Boys Varsity Soccer Notes: Oak Hills (0) vs Granite Hills (4)

Oak Hills High School (OHHS) Boys Varsity Soccer lost at home versus Granite Hills High School (GHHS) Boys Varsity Soccer 4-0 in the preseason match. The game was 2-0 at halftime.

Hesperia vs Oak Hills Video

OAK HILLS BOYS SOCCER NOTES:

Using the 3-5-2 formation exclusively, by default, most ball and player movement is forward, fast, and long. Forward ball movement is usually delivered to feet while checking in or over the top of the midfield and back lines. Lateral movement of players and the ball in possession is usually limited to a 10 to 15 yard channel, especially following throw-ins.

Often times, this tactic comes at the expense of possession, composure, endurance, confidence, passing opportunities, goal scoring opportunities, and creativity. As a result, the attacking game is predictable and easy to defend against.

While these tactics may have worked in previous years with tall, fast, strong players who were fit, many players do not match the physique of players of the past, as the stature of some players are shorter with small to medium build frames. Furthermore, due to COVID, player fitness levels vary; some lack the stamina to run at such a dramatic pace. When matched against teams that are taller and stronger, balls played toward the attacking third are usually intercepted. Otherwise, the ball is played too long, resulting in the opponent’s goal kick or throw-in.

Switching the angle of attack was a challenge, especially when the ball was near the touchline, as the central midfielders had generally shifted to within 20 yards of the ball-side touchline. Wide players on the opposite side of the field were often too wide, virtually hugging the opposite touchline, to receive the ball. Even with the power of a long ball to switch the field, the opponent usually had players within range of the pass to intercept the ball. Wide players who pinched in did receive several switches during the course of the game, as they were able to cut the angle of interception.

Generally, 1v1 defending was poor, resulting in stabbing at the ball and the opponent breaking through the lines. Challenges by most players were make-it-or-break-it challenges, not regularly winning possession. There were only a few players who used 1v1 challenges to contain the forward passes and slow the play, allowing the defensive lines regain tactical shape.

Often there was a large gap between the the back line and front line. Regularly, the back line was approximately 10 yards of the defensive arch, whereas the forward line was approximately 10 yards of the attacking arch, frequently leaving 50-plus yards between them, making it difficult to defend and physically demanding to support the fast and long attack. Because of this, there were few passing options near the attacking third. Furthermore, there were few passing options in general, due to the high-paced attack and depletion of stamina, causing potential receivers to reserve their penetrating runs.

For the back line, the opponent took advantage of the midfield gap and the three-player backline, which frequently lacked the support of defensive midfielders. Often, the attacking players matched the back line 1v1, 2v2, or 3v3. There was rarely a player on the backline without a mark. Early in the game, during the first two goals, the backline was overwhelmed with speed, especially due to its higher line. Later into the second half, breakaway runs against the backline were less successful due to defenders reading the attacking cues and dropping off accordingly.

For formation’s shape, it often appeared as a 3-6-1. At the backline, the center back generally dropped five-plus yards off the two other backs. Central midfielders rarely slowed the play, as they usually had a lot of ground to cover and recover on the defensive transition. A few of those who played as outside backs successfully supported the attack with frequency. A couple of these worked to retain possession and were actively involved in the attack.

RECOMMENDATIONS

• Work on 1v1 defending to delay the play and organize the defenses; stay on feet as opposed slide tackles.
• To reduce the predictability and regulate the stamina required of long/direct play, develop the patience to build the play, especially since many players are very capable of a short, quick passing game, while executing creative runs. This would help reduce the depth of space between the back and front lines, enabling the full team to support the defense and the attack.
• Work on closing the gaps between the front and back lines, especially during loss of possession.
• Work on tactical shape of the lines in and out of possession.
• Adapt the style of play to the player strengths.
• Due to the lack of stamina (of wide players) and lack of discipline or understanding of the tactical shape of the 3-5-2, consider transitioning to an alternative formation such as a 4-5-1, or 4-3-3; a single center defensive midfielder (CDM) is recommended, as this would delegate greater responsibility, and therefore accountability, to a single player to: plug the gap between the center backs; be first to pressure and delay the attack; enable the center back to be without a mark and allow the defense to always remain in a plus-one advantage over the attack. Playing with two CDMs requires more coordination and discipline to shape, which may be too much to ask early on, especially since some players are more attack minded and better skilled at the attack.
• A 4-4-2 is another option, but the two central midfielders must remain very disciplined and work in concert on the defensive. As with the coordination of a 4-3-3 with two CDMs, coordination may require more work than is available with the short season.

3-5-2 FORMATION: This is not the ideal formation due to the complexity of its implementation and other aforementioned factors. Also according to the aforementioned reasons, a single CDM is recommended. The demands on the outside midfielders, who lack the benefit of fitness, places a lot of stress on the back line. Below are likely the strongest candidates for the starting lineup.

• GK: Toni
• CB: Javi
• LCB: Fidel
• RCB: Ian
• LM: Omar
• RM: Paul
• CDM: Hafoka or Paul
• CAM: Ruben
• CAM: Memo or Martin
• ST: Sergio
• ST: Omar or Bryce

4-3-3 FORMATION: This is the recommended formation. Due to the aforementioned reasons, a single CDM is recommended. Out of possession, this could look like a 4-5-1 (without a strong defense) or a 4-3-3 (with a strong defense). In possession, this could look like: In the middle third: a 4-4-2 or a 4-3-3. In or approaching the attacking third: a 2-1-4-3 (with two high opponent attackers at the half line) or 1-1-2-3-3 (with one opponent attacker at the half line).

• GK: Toni
• CB: Javi
• CB: Hafoka or Fidel
• LB: Fidel or Oscar
• RB: Paul, Ian
• CDM: Martin, Fidel, Ian
• CAM: Ruben, Damien
• CAM: Memo
• CF: Sergio
• LW: Omar
• RW: Lugi, Damien, Memo.

PLAYER NOTES

• Sergio – Can hold the ball for an oncoming runner and be very crafty for someone willing to run through and finish. He can also take on players 1v1 and allow additional attackers to setup opportunities in front of goal. He’s good as a wide man but rarely had anyone to play to.
• Bryce – He may be a good option to pair with Sergio in a 3-5-2, as Bryce has a strong hard shot, and he uses it.
• Paul – Appeared more effective in this role, as he was regularly beaten on the back line, but this may have been due to other reasons, including early game nerves and tactical failures elsewhere on the field. He’s technical, talented, and accurate with his passes. He could be a strong candidate as CDM or perhaps as RM/RW. In a 4-man back line, he and Ian are strong options.
• Hafoka – Appears more aggressive. Strong player. Possibly serve on the back line, preferably as a second center back in line of four. He’s a strong option as CDM.
• Fidel – Can play anywhere outside the goal. Made a run onto goal from deep but didn’t receive the pass back to earn a shot on target. Was the strongest communicators in the back. He had 100 percent passing accuracy and was not disposed or beaten on counter attacks. Made one mistake receiving ball to thigh rather than chest. Would be a good candidate for a CDM, if not for the current deficits on the back line. On the back line, he’s best on the left side, as he’s strong with his left or right. He is the best option on the left in a 3-man back line.
• Toni – He is one of the strongest candidates for a CDM, if not for his lack of fitness. Nevertheless, he’s the strongest option for GK. He has a strong understanding of the game and instills confidence in his teammates. He’s sharp in his decisions and execution of plays. As GK, he is strong in the tactical initiation of the attack and strong in distribution. He does not second guess himself.
• Ruben – He was rarely dispossessed. He strongest as a CAM, CM, LM, or RM. Especially in the absence of Chris, he’s best as the CAM, CM.
• Ian – Though he’s not as fast as others, he was rarely beaten (if at all) and physically strong; he was patient, smart, and communicates better than most. He is tough. He is patient. In the 3-man back line, he performed best and was the best as the RCB.
• Javier – Though he lacks in communication and organization of his back line and supporting midfielders, he is a natural CB, perhaps the only one on the squad. He’s talented, smart, tough, strong. In a 4-man back line, his second CB could be Hafoka, Fidel (if not for the need of a LB). Paul could become a good pairing as well.