Tactical dilemmas: Winning the ball on the edge of the penalty area

The initial motivation for creating multiple-choice tactical scenarios such as this one was a bit of fun.

Over time, however, the discussions they have generated among players and coaches has offered some interesting insight into how the game is perceived in different ways. 

No right or wrong is strictly suggested in scenarios such as this. Rather, coaches and players are encouraged to choose which option they prefer based on the image provided, and any additional scene setting.

In a 7v7 training game, the central defender dispossesses an opposing forward on top of the box and controls the ball in a deep central position. The options for the player are:

A. Play the ball to their right sided support player.
B. Play the ball to their left sided support player.
C. Dribble forward and commit an opponent.
D. Player a longer pass to the most advanced teammate.

Weighing up the options

In this example, option A seems low risk, but not very positive. It also fails to play away from where opponents are. However, in a model of play designed to draw opponents into small spaces and then break from them, this might be a very important option.

Option B allows for the ball to be played to space with a relatively low-risk pass, allowing the player to take the ball on in stride. It looks like a good option. However, the player receiving the ball is very deep and a considerable distance from the opponent’s goal.

Option C commits an opponent on the dribble and potentially unbalances the overall team shape. It is very positive but would be high risk. If the player who has won the ball were to turn it over, the opponent has a very short and direct route to goal.

Option D requires technical execution of a long pass and the ability of the forward to pin the defender and shield the ball. It might be considered too direct, or it may be considered the most positive option in breaking opposition lines and getting the ball into advanced areas.

When I originally created this scenario, my preference was for Option D. My thought was that if the ball can be held by the forward, the left-sided player can move up to support and create an overload situation.

"Throwing into space rather than directly to a team-mate is good as it turns defences..."

The forward can use the run of the left-flank player to drop the ball and turn in combination, or use the run to draw opponents so turning with the ball may be possible.

Option B was appealing. However, if “the ball can do the work” then I would rather the left-sided player run forward from deep rather than have to carry the ball.

Option A seemed fair, but not positive. However, the more I watch possession-based playing styles, represented most clearly in the Premier League by Manchester City and Arsenal, I appreciate it could be used to draw opponents into small spaces and then from there to spring counter attacks.

Option C was originally offered by me as the weakest option by far. With both my coaching and playing hats on, my risk-averse nature would never support dribbling out from the back so directly when passing options prevailed.

However, when I showed the scenario to a group of very competent 13-year-olds, several chose Option C over the other three. 

The rationale offered was that this was a training game and that in their club environments they are encouraged to take opponents on whenever an opportunity arises.

As 13-year-olds, their club supports technical execution and a positive mentality over tactical soundness. As such, the club has a developmental philosophy no more or less valid than my risk-averse interpretation of the scenario.

Please share this scenario with your peers and players. Use it to foster discussion and debate and enjoy the inevitable richness of the different perspectives and ideas.