Conference Playing Styles?

[luckylefty]

No. It wouldn't be broadly applicable at all.

First, a U-11 team has an emphasis on developing players. You can forego short term results and not worry about being fired. Second, you play a good style with a good team you get your pick of the litter. College doesn't work that way (for instance your son chose a school academically before anything else). They also train for 11 months out of the year most likely. That's almost triple the days of training of a  Division 3 program.

Comparing to high school girls soccer is absolutely hilarious. But I think that shows how out of your league you are when it goes past anything other then complaining about Division 3 soccer on an internet message board.

[Clotpoll]

Its great that you have this noble look at the game, but guess what? You wouldn't do any of this if you're livelihood depended on it. You would decide what would get you results, and you would compromise.

Jared Embick's livelihood depends on it, and he's doing just fine. And, were my livelihood to depend on it, I'd absolutely go 100% pass/posess soccer...if for no other reason than doing things 'the way things have always been done' leads to predictably poor results. If I'm going down, I'm going down by doing something that at least has a shot at breaking a trend of disastrous results.

[luckylefty]

What? You just referenced a Division 1 Head Coach at one of the most supported and recognizable soccer programs in the country to make your point?  That has absolutely nothing to do with your point. To compare Akron to a Division 3 program is absurd.

I'm done. You aren't making any valid points anymore, just complaining about the system and acting like you can fix Division 3 soccer after watching your son play 18 games.

[Clotpoll]

No. It wouldn't be broadly applicable at all.

First, a U-11 team has an emphasis on developing players. You can forego short term results and not worry about being fired. Second, you play a good style with a good team you get your pick of the litter. College doesn't work that way (for instance your son chose a school academically before anything else).

Comparing to high school girls soccer is absolutely hilarious. But I think that shows how out of your league you are when it goes past anything other then complaining about Division 3 soccer on an internet message board.

Please send me some of what you're smoking. One of the biggest issues in US youth soccer is the OVEREMPHASIS on winning vs development at the U11 level...and younger. I've coached at lot at this level, and I can assure you that if you're a pass/possess coach, winning is the currency that allows you to continue in a seasonal progression of developing kids in your style. Any sustained run of losses opens the parents on your team to being courted by any number of coaches who get 'results' by playing scrumball. The dominant style of play in the NCAA game came directly out of the cutthroat world of youth soccer, and it represents the logical conclusion of this type of insanity.

If a girls HS soccer team in rural CA can successfully master pass/possess soccer, it obviates a lot of the built-in excuses against it that are now shibboleths of the men's D3 game.

Keep in mind that coaching programs like 3four3 have over 500 members now. And the coaches who are members are not paying for learning how to lose. There may well be some NCAA coaches in that group, and if not, it's likely there will be.

[Clotpoll]

What? You just referenced a Division 1 Head Coach at one of the most supported and recognizable soccer programs in the country to make your point?  That has absolutely nothing to do with your point. To compare Akron to a Division 3 program is absurd.

I'm done. You aren't making any valid points anymore, just complaining about the system and acting like you can fix Division 3 soccer after watching your son play 18 games.

Dig deeper. Embick is not getting typical NCAA D1 'cream of the crop' athletic talent, and he faces enormous challenges in getting his players to play a thinking game that requires huge mental effort as well as a requirement that they learn the difference between problem-solving (the level of most NCAA soccer) and good decision making (higher level soccer). You can Google much of his take on these issues within his own team, as he's very open about it.

His recent teams, while very good, are vulnerable to physical, direct sides, and they often lose to teams who can overwhelm with athleticism, so I think his situation and experiences are directly applicable and of value to the D3 game.

[Clotpoll]

So, there's plenty of feedback here that the things I've proposed simply won't work at the D3 level. I've also been invited to seek out a D3 coaching position, presumably to have my teeth kicked in by the jackboot of the cold, inexorable realities of the D3 game.

I'll continue to put forth ideas as we move toward the season, but in return, indulge me with your answers to the following:

You've secured a head coaching position at a D3 school. Academically, it's very good...although in the public eye, it's not an Ivy or NESCAC. There's plenty of funding in your budget to scout, recruit liberally and have one, maybe two, paid assistants. You've been hired because the previous coach has gotten the team to 'middle of the pack'...but can't get over the hump of getting a win vs the two big-time conference programs, much less a conference tournament or NCAA berth. 10-8, 'near miss', 'unlucky' seasons have become the team's calling card.

On the plus side, the quality of your school and the personality of the outgoing coach combined to bring in 6-8 recruits yearly, and the roster you're inheriting has plenty of good, fit, motivated, intelligent kids. None of them are individuals who can turn a game on their own, but they're a good, coachable unit willing to try anything to improve.

The athletic director has given you your marching orders in no uncertain terms: start by at least competing with the two programs at the top of the table, get to the conference tournament and get to the NCAA tournament within four years. You basically have a four year recruitment cycle to show what you can do with your handpicked players. If the results are good? Congratulations. You either get a raise and a new contract, or a program further up the food chain scoops up both you and your assistants.

If you miss the mark? You're fired, your assistants start looking for 'real' jobs, and you're looking for a DOC position in a second-tier youth club in god knows where.

How do you attack this challenge?

[truenorth]

Isn't D3boards an online forum for discussing topics related to D3 college soccer?  I visited and occasionally commented on the site about a half dozen years ago.  I'm imagining that the vast majority of readers and commenters live in America and either played D3 college soccer or have/had one or more children who played D3 college soccer.

D3 colleges by definition are about academics first and foremost...and they generally regard sports as an extracurricular offering that add richness to the college ecosystem and personal development opportunities for student athletes.  These programs simply aren't resourced or intended to be key feeder systems or skill development opportunities for aspiring professional and national team players.

For most parents and spectators, college sports are entertaining and engaging...regardless of the skill level of the players/teams.  In the U.S., the highest level skill development is most appropriately left to the academies.  That said, my anecdotal observations suggest that the general quality of D3 college soccer has improved over the past 10 years.

At the national team level, the USMNT does indeed make plenty of excuses...but there has been inexorable, albeit uneven improvement in skill and depth of talent over the past 30 years.  Unfortunately, it is almost certainly our destiny that this progress will continue at an infuriatingly slow pace, particularly given the fact that young U.S. athletes can choose from a variety of sports...thus diluting the "talent pool". 

Further, the majority of U.S. youth players still come from middle class "suburban" backgrounds, are usually expected to get a college education, and don't regard soccer as their only pathway to making a living.  In Europe and South America, soccer (football) is a true street game and is often one of  the only viable pathways to making real money, which creates a "hunger" factor that is unlikely ever to be replicated in this country.

[D3soccerwatcher]

Some D3 teams are committed to a system of play, other teams are committed to winning, and a few teams are committed to both.

The conversation on this string seems to be revolving around a possession oriented style of play versus more direct play within D3.  The prevailing "feeling" seems to be that possession is far superior to more direct soccer.  While I favor a possession style of play (within certain parameters), there is absolutely no evidence (NONE) that there is any statistically significant correlation between possession and winning soccer games.  Did you just watch the Confederations Cup Final – Chile totally out-possessed Germany 66% to 34% and Chile lost 1-0 (hmm?).  Also note this year's EPL champions, hardly considered a dominant possession team.

Famed soccer coach, Jose Mourinho, has said that those who favor beautiful football over a steely defense and lethal counter-attacking are "stupid".  He has always favored substance over style.

Mourinho says..."What it is, is people who got some idea, some philosophy, and want to create something like 'We build very well from the back, we have a very good ball possession we don't play counter-attack.'  But if you don't play counter-attack then it's because you are stupid. Counter-attack is a fantastic item of football, an ammunition that you have, and when you find your opponent unbalanced you have a fantastic moment to score a goal.  So I think people are creating (illusions) and it has influenced public opinion. But football will never change. Football is to win."

Still further, across all levels of soccer (inclusive of D3) the median number of completed passes leading to goals is about 4, not 24 not 14...4! (see Soccer Analytics by Franks & Hughes).

So D3 coaches figure out what they have to do to win.  For most, that is athletic, physical, more direct soccer.  While I may or may not like it, it is a viable strategy and it can and does win D3 soccer games.   It's part of the game and there is nothing inherently wrong with it. 

And I think we as a soccer culture have created a level of young players, particularly in the USDA (and other "high level" clubs) who have been told they are better then everyone else and that the only way to play is to win the possession game.  These players only play on possession teams - against other possession teams – and they can become a bit coddled and soft.  And when they get to the college game they have no idea what just hit them.  Guess what...it was that big centerback who could care less about your possession game "pedigree".   And they and their parents cry "foul" as they leave the pitch defeated...saying that wasn't a fair game...our opponent didn't play possession soccer. Well I suppose they do win the moral possession game victory.  But on their record there is still an "L".

I think NJAC and NESCAC play a pretty direct style.   It's physical, athletic and tough.  But it works.  I've said before that I'm not a real Tufts fan – mostly because I don't particularly like the "way" they play.  But you certainly can't argue with their recent success.

On the other hand, you have teams like Messiah, (and a few others) who are totally committed to possession and have had significant long term success.  So it can be done.  But it takes total team commitment and buy-in.  And an ENORMOUS amount of very specific coaching.  And players have to be taught how to handle other more direct, physical teams.  While it is difficult, I think teams like Messiah have proven that it's not easy, but it can be done.

So IMO both styles are very viable in D3 soccer.  The key is for the coach to determine the style his team will play, and train his team to achieve success with that style.  With good coaching and total team buy-in, either style can and does work...regardless of which style you may favor.  In the end, even in D3 soccer...what really matters is substance over style.

[blooter442]

I've said before that I'm not a real Tufts fan – mostly because I don't particularly like the "way" they play.  But you certainly can't argue with their recent success.

In my view, Tufts has played some really good possession-oriented stuff in the past five or so years. Certainly, they were hard to watch at times this past season, and were much more scrappy and direct than in years past – but I think that was due to a lack of "creative" personnel and Shapiro adjusting his tactics accordingly. And, as much as we might dislike it when coaches win ugly, particularly scrapping out the decisive result against a Calvin side who was much more adventurous and attack-minded, it is ultimately the pragmatic thing to do.

Two years before, when Tuts won the crown in '14, they did so with a possession style. Of course, then it was perhaps easier, as they had a CB (Williams) who was very good on the ball, Kayne and Pinheiro pulling the strings at CM, and Santos and Brown who were pacy, skillful forwards. Then, they had the personnel to do it, and so they did it. I also saw the Jumbos play in 2012, 2013, and 2015 – each year, they seemed to keep the ball on the ground the majority of the time.

This past year, their leading CB (Sullivan) was not skillful but instead physical, their midfield was led by Halliday who had been a sitting midfielder when Kayne and Pinheiro was around, and Majumder was the archetypal "target man" up front. Granted, the latter was injured for part of the season, and Becherano did a wonderful job picking up the slack, but I could see the difference in personnel of the two sides resulting in a significant difference in style.

[PaulNewman]

A few thoughts and responses in review, as some things have been said that are just too outlandish not to counter...

The NESCAC generally is accepted as the top conference in D3 and certainly no worse than co-equal with one or two other leagues (UAA, NJAC).  Coaches in the NESCAC have not been getting fired for producing middling results year after year.  The only possible pressure out the door came at Colby and Bates.  Both of those coaches enjoyed runs of 20-30+ years, and, if there indeed was pressure or any firings, they happened after those schools had numerous years in a row of middling and less than middling results.  Coaches who have tended towards middle to low-middle of the pack in the NESCAC -- Wheeler at Wesleyan, Pilger at Trinity, Murphy at Conn -- have kept their jobs for a long time.  I'm sure someone will quickly correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't know of any other D3 conferences where average to losing seasons have resulted in loss of jobs specifically because of results or style of play.  To my knowledge, D3 firings typically have involved some type of scandal or bad actions linked to a coach's behavior and/or loss of control of the program.

With the above said, it's hard to think that coaches at the D3 level aren't trying to win games and take programs to more winning ways.  If they believe a possession-oriented style will aid that goal, and especially if they have the players to do well with that kind of system, they'll do that.  They ARE NOT going to promote a possession style with no interest in results and just pure commitment to some aesthetic ideal.  The players ALSO want to win.  They don't come back the next year with no aspirations of a better record, post-season expectations, etc. 

There's been a rather bizarre notion in this thread that challenging a poster means that those challenging have conceded that what the poster has concluded about us is true.  The poster has suggested that we've made up things out of thin air, engaged in distortions and straw-manning, etc, but that cuts both ways.  Online forums don't always handle nuance well.  The truth is that I prefer a good possession-oriented, attractive style, as most here probably do.  I do also like winning, as do many here. One of the most exciting times on this site is at tourney selection time, when a couple of the brightest posters on the site offer their predictions and analysis regarding selections.  Just like in other sports like college bball, the NCAA tournament is a blast and the major focal point of the season  Saying that doesn't mean that I or anyone else doesn't understand the place of D3 soccer in the overall soccer food chain.  BTW, the NCAA doesn't "loathe" soccer.  No other sport has a "season" that extends beyond a "season."  All of us on the site also don't always agree.  We have our disagreements, our instances of going too far, hard feelings, etc.  This isn't our first rodeo and we certainly aren't monolithic.

I also get the argument about how more limited substitution might help the product on the field.  Imagine, though, if D3 teams only played 13 or at most 14 kids with the first sub often not coming until the 60th minute or later.  Without getting into another dissertation, I'll just say it's more complicated than just mimicking the pro rules.  And just because one entertains other considerations doesn't mean one is incapable of appreciating any single consideration.

The poster suggested even a glancing look at what he said about his son would have yielded an understanding of multiple things, including that his son never desired a D1 and made a choice on academics first and foremost.  He did not include in that summary that his kid "attracted zero interest from any program" (any division) and was offered a provisional spot at the school of his choice.  That's very different from a superstar talent who is disappointed that his team can't play the kind of soccer he is so capable of.  The sad thing about the ill feelings generated is that my own kid's story (limited recruitment, needing to prove himself, more skilled than athletic, etc) was extremely similar.  As another aside, I don't agree that NESCACs and other prestigious D3s don't like kids from public school backgrounds.  If anything, they want more of those kids (if they are smart and if they can play).

Flying Weasel basically is the or a moderator for the site.  He extended a couple of olive branches executed with finesse that most of us would envy.

A close review of the "fun" faux pas revealed that I initially made a comment that "if you're not enjoying, then..."  That was followed by the "who the hell are you" post with rhetorical questions about whether I would have "fun" dealing with x, y and z.  That was when the word choice of "fun" first appeared...not from me. 

[Saint of Old]

Newman!!!
Some great points as always, I do think we all agree more than disagree.

I think it is really important to take the time and reading the posts to see that there are many astute observations that are made by former players/fans/etc... which is why this site is such a pleasure to visit for most of us.

d3 soccer has some sick players currently and I only see that getting better.

The D3 label I think is a bit of a problem, those that know soccer well understand that the top 25 or so programs in the country are playing some very good soccer and to be a contributing player one must be a straight up baller regardless of the style of play the team has.
Most of the guys who have competed know this as you either played on such a team or competed against them.

This is why I love it when programs rise (Tufts/Calvin/Haverford) are a few examples, because to get to that level takes hard work and years of toil to break through...

Back to the topic of conference playing styles... the great thing is that this will be an evolving argument because the game keeps evolving, that is the beauty of soccer.

Brazil 1970 won in a totally different way than Italy 2006, but they are both champions.
I love beautiful football, but what comes first and foremost is Winning. That is what History remembers.
The argument of which is the better style is for us football technocrats who live and breathe this stuff.
There is no doubt  that West  Germany 1990 was better than Holland 1974 because the Germans won!

I think the D3 scene is changing a bit, not sure who mentioned that coaches are now on a much shorter leash, but I think younger coaches are having a more practical mindset (Use the system the players you have is suited to), as opposed to launching 5 year projects and building a team philosophy even if it means taking a few lumps along the way(and you will).

Football is a very personal thing however, and I do think that those of us who coach inately refer back to our style of play in college when coaching.

I

[Mr.Right]

Well I will say in the last 15 years or so the pressure to win has really amped up. This is because alums and parents are calling AD's and even Presidents to complain. This was unheard of 20 years ago. In Nescac alone in the last 15 years we have seen numerous coaches being ousted or "pushed out" for not winning. Purgavie at Bates, Serdgenian at Colby, Ferrigno at Tufts, Lessig at Conn College, Mighton at Trinity, Gooding's at Amherst. These coaches were all forced out and that is just in 1 league and in the last 10 or so years. Some of them were justified and others IMO were not.

I agree with you on the public v private school kids as the poster has no clue about admissions. I will say I have seen coaches not recruit some good players because of an overbearing parent. They just do not want to deal with parents that interfere.

Tufts in 2014 played some attractive futbol. Tufts in 2016 did not. Amherst and Middlebury do not play attractive futbol but they both won it all in the past 10 years. Williams and SLU always played attractive futbol and each school got there rings doing so but Williams and SLU have also come away with devastating losses in the NCAA's year after year playing attractive futbol. They lost to weaker teams doing it but they never changed which is commendable.

Messiah won a ton playing attractive futbol but they have struggled the past few years and I especially will be interested to see how they bounce back this year and if McCarty changes any which I doubt but still that fan base MUST be putting some pressure on him and his staff to start winning championships or at least getting deep into the NCAA's. When coaches are put under some pressure they can all react differently so that will be something to watch for.

[luckylefty]

The rise in pressure I think has come from two things

1.  More colleges are shelling out full time salaries for programs, or in a very few cases multiple salaries, they want a return on that investment in regards to wins.
2.  Many small private colleges are using Athletics to drive enrollment.  In August when Rosters get posted look at the programs that did not have much success last year and only have a few incoming Freshmen, that is a warning sign that the coach is on the hot seat.  It's one thing to lose, it's another to lose and not help the college with boosting it's enrollment.

[Mr.Right]

Alot of it started when colleges about 10 years ago started getting written evaluations from players on their respective coaches. While indeed helpful if the player is being honest with himself and the situation they can also be incredibly damaging to the coaches reputation especially if the same comments year after year keep showing up. Players that are not playing or playing with limited minutes finally had a chance to vent their frustrations on paper to the AD. The surprising thing at the time to coaches were how serious the AD's and faculty that were evaluating the coach took this information up to and including termination. Like I said earlier some of the coaches I listed deserved to be axed but some did not.

[NEPAFAN]

I am a relative newbie to soccer, how do i tell what style is being played from watching online streams? Be gentle.