Plan, Do, Review - Box Entries and Simplifying Shots
- Gabriel Heidler
- Aug 28, 2024
- 5 min read
Updated: Nov 1, 2024
It took a bit of a while to write this one up after what was an overall positive session. I think the time between delivery and now has allowed good review, especially with the first week of the new Premier League season vindicating some of the ideas we wanted to get across.
Erling Haaland scored his 91st goal for Man City in the 2-0 win over Chelsea and the map of his strikes either prove how much of a cyborg he really is, or the meticulousness of the game that City play. And it wasn’t just Haaland. Even with different squads and styles the general map of chances for both Real Madrid in the Super Cup and Liverpool in their opener against Ipswich revealed the prime location they target for chances.
Now whilst our session wanted to focus on “box entries” this was really a means to an end; a vehicle to get across the main learning point, namely our decision making in attack. FC Nordsjaelland under previous coach Flemming Pedersen went all out on this approach, understanding that presenting players with opportunities to make choices and think for themselves was a positive, but giving too many choices lead to confusion and slowed down positive play.
“Playing football is a constant decision making process. The more options you have in each situation, the longer your decision making will take. So we decrease the players’ options so they can make quicker and better decisions.” FLEMMING PEDERSEN
When I first read this interview (you can view it here: https://shorturl.at/Y9SMW) I couldn’t get it out of my mind, and everything I planned became focused on “can I give them a choice but with specific, limited outcomes to make it varied yet simple?” In other words any single situation should have Option A or Option B. Nothing more. This is where box entries came into play.
In order to improve the decision making when finishing we can of course create lots of finishing scenarios and give heavy repetitions but without game context I would argue these scenarios may well train mechanics but not “instinct” (for want of a better word). So instead can the burden fall on the support staff to help with these decisions; can the players who are building, creating and getting assists create scenarios where the goal scorers only have to do one thing - can our creation make it a “simple” finish?
As the below from the book “xGenius” shows, teams like Brentford, Man City, Brighton or Arsenal have very specific, very targeted areas of attack with data to back it up. In this case the penalty area half-space. Data suggests you’re twice as likely to score from a pass from here than a traditional cross, I would argue because the finish requires less thinking. So how can we achieve this.
I set up a very simple small-sided game to force these outcomes - “simple” finishes in and around the penalty spot (or “second six yard box” as the book calls it) - by manipulating the build-up play that leads to it. The pitch was as close to a square more than anything, maintaining width but shortening the length to congest the middle and prevent lumping it through the middle. Two penalty areas were setup with flat markers, and 7-a-side goals used with no keepers.
The only rule was simple: in order to unlock the goal the ball cannot enter the box from the front (over the 18 yard line) but must enter from the sides. How they built up into those areas was up to them to begin with.
The detail was dripped in here. Initially both teams tried to play around their opponents pretty directly: the winger would receive and try to go 1v1, but with numbers back defending this proved difficult, so it was vital we introduced an overlap or underlap to provide extra numbers. Again, how they used this was up to them. Some used a traditional overlap for a support player to cross, others used it to play a one-two and allow the winger into the half-space. On one occasion the fullback underlapped to hit the half-space and allow the winger to play the ball forward into that zone.
But defensive numbers still meant that finishes were under pressure and not as “simple” as we’d like, so we needed to combat this. The simplest option was to encourage patience. By allowing the ball back to a CB we then had options in front of us, so for a period of time an instruction I gave to one of the central defenders was “hit the space behind the opposite full back every time you get the ball. If the winger doesn’t make the run into that space, trust me she will after you do it three or four times”.
By playing the switch and changing the directness or length of the pass we could exploit the smaller defensive numbers on the far side and allow a box entry where we weren’t overloaded. But it also gave us some adaptability; once our CB was comfortable making that long pass it allowed the 10 to drift into wider channels to be a target and allow the wingers to be deeper and draw out the opposition defence. The opposition team also did something similar, their CF drifting out into wide channels to target that open space, but also allow a winger or 10 to occupy the “second six yard box”. In short, one outlet had more than one option.
What was interesting was how the other team played a different style, often having a winger either cut inside and shoot from the corner of the box. It was another option and the debrief here was simple: if we enter from the sides we look for that six yard/penalty spot area; if we enter at the corners the ball should go across everyone to the far post (this most often came as a shot but could also be an inswinging cross); if we were to enter the front of the box, well you shouldn’t be thinking about anything other than shooting there.
A nice bit about this sort of structure is that it still allows for decision making but within controlled, “simple” frameworks. The six yard/penalty spot area doesn’t necessarily have to be a cut back, if congested it could be a dink over the crowd for someone to head in on the far side (or volley, or even cushion down to the centre again, importantly there is choice). The far post attempt as mentioned above may likely be a shot if the winger is inverted onto their stronger foot, but may again be a ball into an area for a late runner on the opposite side. It might even be a ball into the CF who can try to turn or lay off for a shot from the edge of the box. Once this happens a few times it also allows an inverted winger to do the unexpected and shoot near post. Here’s a bit of a Brentford love-in to show them doing both; Mbeumo across the keeper to the far post, Canos burying right in the front stick (after an attempt to cut back to the six yard/penalty spot no less).
And we all know when entering from the front of the area just how many permutations there can be to get a shot away. But what’s important is that the early choice can make the decision far simpler later on when it matters most.
Comments