A few things.Hyperbole, perhaps; a common rhetorical device, perhaps (although it is often the device of choice for someone who has no substance behind his/her argument); but in my view, unwarranted given the full context of the post.
You talk about the adult game, but we're not talking adults here. We are talking about U12's (or U10's, as you assumed in your post). As for the "conventional defensive organization" for adults or kids, I think it is a generalization to assume that you defend in lines of 4. It depends on the system of play and the circ*mstances, and here, we are talking about a 4-3-3. Some coaches, when playing 4-3-3, place only minimal defensive obligations on their wingers, and without that winger dropping back, the midfield "line of 4" is a line of 3. An example are the teams of Zdenek Zeman, the Czech coach who has coached so successfully in Italy for all these years.
See AlsoFootball Tactics, Tactical Analysis, and Trends - Trigger The PressGreat Team Tactics: England's World Cup Winners in 1966You talk about training a line in isolation, and you are, of course, correct, that a coach should not lose sight of the big picture. But training a line in isolation is pretty standard coaching fare. I trained that way when I played in college, I personally witnessed (a) Chievo Verona train its "B" team that way and (b) a workshop at an NSCAA convention where U13/14's were trained that way, and I've seen videos from the head coach at Notre Dame (name eludes me--Randy I think), Tony DiCicco (sp?), and the German youth national teams where they trained a line in isolation. So what the OP is doing (the scenario I was responding to) is common. And again, you are correct in saying that who is the pressure defender and who is the cover defender depends entirely on the situation. But when the situation is as described in the OP and in my post, i.e., an attack down the wing against a back four, the pressure defender is normally going to be the outside back--the situation assumes that the MF and the Forwards are behind the play. You (and others may disagree), but I like to coach defending in increasingly larger pieces. The first piece is 1v1, Quick, Slow, Sideways, Low and all of that. Then you work in groups of two and teach pressure cover. Then you work in larger groups (the back line, for example) and continue to teach pressure cover and add balance. Then you another group (the midfield for example), and work on the integration between the backs and the midfielders. It is entirely consistent with that approach to tell a 12-year old kid that if he/she is the outside back, and the attacker is in front of him and he's closest, he's going to be the pressure defender.
As for defensive block, it's my way of designating the "primary" group of defenders, the players whom I am expecting to be behind the ball or get behind the ball ASAP. Maybe a better word is core if block has a different meaning for you. Talk to coaches, and they often talk about defending with "at least five" and often six. DiCicco, to use him as an example, advocates six players--the back four and the two holding/central MF's. In a 4-3-3, with younger players (in my instance, U13/U14) where long precise switches aren't terrible prevalent, I've made the conscious decision to have a defensive core of five--the back four and the holding midfielder, and as you point out, they may defend in a block, with the holding MF integrating with the back four as necessary. This frees up my central midfielders to be more attack-oriented (and just because you are parsing every word, let me be clear, I expect the central MF's to defend, too, and unlike Zeman, I want my wingers to drop back as well, if only at times to funnel the attack to the middle).
I'm not sure what you mean by Chelsea defending as a block, but a "pressing" scheme in a 4-3-3 is the "Christmas Tree. I don't know if this will work visually, but here's a go:
EDITED: OBVIOUSLY, NONE OF THE SCHEMATICS WORKED. SORRY.
F
W W
M M M
B D D BFinally, I go back to a point I made at the very start of my first post. My view of the 4-3-3 from a defensive standpoint is that its weak point are the midfield wings, which is where the space is (see, hopefully, the diagram below).
F
W W
M M
DM
B B
D DThere are different philosophies on how to defend the MF wings. Personally (and I accept and acknowledge there are other valid viewpoints on this), I would like the outside back to push up and defend high if the opportunity to do so is available (and I tell them that the opportunity exists if they can get to the ball at or near the same time it arrives at the attacker). The center back then slides over to provide cover, the other center back slides over and deeper to provide additional cover, and the outside back slides over and balances. The holding MF may have the opportunity to doubleteam if the W or the CM can't, but more likely will drop back and provide cover in the middle of the defense (thus avoiding the situation where the "weakside" back has to slide over too much, leaving the opposite wing exposed). So something like this (see the check mark, from one B to the other B).
Xo
B DM
B
D
DSo to bring this thing full circle, where the offensive penetration is deep and wide, my preference is for the back to pressure, and the center backs to cover. Joe Waco, this is one person's opinion, FWIW.
