Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Merits of the flat four defense

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Merits of the flat four defense

    Dang it, this isn't a troll question. I really want some serious discussion.

    I coach a team of 2001 and 2002 girls. Therefore, we play 11 vs. 11. For quite a while, I've had some good success playing 3 defenders across with a defensive midfielder who plays deep in the back also. So it's almost like playing 4 in the back or perhaps a flattened diamond. Up front, I'll play 2 dedicated forwards and an attacking mid.

    Defensively, we do very well against the local teams, but we're going to start tackling much harder teams. I sometimes wonder if my defense is too aggressive, because when we play higher caliber teams, we get scored on more often. But now we're playing man-to-man more closely, so we may have improved greatly, but I have no way of knowing.

    Is the flat four defense the only real way to go? Is there a fundamental flaw in the defense I'm running now?

    #2
    The diamond gives you strength in the middle. The flat four gives you width. There are some teams out there that effectively run five defenders to give them the best of both worlds but you need some dynamic players on offense to get away with that.

    It's hard for us to give you solid advice there because we don't know the attributes of your specific players. For example, the back three on a diamond have to rely on speed more than a flat four because they have to be able to move laterally further distances as well as having to come back on breakaways from worse positions. If you don't have speed then a flat four is probably preferred. But if you have a weak midfield that is constantly letting plays up your center than going with the diamond helps keep that area of the field clogged up more than it would otherwise.

    It also depends on whether your opponents are running one, two or three strikers (ok, strikers and wings). If you are being faced with a 4-4-2 you need less defenders way back than you would be with a 4-3-3.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
      Dang it, this isn't a troll question. I really want some serious discussion.

      I coach a team of 2001 and 2002 girls. Therefore, we play 11 vs. 11. For quite a while, I've had some good success playing 3 defenders across with a defensive midfielder who plays deep in the back also. So it's almost like playing 4 in the back or perhaps a flattened diamond. Up front, I'll play 2 dedicated forwards and an attacking mid.

      Defensively, we do very well against the local teams, but we're going to start tackling much harder teams. I sometimes wonder if my defense is too aggressive, because when we play higher caliber teams, we get scored on more often. But now we're playing man-to-man more closely, so we may have improved greatly, but I have no way of knowing.

      Is the flat four defense the only real way to go? Is there a fundamental flaw in the defense I'm running now?
      I would think with only 3 in the back and a defensive midfielder you would be open to wide attack ? Do the teams you play lack speed?

      I like 4 defenders with the LB and RB pushing way up. For that you need really good and fast LB and RB.

      Comment


        #4
        don't play man to man, you need to play zone.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
          don't play man to man, you need to play zone.
          I missed that part. I concur, do not play man-to-man. No matter how good your kids are they are going to get beat now and then and you need the zone covered when they do.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
            I missed that part. I concur, do not play man-to-man. No matter how good your kids are they are going to get beat now and then and you need the zone covered when they do.
            Truth is, the vast majority of soccer is man/zone if you are going to be any good at holding your shape. Man marking should really only be strictly employed on set pieces when marks are clearly identified prior.

            Comment


              #7
              I've always liked the flat 4 when there is a strong midfield that can hold possession. As someone else mentioned above, the outside backs are really important in getting up the field and attacking. Having a midfield that can possess, however, is key here. If an outside back gets caught up the field and nobody is covering in the back, bad things can happen. I love watching outside backs get up the field and into the attack. Teams with solid outside backs that attack are some of the most fun and entertaining to watch.

              Comment


                #8
                For the life of me I can't figure out why this thread hasn't been deleted. Serious soccer discussions have no place on TS.

                Comment


                  #9
                  I think you should follow the curriculum established by US Soccer. They want 4-3-3.

                  There is a lot of good stuff in that curriculum.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                    For the life of me I can't figure out why this thread hasn't been deleted. Serious soccer discussions have no place on TS.
                    Here, I'll give a couple of options to help turn it from a good discussion to typical TS garbage:

                    1. FESA doesn't need a back four. They are better than everybody with just 2.

                    2. Celtic coaches wouldn't know what a back four was if they got slide-tackled by it.

                    3. ECNL, ECNL, ECNL, ECNL,......

                    4. When I asked you mom if she knows what a back four is, she said: "I can only fit three in the back at a time".

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                      don't play man to man, you need to play zone.
                      OP here:

                      Perhaps we're talking semantics here because we play man-to-man within a geographic area so we're sort of playing zone too. We seem to have better luck playing man to man when the ball gets close to our goal. It shuts down the opponent's ability to pass. Usually when we get scored on, the opponent's success comes from a quick pass to an open player with little time for our defense (and the goalie) to adjust. What we do is essentially have the defenders play man to man against the whoever is in their "lane". So they are covering a strip of land that runs up the field, and will cover the players stepping into the lane, whether they have the ball or not. Seems to work, and I can't imagine doing it any other way with the kids I have.

                      My question is whether I should have four strips of land, or three strips of land with a defensive mid attacking whoever has the ball first.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                        OP here:

                        Perhaps we're talking semantics here because we play man-to-man within a geographic area so we're sort of playing zone too. We seem to have better luck playing man to man when the ball gets close to our goal. It shuts down the opponent's ability to pass. Usually when we get scored on, the opponent's success comes from a quick pass to an open player with little time for our defense (and the goalie) to adjust. What we do is essentially have the defenders play man to man against the whoever is in their "lane". So they are covering a strip of land that runs up the field, and will cover the players stepping into the lane, whether they have the ball or not. Seems to work, and I can't imagine doing it any other way with the kids I have.

                        My question is whether I should have four strips of land, or three strips of land with a defensive mid attacking whoever has the ball first.
                        You are playing the diamond wrong. The purpose of having a defensive midfielder helping a 3 man back line is to help clog up the center. If you are having them run sideline to sideline to be the first defender it's like a blitz situation in football. A quick pass away from pressure takes that defender out of the play and leaves the rest of the back line exposed.

                        Go to a flat four or play the three like you are now but with a stay-at-home (in the middle) defensive midfielder. Either would be better than what you are doing now.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                          You are playing the diamond wrong. The purpose of having a defensive midfielder helping a 3 man back line is to help clog up the center. If you are having them run sideline to sideline to be the first defender it's like a blitz situation in football. A quick pass away from pressure takes that defender out of the play and leaves the rest of the back line exposed.

                          Go to a flat four or play the three like you are now but with a stay-at-home (in the middle) defensive midfielder. Either would be better than what you are doing now.
                          I'm going to think hard about what you're saying. My defensive midfielder doesn't commit to running to the sideline, but what you're saying still has a lot of merit. If they come in wide, it can create problems if the defensive mid over commits. The thing is, that doesn't usually happen, but I could see how a give and go from center to sideline and back might cause us problems.

                          I just hate the flat four because if they make a good through ball, you're toast if they have a fast enough forward. We do have a super fast center back, but still, I can't tell you how many times we've won games by doing exactly that against our opponent.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Not a licensed coach, just a soccer fan, but it always seemed to me that teams playing the flat four tried to prevent goals and teams playing the diamond were trying to score them by pushing one more player to a more offensive position. The diamond always seemed to open up more chances for the opponent by creating more space.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              My team has used both, usually field size determines which way we start. If it's a skinny field we go with the diamond. If it's a wide field we go with a flat line. Just make sure in the diamond that the outside attacking mid's track back every time so that the holding midfielder doesn't get pulled to the side constantly.

                              Comment

                              Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
                              Auto-Saved
                              x
                              Insert: Thumbnail Small Medium Large Fullsize Remove  
                              x
                              Working...
                              X