Formations and Styles of Play

[FootyFan]

This post is more out of my own curiosity...

There is often an argument thrown out that soccer is to be played in a beautiful way and some teams try to play this way with a good amount of success.  A few phrases that could describe this play would be quick passing, off the ball movement, dynamic attacking, building from back to front, dominate the ball, rely on technical ability and decision making, enjoy a flow of play, etc.  A few teams I can think of to play this way:  Messiah, Oneonta State, Dickinson, York, etc.

Contrary to the above description, many teams play a much more different style of soccer with success.   A few phrases that could describe this play would be direct passing, long balls over the top, win individual battles/50-50's/2nd balls, pump balls into the box, dominate physically off the ball, rely on athletic ability and work rate, enjoy broken-up play with no true flow, etc.  A few teams I can think of to play this way:  Amherst, Loras, Lycoming, etc.

Small sample sizes in my examples but I'm sure the experts (everyone but me) can add other teams and examples to this post.  In my opinion, a lot of teams play a combination of both these styles and do it quite well. 

Do you feel we are seeing a change in terms of team tactics?  Less beautiful game, more direct/athletic soccer? 

What about formations?  A majority of teams I have seen play the past few years favored the 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 but I think the 4-4-2 has been coming back around lately especially with more direct play.  Any teams out there that play a rather unique formation (not really a standard formation) but it is working for them?  No longer a flat back four but resorting back to stopper/sweeper?  Marking backs that follow forwards all over the field instead of maintaining a team shape?  Just curious

Again, this post is more for my curiosity.  I know ultimately, teams need to know what they are, what they do, how they want to do it - and then execute that plan. 

[Brother Flounder]

As far as the NESCAC goes, Amherst and Middlebury play over the top.  Many D1 teams play over the top.  Tufts has recently been a good example of playing the beautiful game style you mention, with an exceptional midfield over the past 3 years.  So, you have the last 2 D3 national champs with completely different styles.....

[luckylefty]

Teams play more technical now then they ever did.  Club teams are exactly the same way.  As those teams continue to play that way that style will continue to be more popular. 

I cant see anyone going back to sweeper stopped in a back four right now.  What I do think we will eventually see is a move to a 3-5-2.  Teams eventually made the move to a 4-2-3-1 to get an extra player in the middle of midfield.  It gradually happened, some of the best teams did it, then the next tier, etc etc.  Playing a 3-5-2 would potentially allow another forward to drop in while building to give you 4 in the central midfield.

[Golden_Fan]

When I played we used the 3-5-2 all 4 years. Our goal was to control the middle of the field and it worked out quite well. The trick with it is that you need the right players or else it just falls apart.

[Mr.Right]

Teams play more technical now then they ever did.  Club teams are exactly the same way.  As those teams continue to play that way that style will continue to be more popular. 

I cant see anyone going back to sweeper stopped in a back four right now.  What I do think we will eventually see is a move to a 3-5-2.  Teams eventually made the move to a 4-2-3-1 to get an extra player in the middle of midfield.  It gradually happened, some of the best teams did it, then the next tier, etc etc.  Playing a 3-5-2 would potentially allow another forward to drop in while building to give you 4 in the central midfield.

Not sure I can agree that teams are playing more technical now. I see a ton of hoofing in D1 and D3

[stlawus]

SLU has always played possession oriented football with a 4-3-3.  Toshack has not changed anything after coming in last year.  There's always a very technical midfield anchor with both fullbacks playing almost as much offense as they do defense.  I've seen a lot of LL teams recently go with just 1 striker and play the counter.  As Mr. Right said, hoof ball is pretty common nowadays. 

[augie77]

For those living outside of New England, can you spell out acronyms?  SLU?  LL? etc.

[Ommadawn]

For those living outside of New England, can you spell out acronyms?  SLU?  LL? etc.

St. Lawrence University.  Liberty League.

[Saint of Old]

SLU has always played possession oriented football with a 4-3-3.  Toshack has not changed anything after coming in last year.  There's always a very technical midfield anchor with both fullbacks playing almost as much offense as they do defense.  I've seen a lot of LL teams recently go with just 1 striker and play the counter.  As Mr. Right said, hoof ball is pretty common nowadays.

Success will depend on the quality of players implementing system of play.
I was and still am an admirer of total football, but as Amherst proved by climbing the mountain, there is more than one way to earn a crown.

Comes down to players.

I agree the saints have followed the same system (generally speaking) but Coach Tosh was always a more attacking minded coach even when he was with Durocher in the 90s.
Look for SLU to play a whole lot quicker while keeping their love for possession.
The new Coach will have his own horses in the team this year, and it should be fun to watch them run.

[Shooter McGavin]

What formation and styles do NJAC teams play? I know from what I have seen and read on here that most of the league is fast, physical, over-aggressive, and chippy mixed with some technical guys. Do most play similar formations? Montclair St? Rowan? Camden? What are the go to formations for these successful teams?

[blooter442]

The UAA as a whole is a fairly technical league. Interestingly enough, despite the offensive talent of conference teams, UAA games are often drab, one-goal affairs, which is definitely (at least in part) due to the fact that the UAA doesn't have a conference tournament, so every conference game is essentially a playoff game. But UAA teams tend to have a number of out-of-conference games that are fairly high-scoring, so I'd say the in-conference UAA games are definitely different than out-of-conference ones. Regardless, there are different "style" iterations from team to team, which makes even the low-scoring games fun to watch.

Brandeis lines up with a fairly attack-minded 4-3-3 with wingbacks often going forward and joining the attack. They used to be a physically smaller, flair-based side that had some trouble with teams that were more physical, such as NESCACs, but in the past couple of years they have brought in some bigger, more physical players to give them a more well-rounded team. The results over that stretch of time have shown an improvement in this department. Last year they had trouble scoring goals - I don't think the lack of scoring compared to previous years was "by design" - but they got it done when it mattered (until they were knocked out by Trinity).

Case and Carnegie like to have a player between the lines (a la Cveko and Webb) who gets forward to help out with the attack. Emory, too, but to a lesser extent. Regardless, all three are relatively attack-minded sides, and I respect the fact that they will go for it even if away from home.

Chicago and WashU seem to play one up top in my observation, especially away from home. They usually work to get the wingbacks and outside forwards involved, and are two of the most versatile teams that I've seen in terms of being able to attack or defend depending on which is necessary. I've only seen NYU away from home in the past couple of years but they seem to like to keep things tight and nick a goal if they can.

Rochester is probably the toughest of the UAAs to play against year-in, year-out. That doesn't mean that they win the conference crown, but they are the toughest out every year IMHO. Very athletic. Physical. Skilled. Resilient. The whole team works pretty well together and it seems that everyone knows what his job is. Unlike many opponents they will do their best to impose their game on you wherever they're playing, which I admire.

[FootyFan]

So UAA and LL are both fairly technical.  What about some of the other traditionally strong conferences? 

NESCAC, NJAC, Centennial?

[blooter442]

Can't speak for the Centennial as a whole, but if I had to guess I'd say it's relatively attack-minded - Haverford and F&M seem to emulate that. Dickinson as well, although probably to a lesser extent. Not super familiar with the other teams, but both Muhlenberg and Swarthmore have made it to the Sweet 16 in recent years and it seems that those teams scored a decent number of goals so I'd guess that my observations are relatively consistent.

NESCAC, the only real "possession-based" teams are Tufts and Williams (and maybe Wesleyan, but to a lesser extent). Amherst is "attack minded," but not in terms of on-the-ground quick passing - they usually look to capitalize off of long balls and set pieces, although they do have some good pace. Middlebury has similar tendencies. Bates, Conn. and Trinity fall somewhere in the middle in terms of offense vs. defense. Bowdoin, Colby, and Hamilton like to sit back, although Bowdoin has been by far the best of those three at executing.

NJAC - I'd agree with the poster who said the league is fast-paced and aggressive with some skill thrown in there. Rutgers-Newark is fun to watch IMHO, and I'd say the same for Montclair St. and Camden.

[Brother Flounder]

Can't speak for the Centennial as a whole, but if I had to guess I'd say it's relatively attack-minded - Haverford and F&M seem to emulate that. Dickinson as well, although probably to a lesser extent. Not super familiar with the other teams, but both Muhlenberg and Swarthmore have made it to the Sweet 16 in recent years and it seems that those teams scored a decent number of goals so I'd guess that my observations are relatively consistent.

NESCAC, the only real "possession-based" teams are Tufts and Williams (and maybe Wesleyan, but to a lesser extent). Amherst is "attack minded," but not in terms of on-the-ground quick passing - they usually look to capitalize off of long balls and set pieces, although they do have some good pace. Middlebury has similar tendencies. Bates, Conn. and Trinity fall somewhere in the middle in terms of offense vs. defense. Bowdoin, Colby, and Hamilton like to sit back, although Bowdoin has been by far the best of those three at executing.

NJAC - I'd agree with the poster who said the league is fast-paced and aggressive with some skill thrown in there. Rutgers-Newark is fun to watch IMHO, and I'd say the same for Montclair St. and Camden.

I thought Haverford was a bit more that way.  Regarding the NESCAC. I agree with Tufts and Williams, and sometimes Trinity.  Tufts had the perfect center playmaker for its style of play the last four years, and not only do they play possession style, they play great defense.  They will have a large transition in midfield this year and it will be interesting to see how it develops. Any ideas on the attacking and winger midfield starters this year?

NJAC... I don't know who Montclair State loses but I also agree that they play a fast pace passing style that is fun to watch.

[luckylefty]

Haverford and F and M are pretty direct teams.  I don't necessarily mean long balls, but they aren't swinging balls around their back 6 very often.  It's win the ball, play into the forwards feet and move off him. 

Swat does play a pretty heavy possession style but they aren't very good anymore.  Tough, smart, resilient, but just missing the talent that they used to have.

The NJAC has a pretty heavy hispanic influence with the North Jersey teams.  Leads to an aggressive 1 v 1 style.  The teams in South Jersey play a little more boring and traditional (Camden, Stockton, Rowan etc).  Not super possession heavy but not direct like Lycoming or the NESCAC either.