Do junior teams need a "Sweeper"

[aquaman]

One of the best things I can see coming out of the implementation SSG which needs to flow into junior coaches thinking when they start coaching 11 a side at U13 level is the use of a sweeper in their side.

The practice of plonking one of your best players (or often your best) 10 yards behind a centre back (or 2 centre backs) does that player no favours when it comes to their future development (and in some cases can hinder them) if they are unable to deal with quick decision making and communication required when playing against better players.

Too often players struggle to make the transition to the concept of "a flat back 4" in representative sides at a state and national level and consequently flowing through into the National Youth League and A League.

The quicker coaches can make the transition to coaching a team without a sweeper, the better it will be for young players coming through.

An altenative emphasis may be on the concept of the covering defender who starts in line with his team mates then drops off to become a second defender to the player who deals with primary danger presenting itself at that time (the first defender)

[johnydep]

One of the best things I can see coming out of the implementation SSG which needs to flow into junior coaches thinking when they start coaching 11 a side at U13 level is the use of a sweeper in their side.

The practice of plonking one of your best players (or often your best) 10 yards behind a centre back (or 2 centre backs) does that player no favours when it comes to their future development (and in some cases can hinder them) if they are unable to deal with quick decision making and communication required when playing against better players.

Too often players struggle to make the transition to the concept of "a flat back 4" in representative sides at a state and national level and consequently flowing through into the National Youth League and A League.

The quicker coaches can make the transition to coaching a team without a sweeper, the better it will be for young players coming through.

An altenative emphasis may be on the concept of the covering defender who starts in line with his team mates then drops off to become a second defender to the player who deals with primary danger presenting itself at that time (the first defender)

Some valid points. However, what if the team has a player that is smart enough to think, that show natural abilities as a Sweeper; shouldn't those abilities be nurtured and developed?

Saying that a player will be disadvantaged going from a Sweeper role to a flat four may be correct for some, but most talented players will adapt very quickly with good instruction.

I guess there is no simple answer and that may be why the FFSA are pushing for a 4:3:3 formation at all levels.

[James]

Hi Aquaman.

I recently came across a presentation showing how to coach the 1-4-3-3 to kids developed by the FFA. This suggests that for up to under 15's, the 3 players in midfield should be set up with 2 deeper players and one midfielder behind the strikers.

Are the 2 deep midfield players suggested so to provide a defensive buffer whilst the kids are learning to shuffle? Or is because one holder in midfield would to result in that player developing a predominately defensive mindset? (sit and screen in front of the back 4)

[aquaman]

Some valid points. However, what if the team has a player that is smart enough to think, that show natural abilities as a Sweeper; shouldn't those abilities be nurtured and developed?

But will this nurturing prepare them in the best way for the talented player pathways, if they will never play as a sweeper

Saying that a player will be disadvantaged going from a Sweeper role to a flat four may be correct for some, but most talented players will adapt very quickly with good instruction.

Agreed, although in the early stages of the pathways a player may be getting different instruction on a Monday and a Wednesday in a development squad to what they are getting on a Tuesday and Thursday and Sunday with their club... if everyone was on the same page it should be easier to adapt, even if the message is delivered slightly differently

[aquaman]

Hi Aquaman.

I recently came across a presentation showing how to coach the 1-4-3-3 to kids developed by the FFA. This suggests that for up to under 15's, the 3 players in midfield should be set up with 2 deeper players and one midfielder behind the strikers.

Are the 2 deep midfield players suggested so to provide a defensive buffer whilst the kids are learning to shuffle? Or is because one holder in midfield would to result in that player developing a predominately defensive mindset? (sit and screen in front of the back 4)

Hi Malcolm
In my opinion it is probably a combination of the points you have mentioned above plus the extra options it gives when trying to play out from the back (rotations and interactions between the 6 and the 8 ) in my experience most of the time one of your defensive midfielders tends to have a more defensive mentality anyway, but I think before the age of 15 they are trying not to develop one particular mindset.
As I said this is only my opinion, I did not develop any of the curriculum, have only observed things while watching and coaching.

[James]

Although i havent coach this system at the age 13-15yo, it looks easier to teach the one holding midfielder opposed to trying to teach balance with 2 midfielders (ie - which one stays or goes).
Having said that its not about how easy it is for me, its about what is the best formation to teach the kiddies.

I did note the u13's metro side played with the one holding midfielder and that seemed to work well.

Also when playing out from the back the metro side played the left and right back, even if they were deep. This resulted in the opposition team shuffling accross and clamping the defender in. The defender then played a riskiy ball into the midfield or played a ball up the line into a challenge.

I watch a kelly cross session last year with an u19 side and he pushed the defenders up and got the centre halves and keeper to spread and palyed out from there (with less congestion) Is this approach too much for an 13? How do you go about it with you squad Aquaman?

[aquaman]

How do you go about it with you squad Aquaman?

I prefer to push the fullbacks up and play out through the centrebacks, but that is more difficult if the opposition plays with 2 up front, in that case I prefer playing through the fullbacks, but with them as far forward as possible so they can link with the players in front of them

I posted this link in the Junior forum a while age, but it is probably more relievant in this forum

http://www.myfootball.com.au/Newsletter ... ion_v2.pdf

Going back to the original topic, whatever I do doesn't involve a sweeper sitting 10yds behind the centreback(s), defending or attacking

[glebe]

The sweeper will have the attributes of a good defensive midfielder.

[aquaman]

The sweeper will have the attributes of a good defensive midfielder.

True Glebe, sweeper is probably more similar to a defensice midfielder than a centreback, but you still have the issue of not having the same amount of time and space that a sweeper tends to have, as well as the fact that not everything is if front of you when you play in midfield.

... in other words for their development the players who play as sweeper are still better off playing as a centre back in a flat back 4 or as a defensive midfielder...

What is the main reason clubs play with a sweeper anyway? The coaches feel happier coaching with a sweeper? A system of a club? Results?

[Nice One Cyril]

Not sure of the merits of a sweeper but each to their own.

What I am consistently amazed at is, when playing a team that does use a sweeper, that more of the opposition coaches don't tell their centre forward to push right up on the sweeper. They just mooch around in front of the back four most of the time which gives the sweeper all the time in the world. Easy to look good when you've got five minutes to decide what to do with the ball.

[Squizzy]

Not sure of the merits of a sweeper but each to their own.

What I am consistently amazed at is, when playing a team that does use a sweeper, that more of the opposition coaches don't tell their centre forward to push right up on the sweeper. They just mooch around in front of the back four most of the time which gives the sweeper all the time in the world. Easy to look good when you've got five minutes to decide what to do with the ball.

I agree. I love my teams playing against one with a sweeper - we can get 5m closer to goal!

[MegaBonus]

Squizzy

What I am consistently amazed at is, when playing a team that does use a sweeper, that more of the opposition coaches don't tell their centre forward to push right up on the sweeper. They just mooch around in front of the back four most of the time which gives the sweeper all the time in the world. Easy to look good when you've got five minutes to decide what to do with the ball.


I agree. I love my teams playing against one with a sweeper - we can get 5m closer to goal!

if the striker plays closer to goals 'on the sweeper', it usually means....

1 - your striker is further isolated from your midfield. if your team cant build an attack through an exchange of short passes to him, they are likely to go long where your striker is outnumbered 2 to 1 (3 to 1 if you include the goalie)
2 - coaches who give this instruction do so to negate the 'free' role of the sweeper, thus making it a defensive move

the instruction should be to push up to the same length/depth as the sweeper but position yourself between defenders. this way the sweeper gets dragged out of their confort zone when needing to cover. it also means the CB has to communicate with either the RB or the LB as to who should mark the striker. this may cause hesitation because of a lack of communication or confusion.

an intelligent sweeper playing under an intelligent coach will also learn to play as an extra midfielder. thus a 4-4-2 quickly turns to a 3-5-2 when the team is in possession.

it also introduces and teaches the player the 1st defender-2nd defender concept.


as always, if its taught properly, its a benefit!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Squizzy]

Squizzy

What I am consistently amazed at is, when playing a team that does use a sweeper, that more of the opposition coaches don't tell their centre forward to push right up on the sweeper. They just mooch around in front of the back four most of the time which gives the sweeper all the time in the world. Easy to look good when you've got five minutes to decide what to do with the ball.


I agree. I love my teams playing against one with a sweeper - we can get 5m closer to goal!

if the striker plays closer to goals 'on the sweeper', it usually means....

1 - your striker is further isolated from your midfield. if your team cant build an attack through an exchange of short passes to him, they are likely to go long where your striker is outnumbered 2 to 1 (3 to 1 if you include the goalie)
2 - coaches who give this instruction do so to negate the 'free' role of the sweeper, thus making it a defensive move

I don't believe it is "usually" at all - coach the team to identify playing against a sweeper and as you mentioned, all lines and sections make adjustments. But I definitely disagree (others may not) with your 2nd point as making it a defensive move.

[Nice One Cyril]

if the striker plays closer to goals 'on the sweeper', it usually means....

1 - your striker is further isolated from your midfield. if your team cant build an attack through an exchange of short passes to him, they are likely to go long where your striker is outnumbered 2 to 1 (3 to 1 if you include the goalie)
2 - coaches who give this instruction do so to negate the 'free' role of the sweeper, thus making it a defensive move

the instruction should be to push up to the same length/depth as the sweeper but position yourself between defenders. this way the sweeper gets dragged out of their confort zone when needing to cover. it also means the CB has to communicate with either the RB or the LB as to who should mark the striker. this may cause hesitation because of a lack of communication or confusion.

an intelligent sweeper playing under an intelligent coach will also learn to play as an extra midfielder. thus a 4-4-2 quickly turns to a 3-5-2 when the team is in possession.

it also introduces and teaches the player the 1st defender-2nd defender concept.


as always, if its taught properly, its a benefit!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mega, you've chosen to interpret my comment in a rather simplistic way. To play 'on' the sweeper doesn't mean, in his pocket like AFL. As you well know, when you're in possession you'd play at the same depth but 5-10m away, and only get closer when without the ball. Starting at that depth makes it far easier for the midfielders to hit balls behind the other defenders and it doesn't stop the striker coming short to receive and going away again so being isolated shouldn't become a problem. And if he is being isolated (a la Owusu) then it's more of a problem with the midfield than the striker.

As for it being defensive. All forwards are defenders in a good team and will be pressing the ball whenever it's in their area of the pitch so this is no different.

As for it being a benefit, I think that, at junior level, the more positions you can teach a child, the better they get an understanding of what an opposition player in the same position will be looking to do, so I have no objection to it in that sense. Playing sweeper however, very much depends on being able to read the play in front.

Why do so few professional teams play with one? Because the first thing the opposition coach does is to push his forwards up and that virtually forces you to go to a flat back four.

[MegaBonus]

i also think you have used and described the position 'sweeper' rather simplistic...

lets say a team is playing with a flat back 4. the opposition are playing with 2 up front.

you out number them in defence but are out numbered in midfield, so one of your back 4 needs to pick up the 3rd attacker. depending on where they are attacking from it could be either the wide backs or your 2nd CB

that still leaver you with 3 defenders and 2 strikers up front. whether you choose to zone or man mark you still have a free player. this person thus 'sweeps' or in defensive terms becomes the 2rd or 3rd defender ie: to cover and provide balance.

preference for formations and structure are cyclical!!!

im also pretty sure (maybe a fan of italy can confirm) that the last world champions, used canavarro to marshall the defence!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[slowcoach]

And what you have just described is a combination defence and not a sweeper system. You cant have a flat back four if you are playing the sweeper system, because the sweeper plays behind the lines hence not flat. You have generalised as the spare defender being the sweeper, not true he/she is the 2nd defender,totally different system.

Just because someone marshalls a defence, it doesn't mean they are a sweeper.

[MegaBonus]

it is not me but others who have over-simplified the term/position, thus my previous statement

i also think you have used and described the position 'sweeper' rather simplistic...

are you telling me that when a team playing with a 'sweeper' is in possession or attacking in the oppositions half that this player is positioned behind the 2nd to last defender???

like i said previously, formations and structure are dependent on a coaches instructions.

questions to consider..

* does the sweeper (if we assume he is the last line of defence-excluding keeper) always play behind the 2nd to last line of defence and how deep. if he is always to be the free man, he can play in line with the back line or even in front
* is it always the same player
* do they have an offensive role

[Squizzy]

are you telling me that when a team playing with a 'sweeper' is in possession or attacking in the oppositions half that this player is positioned behind the 2nd to last defender???

like i said previously, formations and structure are dependent on a coaches instructions.

questions to consider..

2. * does the sweeper (if we assume he is the last line of defence-excluding keeper) always play behind the 2nd to last line of defence and how deep. if he is always to be the free man, he can play in line with the back line or even in front
3. * is it always the same player
4. * do they have an offensive role

My understanding is that the term 'Sweeper' is a defensive position as they are there to sweep the line of defence (2nd to last line, traditionally).

With regards to your first question, I would say, yes generally. Unless they have the ball and are moving forward but hes is still the sweeper.

Also, yes to your second question if he/she is to be called a sweeper. If they are in front, then I would call them a defensive midfielder.

Third question - no it doesn't need to be the same player but as posted previously it would not be deemed a sweeper defence, rather a combination defence.

Fourth question - yes, everyone does when their team has possession.

Caveat: Only my opinion, delibrately kept general. I've been wrong before and I'll be wrong again.

[slowcoach]

Firstly why change it to attacking, you haven't got your point across when defending yet.

The term sweeper is for behind the line and to plug the gaps so it can't be flat, see my post before its a combination defence. When you think of sweeper systems you think of individual players as the sweeper greats. Although yes it could be different players, but we talking junior football aren't we, the coach must have a lot of faith to allow more than one to do the job.

"like i said previously, formations and structure are dependent on a coaches instructions." What does this mean ?

[MegaBonus]

slowcoach

"like i said previously, formations and structure are dependent on a coaches instructions." What does this mean ?

how long is a piece of string????????

lets say, 10 coaches of different teams employ (for arguements sake) a 4-4-2.

all 10 would have different instructions for the players as individuals, groups of players (eg defence line, midfield line and strikers) and to the team as a whole unit.

these instructions will vary according to which of the 4 stages of the game youre in ie:
* possession
* transition to defence
* opposition in possession
* transition to offence

each coach will have different instructions according to what outcome theyre working towards. eg, playing away from home in a 2 legged cup game, when not in possession, the 2nd striker is to drop into the midfield (4-5-1). or when chasing the game a defender pushes up into the midfield and a midfielder into the attack (3-4-3) etc etc

cause the game is dynamic and there are numerous decisions being made by players and coaches on a second by second basis to solve football problems, formations and positions need to be fluid

my points were and are...

1 - the evolution of formations and systems of play mean that traditional titles given to certain positions dont accurately reflect their contemporary role

2 - taught/coached properly, you can play any formation with a junior team and it will be a great learning experience

however..having said all that

if we follow the dutch path, we should be coaching a 4-3-3.

Ajax classically and traditionally use the 4-3-3 system, with an emphasis on wide players who can attack as wingers and drop deeper to play as midfielders when a team loses possession. It is the same structure that Han Berger, the Football Federation Australia's technical director - and a man who helped Heart recruit van 't Schip - wants all of Australia's national teams to play in in the future.

''I want to play the Ajax system but we have to find the players to play that game. It's not that we are going to play that every time. My intention is to play 4-3-3 because that's the way I learned it, I was brought up with it.

''They still play that way in Holland, and not only in Holland. If you see Barcelona, the best team in the world at this moment, and they also play that system.

....Van 't Schip

[Squizzy]

my points were and are...

1 - the evolution of formations and systems of play mean that traditional titles given to certain positions dont accurately reflect their contemporary role

2 - taught/coached properly, you can play any formation with a junior team and it will be a great learning experience

In terms of the 'Sweeper' role, I think that they still do reflect the contempary role it was designed for in a defensive role (i.e. to screen behind the back 3). In attack though, the player may be given more license to break forward once their team is in possession.

I agree with your 2nd comment generally. In my opinion a combination defence is better at junior level and that is how I have coached teams.

Note: I have deliberately omitted any comment regarding transition to possession or from it as I can't be stuffed typing it. Happy to discuss verbally though.


Edit: Sorry, I didn't add up the back line correctly but all fixed now.

[MegaBonus]

do we know each other????

[Squizzy]

do we know each other????

Yeah, not sure.

PM me and we'll see.

[OldRedback]

Lothar Matthaus and Franz Beckenbauer played at quite a high standard and they didn't seem to suffer from being labelled as sweepers.

[aquaman]

Some interesting debate had over the use and merits of a sweeper, defensive strategies and great sweepers of the past...

The two quotes below are most relevant to the point I was trying to make when starting this topic.

In terms of the 'Sweeper' role, I think that they still do reflect the contempary role it was designed for in a defensive role (i.e. to screen behind the back 4).

99% of the usage of a sweeper that I see in junior clubs is a player playing with a back 3 (eg two centrebacks and a sweeper) or a back 4 (one marker, two fullbacks, one sweeper), the sweeper is always 10 yds behind the line in fromt of him/her.

if we follow the dutch path, we should be coaching a 4-3-3..

This is the point I was trying to make, the dutch (and new national system) system (from U13 up) plays with a flat back 4, and this is how development squads, Institutes and National teams will be playing for the next 10 years at least. I think it would be better for the players if all teams phased out the use of a sweeper and started to implement a flat back 4, arguably harder to coach but better in the long run for the players that aim to play at a higher level.

[johnydep]

Some interesting debate had over the use and merits of a sweeper, defensive strategies and great sweepers of the past...

The two quotes below are most relevant to the point I was trying to make when starting this topic.

In terms of the 'Sweeper' role, I think that they still do reflect the contempary role it was designed for in a defensive role (i.e. to screen behind the back 4).

99% of the usage of a sweeper that I see in junior clubs is a player playing with a back 3 (eg two centrebacks and a sweeper) or a back 4 (one marker, two fullbacks, one sweeper), the sweeper is always 10 yds behind the line in fromt of him/her.

There is no written law that states that 4:3:3 must have a flat back 4. If there were it would also have a flat 3 mid and flat 3 forward line.

I have seen and used the 4:3:3 formation in different ways; with a sweeper, left back, right back & centre back (there's your 4), not a classic flat 4 but still 4 in the back. The sweeper does not stay deep, he sits slightly behind the full backs, the FB's mark up (zonal or direct) and leave the sweeper to "sweep".

[MegaBonus]

my memory isnt serving me well at this stage and i cant be bothered looking it up but in the 2nd leg of the WC play-off v uruguay in sydney, didnt guus change from a back 4 to a back 3 (taking popovic off) playing with a sweeper behing 2 CB????

horses for courses!!!!

[aquaman]

There is no written law that states that 4:3:3 must have a flat back 4. If there were it would also have a flat 3 mid and flat 3 forward line.

I have seen and used the 4:3:3 formation in different ways; with a sweeper, left back, right back & centre back (there's your 4), not a classic flat 4 but still 4 in the back. The sweeper does not stay deep, he sits slightly behind the full backs, the FB's mark up (zonal or direct) and leave the sweeper to "sweep".

I have no issues with your interpretations of a 1433 formation johnydep...

I am just commenting on what I have seen at JPL games and the interpretation of the 1433 formation I believe may be the best to equip young players with the necessary skills to make the transition to a career in football...

Whether coaches (or more importantly coaching coordinators) choose their club to play with or without a sweeper 10 yds behind their defence is up to them...

[aquaman]

my memory isnt serving me well at this stage and i cant be bothered looking it up but in the 2nd leg of the WC play-off v uruguay in sydney, didnt guus change from a back 4 to a back 3 (taking popovic off) playing with a sweeper behing 2 CB????

horses for courses!!!!

it is a long bow to compare something that happens with the socceroos, where results are paramount to developing players from U13s Megabonus...

[MegaBonus]

not if you are talking about the development of players........

in teaching we talk about 'scaffolding' - breaking a task up into smaller easier bits. if you apply this to football, why would you teach young kids a flat back 4 (which in your own words is harder) when you can introduce the 'supposidly' easier position of sweeper? over time and with growing confidence you can instruct the player to play it differently until youve got a back 4. that way, they can play in a multitude of positions.

eg: did you see how successful cornthwaite played the sweeper position earlier this year?

i highlighted the move by guus because regardless of your own playing/coaching experience/philosophy, you cant always control what happens on the park. the move by guus to change formations (introduction of sweeper) 20 min into a game was one of the bravest/smartest coaching moves ive witnessed