One of your opponent’s players tried to beat a player 1v1 and instead drew a foul. It resulted in a very well hit DFK that the keeper was still able to get both hands but could not keep out of the goal.

The point that JustaSport was trying to make was that you cannot just pass the ball for the sake of passing. You have to take chances, because the idea is to score goals. If you spent more time analyzing the game and less time yelling at the refs you wouldn't have to watch it from outside the complex or miss the next game.

4-3-3 wrote:justasport dont disagree with any of that...except the legit goal part. You would've needed to be at the game to understand that reference. The rest of your post is entirely true, but not all that relevant to the comparison I'm making between style of play for the same team from one year to the next.

it's all relative anyway...compared to what I saw out of your team at QT all these teams we're discussing are keeping the ball at a totally different level, so I think you should watch some of these games before weighing in too firmly one way or the other.

Evidently, I'm not who you think I am. None of my teams (that I coach) played in the QT this year.

I presume, however, you're not talking about my daughter's PPL team (which I do not coach). If you are, that would make you a complete idiot in suggesting that my opinion on soccer style is somehow less valid because the team my daughter is on does not play at the level you think it should. You're not a complete idiot, are you, 4-3-3? Or just another prima donna parent who actually associates his own worth and achievement according his kid's ability to dribble a soccer ball? I had you pegged as a little sharper than that.

rtsafft wrote:

4-3-3 wrote: You would've needed to be at the game to understand that reference.

I was at the game and lets be honest 4-3-3?  The ball that was sent over the top was a one touch flick on by FC central forward that looped over the top of the last defender and was brought down cleanly by another forward en route to goal.  Hardly from any distance at all.

Now I will agree the initial pass to the central forward was from distance, however she was playing with her back to goal.  With your midfield pressing as hard as they were, what did you want the defender to do?  Dribble the ball up and make a short pass to the forward?  Take three passes to do what can be done in one?  The truth is your center mids left too much space in behind them for the forward to check back.  She made a very heads up play, but it was not a 40 yard pass directly to a player running to goal as you would like to make everyone believe.    

The second goal was actually a better example of possession.  Your opponent was deep in your half passing the ball and looking for a way to penetrate the back line.  One of your opponent’s players tried to beat a player 1v1 and instead drew a foul.  It resulted in a very well hit DFK that the keeper was still able to get both hands but could not keep out of the goal.  

The point that JustaSport was trying to make was that you cannot just pass the ball for the sake of passing. You have to take chances, because the idea is to score goals.  If you spent more time analyzing the game and less time yelling at the refs you wouldn't have to watch it from outside the complex or miss the next game.

Unfortunately, Rtsafft, some people will see what they want to see... so you may be wasting your effort in typing a response. What one person sees as a blown defensive play another will celebrate as unstoppable offense. And those who have actually played the game at any level higher than 4th grade rec know that your last points are dead on. Soccer is not a game of perfection. It's not a bunch of rigid rules on how to play so that everything is clearly "possession" and looks like a well-oiled machine at all times. Skill is great, luck is huge, and bad calls can change everything. A goal is a goal, and teams that score them need not apologize because some wish-I-played-when-I-was-a-kid parent labels them as longball/kickball/dump-and-run or whatever on a forum.

I'm having a hard time understanding the knock on a direct style of play. Last time I checked, there were plenty of professional teams that play this way on any given game. It all depends on the make up of your team, the way the other team is set up, and chances that arise during the game. Sure, you can possess the ball 70% of the time by knocking it around in the back, but that doesn't get you anywhere. If you have Abby Wambach or Alex Morgan on your team, you "send it" because they can more than likely beat the defenders with height, strength, or speed. Direct play is in no way worse than possession. And it makes me laugh when people say, "it's not soccer!" Were they kicking a ball? Yes? Toward the opposing teams' net? Yes? Then it's soccer.

Just my 2 cents.

soccermonster wrote:I'm having a hard time understanding the knock on a direct style of play.  Last time I checked, there were plenty of professional teams that play this way on any given game.  It all depends on the make up of your team, the way the other team is set up, and chances that arise during the game.  Sure, you can possess the ball 70% of the time by knocking it around in the back, but that doesn't get you anywhere.  If you have Abby Wambach or Alex Morgan on your team, you "send it" because they can more than likely beat the defenders with height, strength, or speed.  Direct play is in no way worse than possession.  And it makes me laugh when people say, "it's not soccer!"  Were they kicking a ball?  Yes?  Toward the opposing teams' net?  Yes?  Then it's soccer.

Just my 2 cents.

A true possession team doesn't spend "70% of the time knocking it around in the back".  It's a buildup requiring defenders deciding which part of the field to use, finding a midfielder, and so on.

It's not really about team make-up, but more about the coach's philosophy to take an approach involving/leveraging multiple players' strengths.

A blend of Direct Play and Possession works well.  A possession team can use Direct Play to surprise the opponent.

If a team has physically gifted players, why can't you expect them to learn how to move the ball up the field in more ways than one?  Possession soccer wears on the opponent, it's quite exhausting to chase.

allhatnocattle wrote:

soccermonster wrote:I'm having a hard time understanding the knock on a direct style of play.  Last time I checked, there were plenty of professional teams that play this way on any given game.  It all depends on the make up of your team, the way the other team is set up, and chances that arise during the game.  Sure, you can possess the ball 70% of the time by knocking it around in the back, but that doesn't get you anywhere.  If you have Abby Wambach or Alex Morgan on your team, you "send it" because they can more than likely beat the defenders with height, strength, or speed.  Direct play is in no way worse than possession.  And it makes me laugh when people say, "it's not soccer!"  Were they kicking a ball?  Yes?  Toward the opposing teams' net?  Yes?  Then it's soccer.

Just my 2 cents.

A true possession team doesn't spend "70% of the time knocking it around in the back".  It's a buildup requiring defenders deciding which part of the field to use, finding a midfielder, and so on.

It's not really about team make-up, but more about the coach's philosophy to take an approach involving/leveraging multiple players' strengths.

A blend of Direct Play and Possession works well.  A possession team can use Direct Play to surprise the opponent.

If a team has physically gifted players, why can't you expect them to learn how to move the ball up the field in more ways than one?  Possession soccer wears on the opponent, it's quite exhausting to chase.

I agree. Possession does wear the other team out. I should have been more clear. Obviously you wouldn't send the ball over the top every play. But it makes sense to do it sometimes, especially if you have those physically gifted athletes up top who can take advantage. Why wouldn't a coach play to his or her players' strengths? So in that sense the make-up of your team does matter. And if your opponent has big, speedy defenders, you may not win a lot of balls over the top and need to possess and build up the play more. My point is just that a direct style of play has its place within a game and is legitimate. It is still "soccer".

JustaSport wrote:

4-3-3 wrote:justasport dont disagree with any of that...except the legit goal part. You would've needed to be at the game to understand that reference. The rest of your post is entirely true, but not all that relevant to the comparison I'm making between style of play for the same team from one year to the next.

it's all relative anyway...compared to what I saw out of your team at QT all these teams we're discussing are keeping the ball at a totally different level, so I think you should watch some of these games before weighing in too firmly one way or the other.

Evidently, I'm not who you think I am.  None of my teams (that I coach) played in the QT this year.

I presume, however, you're not talking about my daughter's PPL team (which I do not coach).  If you are, that would make you a complete idiot in suggesting that my opinion on soccer style is somehow less valid because the team my daughter is on does not play at the level you think it should.  You're not a complete idiot, are you, 4-3-3?  Or just another prima donna parent who actually associates his own worth and achievement according his kid's ability to dribble a soccer ball?  I had you pegged as a little sharper than that.

I assumed you coached the team as I thought you mentioned in prior posts you coached your daughter's team. Either i missed some posts or you have more than one daugher? But yes, given the negatives you've posted about other teams/coaches in past, I expected more when I saw them play.

And my comment has nothing to do with your opinion on soccer style in general. I agreed with your generic comments. But the conversation was about the specific style of specific D1 teams from year to year. That's why there's so much activity. If I had made a generic comment on style, there wouldn't be many responses. I named teams, so parents crawled out the woodwork. Which is fine with me I enjoy the discussion, and can look past the petty insults.

My point is if you don't watch these teams play, and the teams you are watching are doing something an order of magnitude different, it's kinda hard for me to put much stock in your agreement or disagreement about specific teams.

soccermonster wrote:I'm having a hard time understanding the knock on a direct style of play.  Last time I checked, there were plenty of professional teams that play this way on any given game.  It all depends on the make up of your team, the way the other team is set up, and chances that arise during the game.  Sure, you can possess the ball 70% of the time by knocking it around in the back, but that doesn't get you anywhere.  If you have Abby Wambach or Alex Morgan on your team, you "send it" because they can more than likely beat the defenders with height, strength, or speed.  Direct play is in no way worse than possession.  And it makes me laugh when people say, "it's not soccer!"  Were they kicking a ball?  Yes?  Toward the opposing teams' net?  Yes?  Then it's soccer.

Just my 2 cents.

Direct play has it's place. But it's 10X harder to teach possession style than direct, and a kid that has mastered one can easily play the other when they're older, but the converse is not remotely true.

This is why youth players that spend the majority of their life in direct only systems can have problems if challenged to play differently at a higher level. If they never mastered the technical and tactical concepts required to play possession under high pressure at high levels, it's difficult to do it in their late teens.

My idea of a possession team is one that combines well in all 3 thirds. Most teams in D1 are comfortable possessing in one or two of the three, but the attacking third IMO is what separates the high soccer iq possession teams from the rest. Watching the socal teams at surf there were only one or two that I would classify as possession teams, but it was a noticeable difference in their level of play in the attacking third.

They had uber fast forwards with great shots, but rarely did you see entry into the attacking third with long balls chased down by a fwd amongst a crowd of defenders. Rarely did you see fwds or mids dribbling 1v3 while open teammates watched the action. You did see a lot of combining, even in the box, a lot of back to goal play, and a lot of coordinated runs made by attacking players.

If you watch high level soccer, the decision making and style of play from those few teams is recognizable. You know it when you see it. I don't see any reason why there shouldn't be more teams in NTX that do the same, regardless whether they have the physically gifted athletes that allow them to win without doing so.

Late to the party but do want to echo earlier comments about Feet's play on Wednesday night against SR. Feet was markedly improved from last year and did an excellent job of coming out and trying to connect passes and control the pace of play (not that kicking the ball directly down the field isn't "playing soccer"). But Feet clearly was committed to trying to possess the ball and connect throughout the field and they had good success with building a consistent attack vs SR in the first half. It seemed to me that either Feet ran out of gas a little pick or else SR picked up their play because SR controlled the bulk of the play in the second half.

Regardless, I was pretty impressed with Feet's overall effort and said the same to their coach afterwards. Keep up the good work and I suspect this team will give the top teams trouble as the year goes on.

Good luck 4-3-3...for what it's worth, I agree with your opinion that developing the soccer IQ and skills required to play a possession game at a younger age will give a player a decided advantage as they get older. It clearly isnt the "only" advantage because sports will always reward speed and size as desired commodities....but having the composure and skill to control the ball in traffic or while under pressure will serve these girls well as they grow in the game.

As you stated, it's pretty obvious to see when you come across a team that approaches the game with the goal of sustaining a consistent attack throughout the field...and the reverse is pretty evident as well. Both can get results and both are still "soccer" but I guess it's up to each coach (or parent) as to how they want to build their foundation for success.

How about we change the offsides rules to be more like hockey with the blue lines, then defense can hang back and offense has to attack together as unit (focus on midfielders/strikers)? Or, can we teach defenders how to handle direct play offenses - isn't there someway to defend against an offense with faster/bigger players (or is the game over before it started when big/fast strikers walk on the field)?

If teams could defend direct play, possesion teams would start winning, right, or what am I missing?

I think a lot of fair points have been made. I didn't mean to sound like possession isn't important. Quite the opposite. It's paramount to development. I just can't stand to hear parents screaming "that's not soccer" when a defender lays a beautiful ball over the top and a forward finishes the play. Direct play has its place within the game.