What is the best formation for our small fields in north texas

Why are so many teams playing with one forward. I know a lot of college and pros play this but I don't think it works on the smaller fields because you cant spread the field and there is so much kick ball on the smaller fields and many times I see the 1 forward making a run but its 4 to 5 against 1 until the midfielders can get up but after running 18 to 18 a few times they are out of gas. What do you think    
                                              





                                                                                   
 

                                                                        







                                                                         

                                               

                                                 ..

What age group and what sized field are you thinking of?

98 00 Arlington, plano

Full disclosure: I mostly hate the 4-5-1 formation for multiple reasons: (1) As you suggested, the single forward is often rendered useless against numerous defenders, (2) the central midfield area is clogged unless the three central mids know their roles to perfection, and (3) coaches almost never play the outside mids out as wide as they should be in this setup.

As for the "best" formation... there's no clear answer. The first rule is to play the formation that best suits the team, not force the team to fit the formation. Second, the good coaches teach the kids two or three options that they can use in response to the opponent.

Despite all of that, my personal first preference in most situations is the flatback 4-4-2 with a diamond midfield. It's great for getting the outside defenders involved in the attack. 4-4-2 with a stopper/sweeper is more for the very youngest teams. I like the 4-3-3 if I've got some fast outside mids that can get back and forth throughout the entire game, but it's a challenge for the young kids.

I don't think kickball is caused by the size of the fields.

Teams with a strong attack based on passing use not only the midfielders, but also defenders in the attack.

The size of the field I think makes huge difference. If you are on a nice wide long field you can get your defenders more involved and you an stretch the field and play much better ball control but when the fields are narrow it congest the middle and when the mids get tired from running 18 to 18 they either don't get up or back

We played a team today that ran a 3 2 5 which was really a diamond defense and it killed us. We ran a 4-4-2 and never changed and it was usually 2 against 6 or 7 with the keeper and when they attacked us it was usually 3 or 4 sometimes 5 v 5 if both of there mids got up
it was lie this

   .                                                            .                                  




           .                                   .                                



                                             .           .



   .               our F                      .         .                        .


                                                                     .    Our f.


                                                     .     .








                                                    keep

At times it seemed they had more players on the field because we always seemed out numbered. Our forwards and defenders still had some energy but our mids where dead. with the 4-4-2 and the 4-5-1 it causes your mids to have to cover the entire field for most of the game and if you don't have subs or you are not subbing all your mids on a rotation then they die. IDK I could be wrong but I see it happening a lot

I am looking at the happy faces, and don't see a 3 - 2 - 5 (which is 3 defenders, two mids, and five forwards--based on where you positioned your forwards--our f.) because you begin with the numbers of defensive players (marking backs, stoppers, sweepers) and count back to front (4-4-2 is 4 backs, 4 mids, and two forwards). What I am seeing is a 4 - 3 - 3 (four defenders in a sweeper set, three midfielders with the center playing behind the wide players, and three forwards).

Please clarify if I am reading this incorrectly.

a-nonny-moose wrote:I am looking at the happy faces, and don't see a 3 - 2 - 5 (which is 3 defenders, two mids, and five forwards--based on where you positioned your forwards--our f.) because you begin with the numbers of defensive players (marking backs, stoppers, sweepers) and count back to front (4-4-2 is 4 backs, 4 mids, and two forwards).  What I am seeing is a 4 - 3 - 3 (four defenders in a sweeper set, three midfielders with the center playing behind the wide players, and three forwards).  

Please clarify if I am reading this incorrectly.

That's what I'm seeing, too. 4-3-3, stopper/sweeper, with an offensive diamond center-mid setup.

The OP is showing a 4-2-3-1 formation.
Best formation for youth is 3-4-3 because without any movement it creates triangles. Most don't play it though. Any formation should be based around the players the coach has not on what is their favorite or what the club wants.

GGoat wrote:We played a team today that ran a 3 2 5 which was really a diamond defense and it killed us. We ran a 4-4-2 and never changed and it was usually 2 against 6 or 7 with the keeper and when they attacked us it was usually 3 or 4 sometimes 5 v 5 if both of there mids got up
it was lie this

   .                                                            .                                  




           .                                   .                                



                                             .           .



   .               our F                      .         .                        .


                                                                     .    Our f.


                                                     .     .








                                                    keep

For the record (and I'm not out to discredit your coach), but one of the simplest strategies when playing against a team that uses a sweeper is to park at least one forward right next to her. When this happens, the sweeper will automatically back up - because she is the last player in the back and all by herself - which then stretches the field. Her defenders will then also have to backup, creating a gap between the defensive and midfield lines. A 4-4-2 opposition with two offensive centermids can exploit this, especially when one of the outside defenders breaks up the sideline and becomes part of the offense. Field width is one of the Achille's heels of the 4-3-3 stopper/sweeper system. A well-executed 4-4-2 formation is all about using that width.

Triumph FC wrote:The OP is showing a 4-2-3-1 formation.
Best formation for youth is 3-4-3 because without any movement it creates triangles. Most don't play it though. Any formation should be based around the players the coach has not on what is their favorite or what the club wants.

I don't see the 4-2-3-1 in the first post. The two defensive centermids are pushed too far up in the rendering provided to be considered separate right and left stoppers. Of course, this is assuming that the design provided was how the team lined up at kickoff. I run a 3-2-3-2 regularly for young players on full-sized fields. It varies significantly from a 3-5-2 in that the stoppers (or defensive mids as some coaches prefer to call them) tend to control the large gap between the opponents forwards and mids but don't push up nearly as far as true mids unless there is a corner kick or free kick.

sorry yall Im not the best smiley face formation maker the 1st one was the 4/5/1 The second is similar to the formation they played. They would push up to create a offside trap at times to where the back line was straight but many times during the game I would count 6 or 7 defenders against our 2 forwards. We were able to score in the 2nd half but at that point it 3-0 and they had moved a lot of girls to different positions and subbed a lot They had us 3-0 in the first half and when they attacked it seemed we were out numbered also with the 3 forward and the 2 mids that would come in an pick up trash. This formation to me seems to work much better on the smaller fields or maybe they where just a better team they had some great girls.

GGoat wrote:The size of the field I think makes huge difference. If you are on a nice wide long field you can get your defenders more involved and you an stretch the field and play much better ball control but when the fields are narrow it congest the middle and when the mids get tired from running 18 to 18 they either don't get up or back

What fields are too small, and what are the dimensions? Is this Railroad, UTD, Chinn Chapel, etc?

intrinsic wrote:

GGoat wrote:The size of the field I think makes huge difference. If you are on a nice wide long field you can get your defenders more involved and you an stretch the field and play much better ball control but when the fields are narrow it congest the middle and when the mids get tired from running 18 to 18 they either don't get up or back

What fields are too small, and what are the dimensions? Is this Railroad, UTD, Chinn Chapel, etc?

Compared to college size fields and pro fields they are all smaller
Railroad are for the most part pretty good size Utd are just so bad
Carpenter in plano are bad and very small. Arlington has the best grass but many are smaller I don't know the exact dimension I guess I can take a tape measure out to the next game and see. It seems to me that many of the fields are much more narrow.

I've always enjoyed the "cloud" formation employed by many of the younger (u4, u5) teams. It keeps the girls connected, provides ample opportunity for communication without having to shout, and once cetered around the ball makes for a pretty strong defense. When a player/ball does finally emerge from the "cloud" the fans become re-energized and typically start in with the time honored cheer of "WRONG WAY... YOU'RE GOING THE WRONG WAY!"

socceroverload wrote:I've always enjoyed the "cloud" formation employed by many of the younger (u4, u5) teams. It keeps the girls connected, provides ample opportunity for communication without having to shout, and once cetered around the ball makes for a pretty strong defense. When a player/ball does finally emerge from the "cloud" the fans become re-energized and typically start in with the time honored cheer of "WRONG WAY... YOU'RE GOING THE WRONG WAY!"

Ah.. the 0-5-0 formation. I like cloud better though

GGoat wrote:sorry yall Im not the best smiley face formation maker the 1st one was the 4/5/1 The second is similar to the formation they played. They would push up to create a offside trap at times to where the back line was straight but many times during the game I would count 6 or  7 defenders against our 2 forwards. We were able to score in the 2nd half but at that point it 3-0 and they had moved a lot of girls to different positions and subbed a lot They had us 3-0 in the first half and when they attacked it seemed we were out numbered also with the 3 forward and the 2 mids that would come in an pick up trash. This formation to me seems to work much better on the smaller fields or maybe they where just a better team they had some great girls.

I agree; it could be combination of factors that made the opposing team seem so ubiquitous. It sounds like the girls playing really understood transition from offense to defense. Needless to say, any formation can be equally effective if it fits the team and the players know how to run it. But I have still yet to see a girls' select team run a true 4-5-1 and look good doing it. They may win, but the middle is always a mess of bodies as the mids run into each other. It can definitely be good against a superior team by keeping numbers slightly back and hoping for the game-changing breakaway by a ball played through (or usually over the top) to the lone forward... but that's one of the few positives in my humble opinion for any team that has not truly mastered it.

soccerdad1969 wrote:

socceroverload wrote:I've always enjoyed the "cloud" formation employed by many of the younger (u4, u5) teams. It keeps the girls connected, provides ample opportunity for communication without having to shout, and once cetered around the ball makes for a pretty strong defense. When a player/ball does finally emerge from the "cloud" the fans become re-energized and typically start in with the time honored cheer of "WRONG WAY... YOU'RE GOING THE WRONG WAY!"

Ah.. the 0-5-0 formation. I like cloud better though

Love it

JustaSport wrote:

GGoat wrote:sorry yall Im not the best smiley face formation maker the 1st one was the 4/5/1 The second is similar to the formation they played. They would push up to create a offside trap at times to where the back line was straight but many times during the game I would count 6 or  7 defenders against our 2 forwards. We were able to score in the 2nd half but at that point it 3-0 and they had moved a lot of girls to different positions and subbed a lot They had us 3-0 in the first half and when they attacked it seemed we were out numbered also with the 3 forward and the 2 mids that would come in an pick up trash. This formation to me seems to work much better on the smaller fields or maybe they where just a better team they had some great girls.

I agree; it could be combination of factors that made the opposing team seem so ubiquitous.  It sounds like the girls playing really understood transition from offense to defense.  Needless to say, any formation can be equally effective if it fits the team and the players know how to run it.  But I have still yet to see a girls' select team run a true 4-5-1 and look good doing it.  They may win, but the middle is always a mess of bodies as the mids run into each other.  It can definitely be good against a superior team by keeping numbers slightly back and hoping for the game-changing breakaway by a ball played through (or usually over the top) to the lone forward... but that's one of the few positives in my humble opinion for any team that has not truly mastered it.

No no no!  We could never have that!  We must get away from the dump-and-run/kickball/jungle ball or whatever the soccer Nazis are calling it these days.  Don't you know - we can't develop if we are winning.  

Lawnboy wrote:

JustaSport wrote:

GGoat wrote:sorry yall Im not the best smiley face formation maker the 1st one was the 4/5/1 The second is similar to the formation they played. They would push up to create a offside trap at times to where the back line was straight but many times during the game I would count 6 or  7 defenders against our 2 forwards. We were able to score in the 2nd half but at that point it 3-0 and they had moved a lot of girls to different positions and subbed a lot They had us 3-0 in the first half and when they attacked it seemed we were out numbered also with the 3 forward and the 2 mids that would come in an pick up trash. This formation to me seems to work much better on the smaller fields or maybe they where just a better team they had some great girls.

I agree; it could be combination of factors that made the opposing team seem so ubiquitous.  It sounds like the girls playing really understood transition from offense to defense.  Needless to say, any formation can be equally effective if it fits the team and the players know how to run it.  But I have still yet to see a girls' select team run a true 4-5-1 and look good doing it.  They may win, but the middle is always a mess of bodies as the mids run into each other.  It can definitely be good against a superior team by keeping numbers slightly back and hoping for the game-changing breakaway by a ball played through (or usually over the top) to the lone forward... but that's one of the few positives in my humble opinion for any team that has not truly mastered it.

No no no!  We could never have that!  We must get away from the dump-and-run/kickball/jungle ball or whatever the soccer Nazis are calling it these days.  Don't you know - we can't develop if we are winning.  

I seem to have read that a time or two on here. In fact, isn't it true (on this forum, at least) that any ball played to a forward must originate from a defender, be passed on the ground to a midfielder, who then performs 3-4 sizzling 1v1 moves before passing the ball on the ground to the forward? I still can't figure out why we allow 50/50 balls to be delivered in the air via free kicks, goal kicks, keeper punts, and corner kicks. That's simply not "possession soccer"!

You know what the common weakness inherent in the "4-4-2", "4-3-3", and the currently fashionable "4-2-3-1" are? It's their failure to use a keeper. You're allowed 11 players on the pitch, and it's a good idea to have one.

JustaSport wrote:

Lawnboy wrote:

JustaSport wrote:

GGoat wrote:sorry yall Im not the best smiley face formation maker the 1st one was the 4/5/1 The second is similar to the formation they played. They would push up to create a offside trap at times to where the back line was straight but many times during the game I would count 6 or  7 defenders against our 2 forwards. We were able to score in the 2nd half but at that point it 3-0 and they had moved a lot of girls to different positions and subbed a lot They had us 3-0 in the first half and when they attacked it seemed we were out numbered also with the 3 forward and the 2 mids that would come in an pick up trash. This formation to me seems to work much better on the smaller fields or maybe they where just a better team they had some great girls.

I agree; it could be combination of factors that made the opposing team seem so ubiquitous.  It sounds like the girls playing really understood transition from offense to defense.  Needless to say, any formation can be equally effective if it fits the team and the players know how to run it.  But I have still yet to see a girls' select team run a true 4-5-1 and look good doing it.  They may win, but the middle is always a mess of bodies as the mids run into each other.  It can definitely be good against a superior team by keeping numbers slightly back and hoping for the game-changing breakaway by a ball played through (or usually over the top) to the lone forward... but that's one of the few positives in my humble opinion for any team that has not truly mastered it.

No no no!  We could never have that!  We must get away from the dump-and-run/kickball/jungle ball or whatever the soccer Nazis are calling it these days.  Don't you know - we can't develop if we are winning.  

I seem to have read that a time or two on here.  In fact, isn't it true (on this forum, at least) that any ball played to a forward must originate from a defender, be passed on the ground to a midfielder, who then performs 3-4 sizzling 1v1 moves before passing the ball on the ground to the forward?  I still can't figure out why we allow 50/50 balls to be delivered in the air via free kicks, goal kicks, keeper punts, and corner kicks.  That's simply not "possession soccer"!

Sounds like you're talking out two sides of your neck. First you claim you've never seen a select team look "good" playing a 4-5-1....which implies you care about aesthetics. Now you're trying some weak arse sarcasm implying kickball is equivalent to soccer.  Which is it? Either you want em to learn the game or you don't.

4-3-3, are you really just that much of a moron that written facetiousness completely escapes you? If you don't have something knowledgeable or at least witty to add, why even post other that to read your own drivel?