Conference Playing Styles?

[jknezek]

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

What a very good question. A lot is a measure of degree. A possession style is built from the back. The backs play up to the mids, the mids go wide or back to the backs, then passes are played, generally on the ground, through the defense layers of the opposition to find teammates open or moving into open space. It's generally patient, with strings of passes, probing to find openings.

A more direct style you will see backs and midfielders playing long balls over the top consistently. Not because the forward or overlapping player is open, but in the hopes that they can beat the defender to the ball for possession.

Very few teams play all one way or the other, so declaring a team possession or direct is often a matter for the eyes of the watcher. A single long ball or a single passing sequence leading to a goal does not tell you how a team plays. An entire season needs to be watched, as coaches often decide some opponents are more susceptible to direct play and will take a team that plays a larger possession style and directs them to go over the top for a game or two. Or vice versa.

If you get a chance, watch a couple Messiah games. That will give you an idea of very good possession soccer at the DIII level and then watch a few Amherst games and that will show you a contrasting and very good more direct style.

[PaulNewman]

Good info, Mr.Right.  My initial thought was that the pressure to win or at least attention to where programs are finishing (especially if there is a pattern) has been on the rise, but when I considered the past 7-8 years that I've paid attention I couldn't really come up with much beyond the Colby and Bates situations, where, for better or worse, those two coaches had very long tenures.  Flaherty now has had 4-5 years on the job with not so good results and he hasn't been fired yet.  I may have missed some over the past 5-6 years, but I'm also not aware of any that stand out from other conferences, and I don't recall posters referencing coaches getting fired because of results.

[Kick-grass]

Great thread and topic! I think we are missing a huge factor which are the PLAYERS! Yes, the coaches can create the system, philosophy, tactics, system, culture, etc....but the players are the ones who control the actual game. Teams that play possession obviously recruit technical players with high IQ, and direct teams look for more athletic kids. I think the SLU's, Messiahs, OWU's, Williams have always been great possession teams because they usually have 3 or 4 players that are quality footballers that understand the game. Messiah with Geoff Pizon running the show, or DeMello with SLU. And the same goes with Amherst in terms of just absolute monsters that have decent skill. The top programs usually have those top players that can control a game, while the mid-tier d3 schools may have great players, but lack those tacticians that pull the strings.

[Clotpoll]

For sure, it's a team game and really not a manager's game. One big difference in most levels of the US game, though, is that managers are effectively able to treat games as an extension of practice by taking advantage of small crowds to give lots of verbal direction. This is a big plus for lots of teams, as compressed windows of practice time really require that coaches get more involved during games.

[NEPAFAN]

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

What a very good question. A lot is a measure of degree. A possession style is built from the back. The backs play up to the mids, the mids go wide or back to the backs, then passes are played, generally on the ground, through the defense layers of the opposition to find teammates open or moving into open space. It's generally patient, with strings of passes, probing to find openings.

A more direct style you will see backs and midfielders playing long balls over the top consistently. Not because the forward or overlapping player is open, but in the hopes that they can beat the defender to the ball for possession.

Very few teams play all one way or the other, so declaring a team possession or direct is often a matter for the eyes of the watcher. A single long ball or a single passing sequence leading to a goal does not tell you how a team plays. An entire season needs to be watched, as coaches often decide some opponents are more susceptible to direct play and will take a team that plays a larger possession style and directs them to go over the top for a game or two. Or vice versa.

If you get a chance, watch a couple Messiah games. That will give you an idea of very good possession soccer at the DIII level and then watch a few Amherst games and that will show you a contrasting and very good more direct style.

Thanks for the response. So in your opinion is one looked upon more favorably than the other?

[jknezek]

Thanks for the response. So in your opinion is one looked upon more favorably than the other?

Soccer is called "The Beautiful Game" and that refers to creative, possession soccer. There really isn't much beautiful about watching a team boot the ball down the field, have a couple of big fast forwards slam bodies around to get control, and try and sprint to a spot where they can take a shot. It is, however, effective. Especially given the NCAA rules. It's harder to generate the trust, ability, and flow of a possession game when teams can have unlimited substitutions and can only practice a certain number of times before season and then spend 2-4 days a week either playing a game or travelling to games.

Again, favorable is in the eyes of the beholder. The world likes Brazil's "jogo bonita" when they have the players, or the Dutch Total Football, or Spain's Tiki-Taka. No one thinks England or Italy play beautiful soccer very often, and Germany's "Die Machina" phase wasn't the prettiest, but they can get results.

I'd rather watch pretty soccer than boot and run. But I'd rather see my college team, MLS team, and national team win than lose, and if the player pool is better suited toward kick and run, or pack the bus and counterpunch, then that's what you do at that level. I'd pull my hair out watching my kids learn kick and run in their travel league as I prefer they learn the game, rather than simply get exercise, but I don't really care if my kids win or lose so long as they grow. That should hold true for all youth levels, but we American's are very tied to winning is good, so we take shortcuts in learning in all sports. Too many games, too little practice.

Overall, the answer to your question is.... it depends. Soccer cognoscenti definitely look down on more direct soccer, but at higher levels they want to see wins and you do what it takes.

[Ommadawn]

My apologies in advance for the length of this post, but as with Kick-grass and others, I have really enjoyed this thread. The interesting and informative posts have been both entertaining and thought-provoking.  Styles of play are often aspirational, subject to being foiled by the defensive capabilities of opposing teams. More than anything, styles of play give players a good idea of what to do, how to do it, and why they are doing it.  I was particularly struck when I heard a D1 assistant coach say "We don't really have a style of play. We sort of take it from game-to-game." The player being recruited by that coach thought "Yikes!" and, not surprisingly, chose not to attend the coach's university.

Echoing the theme regarding coaches doing what they have to do to get the job done, I think that coaches are among the most practical people on the planet.  The Donald Rumsfeld quote about going "to war with the army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have" comes to mind. Coaches can target the types of recruits they want, but they may (and often do) not land the ones they want. Either way, the games are scheduled and played. The Tufts example illustrates this point well, as Tufts 2014 and Tufts 2016 had styles of play that were built around the personnel available to Coach Shapiro. 

I think that ideally, coaches like to have players (and corresponding game plans) that are sufficiently versatile to adapt to the demands placed on them by their opponents (particularly when they are not readily able to impose their will and preferred style of play on their opponents, which is what often happens in single elimination tournament contexts).  As an aside, I have long believed that Amherst could thrive in whatever style they choose to play due to the high talent (and skill) level of their players in relation to their opposition.  It's tough to argue with their results, but I would love to see what would happen if they mixed it up once in a while.  I think that their style of play sometimes allows weaker opponents to stay in games they otherwise would not be competitive in.

I appreciated the posts about forces compelling D3 coaches to select styles of play that they perceive to make winning most likely. It appears that coaches in D3 are most on the "hot seat" when they are not winning, not contributing to the institution's admissions efforts, and not liked by the players. Mr. Right's comment about the written evaluations of coaches by players brings to mind an AD I knew well in the 90s.  He was an early adopter of incorporating player feedback into the coach evaluation process. Whenever a coach received unfavorable feedback from more than 25% of the players, the coach was scrutinized more closely the following season and subject to termination if the numbers did not turn around.

The observations about the players having a big role in the style of play are spot-on. A team with 3 or 4 top players with the skill and the inclination to keep the ball on the ground and play through the midfield can dramatically alter a team's style of play (assuming, of course, that the coach is flexible and receptive to such a style of play and that decent results are achieved). Now more than ever, players can vet teams regarding their style of play (I loved the comment about every coach saying "we try to play possession") before applying to a given school. I know players who were of the mind that there are dozens of great schools that they potentially attend, but relatively few that had styles of play that suited them AND had coaches that were interested in them as players.  As is often stated regarding the college search process, it's all about the match between the student and the institution. For some soccer players, "style of play" is part of determining the match.
Finally, it has not been my observation that DA and other top club players are inevitably "coddled and soft." Sure, many of these players may prefer a more possession-oriented style of play, but they are highly represented on D1 rosters, and D1 teams often do not play the possession-oriented style of play on which they were bred.  There are some pretty big and strong center backs in D1 (many of whom were DA and top club players themselves), and DA and top club players who play in attacking positions seem to do alright on that level.  Presumably, if style of play is that important to them, players of this sort choose college programs accordingly.

[sokermom]

@ommadawn, nice post.  But it is catch 22.  Most players are invited to watch college games during the recruitment process and technical players can get turned off by long-ball/whatever style that can get the win approach because every player who is technical wants to play a good feet-2-feet passing game.  Then they go elsewhere searching for that ideal team.  So playing style matters to attract talent.  I think.

[PaulNewman]

I am really curious if perceived "playing style" really is a determining factor for a significant portion of D3 players.

Certainly if you are a very strong possession-type player and can land at a possession-oriented program (and also play), that sounds ideal, but given the range of factors that can go into choosing a school, especially at D3 where no athletic money is involved (and college as a soccer apprenticeship seems a little weird), I wonder if "playing style" ranks near the top as a determining factor.  Now, as some have pointed out in the past, D3 covers a lot of territory and appeals to a lot of different types of kids and demographics.  Those seeking the higher end academic D3s often are looking to get in the best school they can, followed by best school PLUS best school where they actually desire you to play soccer for them.  I suppose if a kid is fortunate enough to have multiple dream D3 academic type D3s drooling after him then he might have the luxury of considering what "style of play" fits best.  In that scenario, would "style of play" trump considerations about your sense of whether the coach is there for the long term, whether you like the other kids on the team, location like rural vs urban, academic offerings (e.g. liberal arts vs an engineering type school), etc, etc?  Then there are kids (and families) who aren't caught up in the prestige of schools and don't care where they go as long as they have an ideal soccer experience, and so some may indeed make a decision based more heavily on just wanting to play soccer.  Again, though, the coach has to want you and most still want to figure out if they will be reasonably happy with the whole experience (including issues like location noted above and perhaps costs as well).  Then there are kids seeking mission-oriented schools.

Then of course there is the question about what one values.  I personally have a hard time understanding kids who transfer multiple times at the D3 level and/or who will take 5 or even 6 years to exhaust all of their eligibility.  And, btw, when that happens, I wonder how much "style of play" figures in.  For example, does a kid decide he clicks with coach that runs a hybrid style or a coach who runs more pure possession but who has a personality that isn't so hot?

In my experience, kids wants to play.  Most kids I know would rather feel like they are solidly in the mix in terms of contributing (or at least can anticipate that happening within 1-2 years) vs sitting on the bench while the team plays a style one likes.  The power dynamics are such that I just don't know how often kids are in a position to be holding all the cards, so to speak, and getting to make playing style one of their final determining factors.  I would think, for those who make soccer in general a major deciding factor in college choice, that the issue of "Am I going to get to actually play?" tends to win the day.

Speaking of the breadth of D3, I was looking at websites of CUNYAC schools last night.  Appear to be very diverse with a lot of international flavor.  Would love to see someone knowledgeable tell us more about schools in conferences like the CUNYAC that garner less attention than others. 

[luckylefty]

Playing style certainly plays into kids choices.  I've recruited kids that mentioned that multiple times. In my experience it was far down the list but it definitely mattered.  The NESCAC for instance is very direct, yet players still commit there.  Why?
Cause they will get an unbelievable education.  Style of play matters just not more then the other stuff.

I think when kids transfer multiple times, or take multiple years that has typically very little to do with the school and more to do with the kid.  Either they leave because they don't have the role they (or their parents) envisioned on the team, or they fell out of favor with coaches because of personality conflicts.

You would be really surprised how little the opportunity to actually step on the field comes up in the process.  The reason?  Most of them think they are good enough to step in and play right away, which is probably natural for a 17 year old kid.

A really interesting school that nobody knows much about is Morrisville State.  They play really attractive soccer, build everything through the back (I mean everything).  They don't play in a good conference, so they fly under the radar a bit, but they are a solid enjoyable team to watch.

[Mr.Right]

The CUNYAC has a reputation of being one of the weakest conferences in D3. The AQ from that league usually gets matched up with one of the top seeds in the NCAA tournament. They usually get smacked 5-0 or 6-1 or worse! In my experience watching this league from a distance you are correct that these teams have some incredible international flavor on their rosters but they are usually one of the more unorganized sides in D3. The coaches are all part time as are for that matter the players but they do have some skill on these sides they are just horrific in terms of coaching and organization.

[Mr.Right]

The funny thing is Nescac before 2000 used to be a pretty balanced league in terms of style of play. Some teams would whack and others would try to play. When Ainscough took over Bowdoin in 2000 things began to turn for the worst. He played very direct and forced other sides to do the same to compete. Middlebury under Saward were very chippy and direct. Russo at Williams had the talent to stay in their possession style throughout all these years. Ferrigno was direct at Tufts and the Gooding's at Amherst were hybrid as they had some talent. When Serpone joined at Amherst in 2007 the league got ugly in style of play. The focus turned to height, speed, athleticism and very direct play. This has not changed in the past 10 years or so. Williams always stayed possession oriented and a couple of Colby sides with Oostergaard as assistant coach would really build out of the back with very short passes that other teams would high press them to death and they would get burned b/c they just did not have the talent and skill at very position to make it work. BUT they attempted it and I commend Colby for that. Interestingly, Oostergaurd is now at University of New England where he plays the same style w/o much success so far but it makes you root for these teams to succeed

[Dog Face]

You may commend Williams and Colby for their style, but both of those coaches have to be under some pressure.  Given Williams' competition in all things with Amherst, you have to believe there is pressure to do better (make the tournament) there.  Colby has gone from challenging Bowdoin as the #1 destination in Maine for a male soccer player to dropping down to fend off Bates for the #2 spot.    Sounds like Williams brought in a good recruiting class, and the word is that the coach was proceeding with greater urgency in recruiting given recent results.  Not sure about about Colby- no evidence of an increase in urgency there.

[PaulNewman]

Lefty, if you are saying style matters but usually is so far down the list of factors that style doesn't end up ultimately tipping the decision then we pretty much agree.

I can just imagine if Serpone had called our house and told my kid he really wanted him at Amherst and would even give him a push if needed with admissions.  If my kid had responded "I'm not interested because I don't think you're willing to play through the midfield" I think I probably would have lost my mind.  In that scenario, my kid had better hope he's got a Williams or Haverford or similar in his pocket.

There are just too many scenarios in D3 to account for, including a wide range of player abilities and a wide range of competitiveness of the schools.  A kid who is told he is one of a top tier contender's top three recruits will feel differently than a kid who is offered a roster spot but told competition for playing time will be fierce.  Some other kids might know they are borderline in the coach's eyes and are satisfied with just a promise of a fair shot to make the roster.  Of course the more leverage one has the more a kid can afford to make more specific factors like playing style important (i.e. if I've got admits to Amherst, Williams, Swat, Haverford, Hopkins and Wash U and all those coaches want me badly then I can more easily factor in style and personality issues).  Ironically, if I'm not seeking a top 50 school and I'm comfortable with a bunch of schools in the 75 to 150 range then perhaps it's easier pick style (although the confidence level on a particular coach staying might not be as great).

As for playing time, there may be schools that need players and where decent playing time is pretty much guaranteed.  At the most competitive programs I'm not sure why kids (or at least their parents) would think they definitely will play.  I've certainly seen a good number of USSDA players end up mostly sitting on benches. 

[NEPAFAN]

Are we overselling this idea of coaches under pressure? How many instances of a coach being let go for poor team performance can you guys recall?