Coaching content provided by US Youth Soccer's Coaching Connection

WHERE IS THE GAME GOING?

An Analysis of Systems, Trends and Technique (Part 3 of 3)

Tactics and Trends of Teams & Players in the Olympics
All coaches look at systems of play as evidence of the game’s progress and motivation to switch or create a new system.  It’s fascinating to evaluate world events, as each World Cup and Olympics unveils new trends in systems and team play.  In recent competitions, the women’s game has seen tremendous growth in new systems and precise execution of the more ‘classic’ systems utilized to achieve success.  The system(s) of choice can enhance the team’s position to succeed, as various systems thrive as a result of their country’s culture or players. For example, Brazil prides themselves on great individuality; hence they prefer to play with 3 forwards.  Germany’s culture and tradition almost dictate that they will play in a 4-4-2, and at every world event they do and it works very well for them, while the USA’s educational system and perhaps our coaching culture opens doors for consideration of a myriad of systems.  As the Technical Director, I’m often asked why not “dictate” a system for club, youth national, state and regional ODP teams.  The answer is simple, with a myriad of reasons:

A) Why limit ourselves to one system? 
B) The very foundation of America is our diversity.  Let’s use our diversity as a strength so that our players are comfortable playing in many systems. 
C) Good players need to be able to play the game first, and within a system second.  Understanding the principles of play is the first key to being able to play at the highest level. 
D) Why pigeonhole our country to play one system, thus making it easier to scout and defeat the US? 
E) Why not be unpredictable, thus enabling us to use a myriad of systems in our repertoire as strengths? 

And finally, imagine the developmental chaos if youth players were only exposed to one system in their critical tactical years.  It should be noted that systems are only as good as the players playing in them, and the truly best systems are the ones that seek to highlight teams’ and players’ strengths and disguise teams’ and players’ weaknesses.  No system ever won a game – players win games!

Systems
The dominant system used during this Olympics was a 4-4-2 (4 backs, 4 midfielders and 2 forwards).  Virtually every team used this classic system, at one point or another during the tournament.  USA, Germany, Japan, China and Nigeria all used the 4-4-2 as their ‘primary’ system of choice.  This trend started 2 years ago when the USA, limited by the pool of forwards, and needing to play 4 rather than just 3 in the midfield against teams who used 5, decided to use 4 central midfielders and two forwards to maximize the highest performing players at the time.  Throughout the Olympics, we saw several different formations within the 4-4-2.  USA, Japan, Sweden, and Nigeria all played with a diamond in the midfield, while Germany and China played flat across their midfields.  The second most common system in the women’s game today is the 4-5-1 that flexes into a 4-3-3 on the attack.  It’s interesting to note that during the Olympics, only Australia and Greece played it.  However, Norway made the system successful and other countries followed suit, such as Canada, France, China, and others.  The 4-3-3 system was played successfully by Brazil (only against the USA), Sweden, and the USA during these Olympics.  The USA started in a 4-3-3 against Japan and against Brazil in the finals.  We also switched to a 4-3-3- in the first game against Brazil.  Finally, Brazil and Mexico employed a system not seen in the women’s game since 1995, the classic sweeper with markers.  And, for all of Brazil’s games except against the USA, they played in a 3-4-3 (two markers and a deep sweeper), and in every game they preferred playing in a dangerous 3 front system.
 
All systems are good systems – the key to their success is how the system fits it’s players and how the players play. The women’s game has seen tremendous growth technically and tactically over the last 5 years, and one of the most profound impacts on teams’ successes has been the effectiveness of players in the various systems chosen by coaches. Germany may always be suited to play a 4-4-2, Brazil will likely always play with a sweeper and markers, and the USA will hopefully always be the team that evolves with the game and chooses a system that fits the highest performing players at the time. Regardless, the best teams lead the way for other countries to emulate. After the ’91 world cup, many countries began playing with 3 forwards because the US was so successful; after ’95, teams began employing Norway’s flat back four system; and currently, we see numerous teams playing a diamond in the midfield of a 4-4-2, like the USA. Pick the system that best suits your team’s players, not your comfort level in coaching a particular system. Develop your team’s understanding of all the system’s nuances, and then select a secondary system that your team can switch to for various tactical reasons (such as up a goal, down a goal, struggling in the midfield, etc.). Keep in mind that it is very difficult for most teams to switch from one system to another without a transitional lag time. The US women have been switching systems within games and from one game to another for many years now. It wasn’t always seamless, but the lessons were there for us to build upon.

Flexibility: almost every team in the Olympic tournament demonstrated the ability to play in more than one system.  However, only the USA and Sweden seemed to proactively choose two systems, while other teams usually switched their system as a tactical decision often late in a game to either regain a goal or hang onto a lead.  The USA used a 4-4-2 with a diamond midfield, a 4-3-3 with 2 low center midfielders and 1 high one, and at the end of the two over-time games against Germany and Brazil, we used a 4-5-1.  Sweden spent the year 2004 experimenting with a 4-3-3 (the 4-4-2 has been their staple system for more than a decade).  The end result wasn’t an Olympic gold medal, but it certainly made them more difficult to prepare for and adjust to.  Brazil prefers to play in a 3-4-3 but is very competent in adjusting to a team that plays a 3 front by dropping one of their midfielders onto the back line to play a 4-3-3.  Three of the final 4 teams showed great ‘flex-ability’ and transition in using 2 systems. Why play two systems? Doesn’t it just confuse players? Perhaps initially, however, in the end, having a primary system allows your players to master that system and play at their highest level, while having a secondary system gives your team the tactical advantage of being able to adjust to the demands of the opponent or game.