Sweeper5Most adult men's teams that play at the amateur level play a 4-4-2 with Sweeper/Stopper diamond in the back. This winds up being a defacto 3-5-2, although most teams don't even realize this is what they are playing. While a zonal 4-4-2 provides the best balance of attack and defensive cover, with both width in attack and defense without running anyone to death, unlimited subs makes this a sub-par strategy.
The 4-4-2 lets you get width in defense with the fullbacks, as well as width in attack with the side midfielders, as well as constant support and cover. But, it is unforgiving of a single player taking a momentary "break" from action, or not positioning themselves correctly (especially in the back four).
If you don't need your players to last as long, why not force wing-backs to provide width in defense as well as support in attack (simultaneously) and drop a sweeper to cover everyone. Most teams you face will have two forwards, so you will be 3 v. 2 in defense, and the two AM playing as "drop" forwards will draw the oppossing fullbacks out of the back line, openning space for the lone forward to run diagonally into or the wing backs to overlap into. Also, the AM's will probably be able to find space for a back to the opposing goal pass reception from the defense, which can then be dumped diagonally to the WB or Creator who are facing the opposing goal.
Consider also how this would work for an NCAA team restricted to an 18 man roster, but allowed to have each player enter the game twice. If the Sweeper, CB's and Volante can last the hole game, then that leaves 13 players on the roster to each enter the game twice at the remaining 6 positions (12 if you keep an extra keeper in reserve). Why not run your side players and forward to death, they can get plenty of rest on the bench.
13.07.2009
nvrSweeper based systems are very vulnerable against teams which have pacy attacking players. A run between the back and sweeper would always create a scoring chance. This probably is not a huge problem at the amateur level though, as there are not many players capable of passing the ball in front of a running man with accuracy.
15.07.2009
FeriAtsI wrote some stuff about on formations about 3 men defense a while ago:
http://www.this11.com/topics/show/2166
Most of the points there apply to formations with sweepers.
15.07.2009
RoberticusVery popular formation here in Brazilian domestic football.
24.07.2009
Sweeper5Back in '99 I spent some time training in Salvador and then Recife. I don't claim to have "made up" this formation - just pointing out its usefullness in a given situation.
Unfortunately the U.S. has been slow to incorporate anything other than a 4-4-2 sweeper/stopper system into the youth programs (and even most college programs) and as a result you can come across very technically gifted players (who can even play a ball to feet for a forward runnng into depth) who have no tactical sense and have no confidence in a defense that doesn't have a designated person to provide cover for any defender attempting to disposses an attacker.
This is my thought on how to accomadate the majority of players 18 and up who feel dependent on having a sweeper on the field, but avoid the pitfalls of the typical 4-4-2 rhombus shaped defense & midfield that is so prevalent in this country.
25.07.2009
jmancubsfanI have to comment on this now...
I play in an adult league of quite varied skill and up until this season there were 8 teams and all of them played the diamond D, defacto 3-5-2 that you've mentioned. But this season I found two quality center backs and without much more, turned my team into a 4-1-2-1-2 fighting machine. We may not have one sweeper but perhaps two AND with a CDM in front of them, they get to keep the stopper concept all while having more cover when the "stopper" inevitably ends up attcking the other teams penalty area.
We faced the most talented offense the first game and held them to only 2 hard-earned goals when we had averaged allowing 4 a game over the last two seasons. If our league ever adapts to my brilliant change I think I may switch to 5 backs!
15.09.2009
jmancubsfanI have to think that your formation would be less effective than a flat four in my league. My problem is that if the sweeper is noticeably better than the left and right CB you're doomed. All it takes is for the sweeper to pull out to the side to cover someone getting beat down the side and you're left with a weaker defender shifting over to cover the heart of the box.
This is only irrelevant if you have three equally gifted center backs on the field at all times which I certainly could not produce.
15.09.2009
Sweeper5This fall I switched to a new team. Everyone is 10 years younger than me, came up playing flat 4 and are comfortable with it, and I'm getting to play in an organized flat 4 for the first time in 9 years (currently at left back - I'm really more of a side defender than anything else). Gotta say I'm in heaven and wouldn't want to play in a sweeper system ever again.
My one counter to what you say about what happens when the sweeper is noticeably better than the two CB's and moves out to cover the flank is - if you have only one good CB, do you want to put one of these weaker players next to him in a flat four?
29.09.2009
jmancubsfanMy team doesn't have that problem obviously but what I see from the other teams is basically this:
We play two patient relatively good, but not great, defenders at center back and put a speedy agressive tackler in front of them as a center D mid to deny through passes.
Essentially all the other teams do the opposite. They play the best defender they have as a sweeper and put those other patient types as center mids in front of him in a 3-5-2 of sorts.
Both of our teams could have the exact same talent in that back five and the same caliber players for outside defenders. But the difference is, with my back four they're covered when they get beat down the side without completely exposing our middle to a cross.
What I'm saying is my center backs are patient players with enough speed to chase somebody down if needed, but yet smart enough to just drop back instead of playing the trap so that they never have to chase a through runner. They may not be the best players on the team or even the best defenders on the field short of the CDM but they are ROLE players that do their job.
Have you been able to play an offside trap with your back four Sweeper5? My team has looked vulnerable when we flatten the D out especially when we're too close to the half line. I read a quote once from a coach of days long ago that was to the effect of, "If I don't like the food I'm served, I go straight into the kitchen for the chef and completely bypass the waiter." The relevance here is that in order to stop these through balls we need to deny the midfield passer the chance to make the pass in the first place rather than focus on how to counter the forward running through or intercept it on the way.
30.09.2009
Sweeper5The team I played on for several years after college, when I was playing sweeper because no one was capable/willing to play zonal anything, didn't have any patient types. All the defenders were hyper-aggressive, great 1 vs. 1 defenders, with zero positional sense. So, I yelled and screamed to keep them in position and cleaned up the mess when they dove-in and missed. The team I'm on now is nothing like that.
As for offside trap, we don't. We move up when opponents back pass or are pressured by someone positioned to block any forward pass not towards the corner flags. We drop when uncovered players are running at us with the ball until we get close enough to the keeper that he can cover us on through balls. Pretty basic stuff.
We play flat 4-4-2, with neither CM designated as defensive screen. Not my first choice, but that is what happens.
30.09.2009
jmancubsfanI agree with you on the 4-4-2. I too have a natural disdain for playing without a defensive screen. But if you just tweak it a little you can make some big tactical changes and get that screen you need. If you don't have an abundance of true strikers you can take that basic 4-4-2 and modify it in into the popular 4-2-3-1 quite easily. Just pull your center mids back as defensive mids for that screen you need and play with a playmaker in front of them- behind the striker.
We prefer the "wingless wonders'" 4-1-2-1-2 (diamond midfield) variation and it's great if you don't have anybody who really needs to play on the wing to serve in crosses. The entire offense can shift from side-to-side in attack and position themselves inside (goal-side) of your opponents wing players in defense. It also allows you to fill that defensive screen role with one aggressive tackler if that's what your team has.
I have a keeper who is a great natural talent but had never played in a league before. In our last game I told him to play up off his line until they got close so he could come out on through balls. Suddenly they couldn't find any room to play those through passes to the runners that you usually have to worry about with a flat four and we looked strong.
Things I laughed about:
It sounds like that team you played on after college would have been have a perfect candidate to experiment with a 1-4-3-2 or some other formation with a single sweeper with a wall defenders in front.
and
They pass the ball backwards in your league? ha
02.10.2009
Sweeper5So do you rely on width in the attacking third for crosses, or find other ways to get the ball into the penalty area? Also, do your fullbacks push forward, or stay home on the back line?
The city I live in has a very healthy soccer community (for the U.S.) for its size. The soccer association that runs my league has 28 teams in 2 divisions for men's open. This doesn't include the 20 teams for Over 30, the Spanish League, and another men's open league in a town about 10 - 15 miles away. Further, we have a USL Premier Development League team in our town, and many players move back and forth from that team to the men's open 1st division league I play in depending on their current standing.
Point is, there is a lot of variation in skill level, and there are some teams and players who actually "pass" the ball backwards deliberately. But in all honesty, I probably should have written, "We move up when the ball moves backward and the opponent retains possession."
04.10.2009
jmancubsfanI play in a MUCH smaller league. It's just a simple adult league founded less than 10 years ago near a college town. There are only eight teams in all.
www.siasl.org
Our most effective attacks seem to develop in a manner very similar to that of successful professional teams when we're at our best:
By playing four in the back when nobody else will, we often get pinned in and force the other team to commit all of their non-defender types up into the attack. When we win the ball back, we simply win the race down to there end and take advantage of the space caused by them sending so many players into our area. Believe it or not, the long ball can still have it's place too if used properly. I specifically remember playing left back and just bombing one onto their half because I knew their three defenders were pushed up all the way at the half with our speedy striker and the striker would probably outrun them to the ball.
As far as width in attack goes, we really don't use it much at all. When we do, we tend to try go wide early, beat the weaker left/right center backs and pull the stronger sweeper out of the middle. The few players we have capable of being wingers and making good crosses aren't playing those positions. I mean how many goals are really scored that way in any league let alone an adult rec league? We have three young Korean players that play left mid, center attacking mid, and striker respectively. These guys can run circles around most of the other (older) players in my league even after their smoke-break at half time. So, yeah, we play a little more direct because we can.
My full-backs can push forward but I've found that only the speedy one tends to even try it. I just don't think the others have that understanding quite yet. I myself love to play long passes from left back and I usually don't have to get too far forward to do that.
05.10.2009
