Complex Floorball

Floorball Interactions - A comment on reducing the game into 1vs1-situations

 

There is an ongoing dispute in finnish floorball discussion on the future of finnish floorball and the coaching policies of the federation. We have been writing against the oversimplified view of the game as multiple 1vs1-situations. There are ways for the abstraction of the game using the different moments of the game and the areas on the field. The selection of the viewpoint directly affects the interventions that the coaches choose to improve the team and individual players. How we see the game is an important coaching-philosophical choice: do we see the game as a whole complex system or do we simplify it in a linear fashion into separate parts - neglecting the interactions.

Invasion team sports are games of space and time. Those are variables that depend on the interactions of multiple players. Every action of an individual player (including the actions without actually moving) become interactions with the environment and the rest of the players on the field. Playing is interacting, not just being athletic or having capabilities.

The more we focus on separate actions, the more responsibility is left to the players to learn the correct moment for each action. Using training time out of the team floorball sessions to train actions without game context costs valuable time from this learning process unless they are rigourously justified as steps of this learning. A floorball coaches responsibility is also to actively teach the players how to interact - that is to actually play floorball better. The least she can do is to provide an environment for the players to learn it themselves.

An individual player cannot properly learn the complex skill of a team sport as homework, alone. The opposite would be much more logical: use the team training time to maximally improve the interpersonal coordination of the team by training floorball interactions. Interaction includes action, so this time is not taken away from individual technique development either. The players could then perform supplementary training to hone their technical and physical skills alone or together during their own time. Even better if they have the opportunity to play street games and hone their skills in a game environment.

 

Motor learning theory and floorball interactions

Often we hear the argument that a player first needs to learn the movement patterns and repeat them until they are filed in the "muscle memory". Only after this is she able to perform them under pressure in a game context. This is the case according to contemporary motor skill and motor learning theories. It is very much possible to learn new skills in a game situation. That is how children also learn - by playing. People do not work like a machine: storing action scripts in their memory and running them at a correct moment. Instead we learn to adapt into a sport-specific environment. Technical details are variable, even though the repetitions have similar features. Our bodies have much in common after all. For example, players learn to deliver the ball to her teammates in variable situations. The players have individual differences in their passing and shooting techniques - or even better, they have totally different strengths and weaknesses. This is true even on the top level. According to complexity framework, such diversity is an advantage for the system.

During a “holistic” learning process of playing the game, technical and physical qualities are also challenged and improved in an integrated training approach. The physical intensity of a game-like exercise may sometimes be even higher than of the competition because of more recovery during the training session. Controlling the demands of an exercise might happen by varying the size of the playing area, recovery breaks and the number of teammates and opponents. This also varies the type of the physical stumulus of the session. 

 

Interpersonal coordination

The individuals of a team always interact and (self)organize in order to cooperate - even when the team did not deliberately train tactics for every game situation. This is called interpersonal coordination. Skilled individuals might be able connect with their teammates in smaller space, less support and generally in more challenging situations. That is, during less organized moments. However, improving the coordination of a team is not exclusive to improving the individual. The players get physical and technical repetitions during game-like training. Training in representative game situations may then be better use of the time. The coach controls the technical and physical demands of the training, providing suitable technical and physical stimuli but the aim is also for the interpersonal system to learn to coordinate better. Such approach also makes the technical and physical training specific and the transfer of training more likely.

Figure 1. The blue team ball carrier is under pressure and might lose the ball. He does not have many good passing options or space to dribble into. In case of negative transition, the blue team defensive balance is off and they would most likely suffer a dangerous counterattack.

Figure 2. The blue team has organized their offensive play and have better structure. With a simple movement, a teammate might be able to create space for the ball carrier to move into. Also the rest of the blue players offer more support to and all the while the blue team also has a better balance in case of a negative transition.

As the previous figures demonstrate, by organizing the team better during the offensive moments it is possible to perform better even when the ball carrier has problems maintaining possession under pressure, in a small space. Creating space by movements off-the-ball and having a balanced positioning may help the team thrive even if their player do not have the skills to dribble past good defenders in a small space. In situations like this it would be easy - but lazy - to blame it on the individual who was not technical, strong or fast enough to win her "1vs1". This conclusion would lead in different interventions than explained above.

Implications for training are the use of realistic game situations, either specific to the problematic situation or general game-like training where the players learn to solve similar situations. Some examples were shown in a previous blog.

 

An example: Indidual or interpersonal?

The finnish federation has used the following video clip to demonstrate that the mens national team players lack linear speed. The situation builds from poorly executed offensive moment and a high pressing defensive moment after that. Sweden is able to play out of pressure, making the pass to Svahn who gets the ball into slightly ahead of Piha. Now the situation is 3vs2 for the swedish team with the right lane defender having a problematic body shape and being unable to pressure Svahn. It ends up in a dangerous 2vs1 for Sweden.

Video 1. This example was also discussed in Perttu Kytöhonka’s earlier blog.

In my own recent blog post I analyzed the finnish teams high pressing during the EFT tournament. It is interesting to note that similar problems seem to occur even with a fast player like S. Johansson trying to maybe a bit slower player like J. Samuelsson:

Video 2. FIN-SWE 0-4 goal from the most recent EFT tournament

Now it depends on the coaching philosophy if you believe it is the best approach to pick faster players to the national team, get the chosen players run faster - or train the team with the tactical intention of organizing these moments of the game at least slightly better at the same time (having the players train situation-specific individual qualities at the same time)?

Adopting the complexity lens will imply the nature of the game is about interpersonal coordination - floorball interactions. This means the team is trying to accomplish tactical tasks with variable means but according to shared team principles. The principles create options for the players to choose and help them self-organize (choose suitable options) to solve the game situation themselves.

This approach reduces the need of finding the individual culprit who gets the blame for causing a problematic situation - as long as the whole team plays according to the team principles. Organizing the offensive moments keeping in mind the possible negative transition (and preparing for it) also empowers the ball carrier to challenge herself without the fear of failure in case of unsuccesful dribbles for example. Such approach is beneficial especially for a developing or a youth team. 

 

Antti Hänninen (@AjHanninen)

Further reading: Mark O'Sullivan's great blog. He spoke about football interactions in the second scientific conference on motor skill acquisition in Kisakallio (november 2017).

Working backwards from the game

Again, not a long blog post. There has been some debate in social media about identifying a problem in a team’s game and the possible solutions for that problem. The last debate took wind from Mikael De Anna’s blog post about the complexity of floorball in which he questioned the linear analysis of Finnish Women’s national team’s head coach Lasse Kurronen (Kurronen tweeted that Finland's U19 Women's team had no chance against Sweden in World Championships final as they lost the 1v1 -situations). Another debate rose from an article written by Jussi Leppälahti in Finnish sports magazine “Elmo”, in which he stated that in modern team sports coaching it is important to acknowledge the utmost importance of optimising the time available and to do that, one should integrate the tactical, technical and physical work in game-based sessions. To no one's surprise, the statement was questioned because it was seen to understate the importance of physical training. 

If we respect the complex nature of an invasion sport like floorball, we can’t simply state “Because A happens, we should do B so that A doesn’t happen”. As many things affect the outcomes of even a single moment in a game, we should work backwards from the game itself and identify the problem while respecting the complexity in any given situation. 

An example 

This is an offensive moment, “Build up under high pressure with three players”. First we should analyse if the players involved are respecting the team’s main principles.

Picture 1: NST Lappeenranta's main principles in build up moment under pressure

We can say that yes, the players are executing the main principles regarding their positioning at an acceptable level. 

However as the game proceeds, we lose the ball. Now we must analyse why does that happen. The “simple” answer is that there is an individual mistake but in complex invasion sports, that is almost always a very lazy - and wrong - answer. The positioning is ok, the player who starts with the ball (Ere Laitimo) is doing lateral movement with the ball as is expected; we have central support (Samuli Huppunen) and also passing option in the weak side (Konsta Koskimies). There isn’t any bad (or too weak) pass, the positioning is ok but still we lose the possession (for a moment). 

Now the linear answer could be that the player offering a support in central lane (Huppunen) lacks technical ability when receiving the ball and thus isn’t able to control it under pressure - he needs a lot of closed technical work with special focus on receiving. The physical “A->B” -answer could be that Huppunen lacks linear speed and needs to do a lot of strength training to improve his first steps. 

But again, as floorball is an invasion sport, the key to understand the problem can be found from the interaction of the three players. If Laitimo would have made the pass half a second earlier, then Koskimies would have had a bit more space to make the following pass to Huppunen who then would have probably received the pass in front of him instead - now he has a good body position but as he receives the pass behind his body, he can’t observe the surroundings and open space very well.

If there is something Huppunen could have done, it’s that he could have observed the field better before the eventual pass and when the pass didn’t come in front of him, he could have let it slide to his other side and move forward. 

Picture 2: If Huppunen (white player in the middle) would have observed the space behind him better, he would have had more options. Question, players mistake or the coaches who hadn't succeeded in teaching this? 

How to solve the problem?

The linear answer would neglect the interaction between the three players. That is also why the answer would be if not totally wrong, not the best available. If there is a problem in a game, it should be dealt with game-based approach in a training session. 

The best way to deal with the problem is to create a similar kind of situation in a training session and get repetitions without repetition.

3+1v3+1 build up under pressure

Set up:

3+1v3+1. 3v3 in “pressing zone”, 1v1 in the attacking zone. The coach throws the ball to play and the three players closest to the ball (yellow in the picture) try open up the play under pressure by using the team’s principles (mentioned before). To make the build up more difficult, the ball must dribbled outside the pressing zone. If the three players succeed in this and the ball is dribbled outside the pressing zone, the other players are not allowed to follow and there will be a short 2v1 -situation in the attacking zone (1-2 seconds). If there’s no goal, the coach shouts “Play!” and the game proceeds 4v4 without restrictions for a while. 

Progressions:

• allow a long pass to the attacking zone
• Make the field bigger and add another pressing player

In possession (offensive organisation): always one player in the central lane, positive / side body position; immediate floorball actions with the ball

Out of possession (defensive organisation): prevent the player with the ball from moving or passing forward; cover the central lane

Positive transition: Securing the first pass

Negative transition: prevent the player with the ball from moving past you

Feedback: individual, special focus on the player supporting on the central lane (observe the surroundings, side / positive body position)

 

”...we should try to improve a physical quality (or a technical, tactical, or phychological one, for that matter) only if it’s a limiting factor in a game performance. The quality should also be enhanced in a realistic context that’s applicable to competition.” - Dr. Fergus Connolly (from Game Changer - The Art of Sports Science)

 

As we put emphasis on the game-like situations in the training session, we might notice that a player is having difficulties during the exercise. We must analyse the situation and communicate with the player what could be the problem. Usually good discussion and more practice time will solve the problem but sometimes we might identify a specific limiting factor. Then we could plan an individual specific training program (technical, tactical, physical, psychological) in which we try to concentrate on the problem at hand. The individual program shouldn’t in most cases interfere with the team’s training program. We must monitor the player’s development closely and analyse by watching the game if the player develops in the identified moment. If not, we must re-think the individual program and adjust it accordingly, then repeat. 

So, there is time and place for individual work also in team sports but it should always respect the game itself. 

 

Perttu Kytöhonka (@pkytohonka) 

 

Sidenote

A short sidenote from the video clip. If the players weren’t trained to solve the high press of the opponent with clear principles, the moment could have easily ended up in a situation where Koskimies would have received the pass from Laitimo even later and the opponent would have been able to press him. Then Koskimies would have been forced to turn his back to the field. Then the situation would have been more unfavourable for the white team. There could have been a “1v1” situation and if lost, the coach could have made the linear conclusion, that the team needs more physical work as they lose 1v1-situations. 

The game happens between the players. 

Tactical discussion: Use of half-spaces in floorball

Again, more like an extended tweet than a well-structured longer piece. I had an interesting short conversation with a Dutch floorball coach Tim Hidskens about half-spaces* in floorball.

*half-space = the space between the central lane and outer lanes

Picture 1: An idea about way to divide offensive zone in floorball

Picture 2: The kind of tactical discussion we could use in floorball

Half-space as a concept is pretty well-known in football. As not many teams in floorball use a lot of time and thought in organising their offensive game, the finer positional details have been overlooked and/or are not in use in common coaching language. Half-space is a very useful concept when organising the team’s offensive game. Unlike in football where there is many times more space in the field and the half-space can be used as a ball possession tool**, in floorball the quality use of half-spaces have more indirect effect. 

** “When ball carriers are in the half-space, they have as many options as a ball carrier in the middle, but can cause more diagonal passing and movement patterns towards the outside or the middle, while their goal-orientated field of vision do not change.” - Spielverlagerung 

When playing against zonal defensive systems, positioning in half-spaces can create “grey areas” for the defensive team. If the defensive team plays a very rigid zonal defense, it will be clear for the offensive team to see where those grey areas are and exploit them. Against man-orientated defensive systems use of half-space usually won’t create a free man as the opponent is not playing zonally but it nevertheless draws opponents to possibly unfavourable positions and creates a lot of space to the weak side.

 

Positional play is still a very unsearched territory in floorball but when developed well and patiently, it can be one of the steps towards more entertaining attacking floorball. Floorball is a game where the rules are favourable towards the team with the ball. By putting more focus on organising the team while attacking - and with a special focus on co-operation - any team can make the defensive team’s job very difficult. 

Perttu Kytöhonka

 

How to build a Game Model

How do you play medium high zonal 2-2-1 press? How do you break low block 1-2-2, aka “Erä’s cottage”? How do you start the build up from your defensive zone with a back triangle?

People contact me often and ask different kind of questions about floorball and I’m very pleased about it. There is lots of young and also older coaches from Finland (and abroad) who are motivated to learn and who are open to new ideas. I try to always answer carefully and with respect because if you are willing to ask sincere questions from an unknown guy, you deserve a proper answer. Sometimes the questions are about broader topics, sometimes about specific situations for example how does zonal 2-2-1 work. 

However. It is somewhat difficult to answer those kind of specific questions because I don’t know how to answer. You know, it depends.

It depends.

There is no “right way” to play for example 2-2-1 press or “right way” to build up the game from back triangle. It depends what you want to achieve with that. It depends what is your players background. It depends how your players have played those situations before. From what level do you want to press the opponent and how intensively? Do you stay on your own zones or do you follow your man? If so, how far? Where do you want to win the ball and after that, what would you like to do? Where do you want to play the ball in the build up phase? To which player? Would you like to play the ball to a player who’s body is facing our own goal or to a player who’s body is facing the opponents goal? 

And so on. Also, it is not very good idea to separate these moments from the whole. In a game you try to constantly balance with the attacking and defending moments, with control and organisation and you try to to live with unorganised moments. It is easy to block the opponents attacking game in the imaginary world of tactics board but the game is a complex system where many different interconnected things make the player’s and line’s decision making and communication harder. 

Picture 1: Cues for the player in closed drill vs. A game situation

A common challenge is how to make the preferred actions in the field transfer from the coaches head to the actual, complex game situation. Almost every coach has said to his players - and I bet all the players have heard it - that “We just talked about this situation” after the situation in the field has ended with unwanted results. The thing is however that the drawings on the tactics board - not to mention drawings on the sand - are not enough. If you want to be able to make high quality decisions in a game from moment to moment, you need repetitions without repetition in your training sessions. As the opponent is more unpredictable than the magnets on your tactics board, you need practice in these unpredictable moments. When you are trying to learn your game model, “know-what” is not enough. You need “know-how”. 

(Know-how is a term for practical knowledge on how to accomplish something, as opposed to “know-what” (facts). Source: Wikipedia)

A Minimal case study; Classic’s challenges in their defensive zone build up against Falun

The Finnish champions Classic has a strongly player-led game model. Classic faced Swedish powerhouse Falun in the Champions Cup final game in Seinäjoki and although Classic's roster has perhaps weakened a bit as Nico Salo and Riku Reunamäki have left the club, the team still has a very strong core. Five players played in Finnish World Games team (Savonen, Lamminen, Johansson, Piha and Salin). Joonas Pylsy played in the gold-winning Team Finland in World Championships, Mikko Leikkanen has been a national team regular whenever healthy, Joona Rantala is one of the most promising Finnish youngsters and Lassi Toriseva has shown to be able to win the big games in the playoffs. And of course there’s also Lassi Vänttinen who still knows how to put the ball to the net. In other words, although Falun’s roster is perhaps a little bit sharper, Classic has a high quality team too. 

Falun organised their defense in a very traditional Swedish way as they mostly played their defensive zone defence with zonal 2-1-2 and the attacking zone defence with zonal W/2-1-2. The formation has a very long tradition in Sweden and it is certain that during many seasons it has been drilled to every Falun player’s backbone. This makes defending as a cohesive unit easier and it also helps finding the proper defending “fighting spirit”. This combined with the quality of Falun’s roster would have made it tough for Classic to break the Swedish champions defense even if Classic’s attacking organisation would have been top of the notch. But, with better and more systematic attacking structures Classic would have been able to create more pressure on Falun’s defensive organisation and its weaknesses. More pressure to the defense would have perhaps created more unorganised moments for the swedes which Classic's quality individuals could have exploited. However, as Classic’s attacking organisation is strongly player-led, they were not able to systematically find Falun’s weak spots and Falun was able to keep their defense organised pretty easily.

 

Pictures 2 and 3: Falun’s W-pressing vs. Classic’s defensive zone attack. In traditional W-pressing the defending team tries to steer the opponent to the left side. There the left defender puts strong pressure to attacking team and tries to force turnovers and create chances for counter-attacks. 

Defending team’s right winger normally tries to prevent the attacking team’s players from playing the ball to the right side (from defending team’s perspective). If the attacking team is able to play the ball with quality behind the right winger and simultaneously bring one player to the center, it creates a momentary 1vs.2 situation for the defending team’s center. This creates pressure for the defending team’s organisation. 

Classic didn’t try to create this (or any other) situation systematically or it didn’t have clear methods in trying to do so. In the lower picture Classic plays the ball to the left (from their perspective) by circulating the ball from the right, to bottom to left side. The speed of play of this sequence compared to the defending speed of Falun is not enough to create unorganised moment for Falun. 

The most simple solution in creating challenges for the W-press is to move the defending team’s right winger towards the center. At the same time one player moves to the back as back support and one player moves to the left side. Sometimes excellent players are able to play the ball directly from this sideways dribble to the player on the left but the safest option is to drop the ball to the back support who plays the ball immediately either to the left side to created space or to the center creating a 2v1 overload against defending team’s center. 

Pictures 4 and 5: The ball is played with a systematic structure to the weak spot of Falun’s W-press. 

Because Classic faced the best club team in the world, it is very possible that this kind of simple structure wouldn’t have been sufficient to put enough pressure on Falun’s defensive organisation. But because Classic have high quality players in their roster, more complex structures would be within their reach with a proper training. 

 

Video 1: Sweden’s national team played very versatile defensive zone attacking game from time to time during the preparation to the last World Championships. 

The challenge for Classic is maybe a bit paradoxically the fact that at the moment, they don’t have real challengers in Salibandyliiga. Passo Peltola has built such a strong group of players that although the game model is player-led, the quality of the players is so high that they are able to create problems to their Finnish opponents without systematic attacking team play. The main goal for the attacking game is to unorganise the opponent and score. Players like Eemeli Salin are able to unorganise the lesser opponents even individually. Against team as good as Falun it was not enough. 

Creating a Game Model based on principles

If the players are responsible for organising the attacking game, there will be problems especially when the methods are not working in a game situation. The player lives and feels the game from within himself and is not able to organise himself and four other teammates to a cohesive unit on the fly. Moreover, there will be big challenges if the line is constantly changing or one familiar piece is missing. When this happens, a world class goal-scorer like Sami Johansson seems to be a mere mortal and Jussi Piha doesn’t seem to be a genius after all. 

There’s also a problem with drawing lines and “set plays” on the tactics board if the game asks the players to do different kind of decisions. At worst, the team may end up playing far from its potential like what happened to the Swedish U19’s team in the World Championships Final game against Finland. A very skilled group of players were more or less prevented from playing the game at hand as their methods were diminished to just few set plays (more about the U19’s Final from here and here). 

A more “antifragile” and adaptable way to create a game model is to create it based on main principles, to sub principles of those main principles and sub sub principles of those sub principles. The team’s training process is then build around these principles starting from the first practice session. 

A simplified example:

Moment:

• Breaking a W-press

Main principle:

• play the ball to the left side of the field (from our perspective) and create a 2v1 -situation against opponents center

Sub principles:

• create a passing lane by moving the opponent’s right winger towards the center
• Position yourself in the midfield so that we have simultaneously an open player in the center and on the left side
• Create an easy passing option to the back by bringing one player as back support

Sub sub principles:

• the body position of the back support must be so that he can play a one touch -pass to the left side but is able to keep other options open too
• The player who moves to the left side has to be in side body position
• The player in the center positions himself just behind the opponents first line of defence and in side body position

And so on. Creating a training process around above-mentioned principles is a very challenging task because it requires the coach to have a very strong idea what he wants to see in a game in numerous different situations. The knowledge in the coaches head is not enough though. After that the coach must create the training process around those principles in a logical manner so that the players are able to learn the game model effectively. Because there are almost infinite number of situations in a game, creating an “antifragile” and adaptable game model is a long process. However, if the team’s training process is logical and smart, the rewards can be great. A team that seamlessly adapts to different kind of situations in a game. A team that has a shared “game language”. Will it bring success and medals for certain? No, because the game is A GAME. However, the probability of success becomes higher when the team is able to adapt to different kind of situations against different kind of opponents and be the best it can be when it really matters. 

And once more. How do you build up a game from back triangle in your defensive zon? It depends.

 

EDIT. Disclaimer. When I write about pressing in a 2-2-1 formation I mean that the team has two players at the top level and at the second level and one at the bottom. For example in Switzerland it would be called 1-2-2, starting from bottom to top. 

Picture: 2-2-1 pressing formation. In Switzerland this would be 1-2-2 pressing formation. 

Part 2 - Why organizing one set play is not a job well done?

After posting the analysis (SWE-FIN U19 Final), I started thinking that maybe the Sweden's coaching staff thought they had in fact organized at least their attacking build up -phase. After a further reflection it occured to me that yes, they probably had some plans after all (pictures below). When it comes to executing that plan however, they failed to help their players to succeed. Actually (and probably) on the contrary.

Picture 1: Sweden's center (C) started the play sometimes from the midline, other times straight from the right but the movements were as follows. Center starts a dribble to the middle, plays the ball to left defender. 

Picture 2: The center continued his movement while at the same time, left defender (here with the ball) started his own dribble to the middle.

Picture 3: Left defender passed the ball to the right defender who tried to play direct long pass to the top winger. The center tried to time his run so that he would still be in playable position in relation to the top winger who is about to get the ball here.

Picture 4: The ball is traveling towards center who has been left open. The top winger had also a passing option to the other winger or to the upper defender. 

 

These kind of build up ideas has been seen in Sweden's mens national team also but with more variability and flexibility. 

Example 1: Sweden national team build up 1

Example 2: Sweden national team build up 2

Organizing and training a single set play does not equal organizing the offensive game. It may actually be even worse. There will always be some kind of organization on the field. If not coach led, then the players / lines will talk and agree on some basic principles: ”When I go here, you go there.” etc. The lines will then self-organize and while I do not encourage this at this level - the coach should lead the process because of numerous reasons - it will leave players room to adapt and be more flexible with their team play and decision-making. The players can then adapt, anticipate and react to what is actually happening on the field.

When Sweden’s coaching staff had drilled only one build up set play (with very mediocre results) and made the players execute that, the end result was very rigid system in which the players ran into trouble every time there was even a tiny drop in the quality and / or Finland’s line anticipated the set play and positioned themselves accordingly. It was like banging their head on the wall and repeating it about 60 minutes. And this is important - the players are not to blame as the coaching staff threw them on the field without helping them to play at their best. As they only had one* set play, the players were unable to do things in any given moment that the GAME asked them to do. They were put on the field to play the very rigid and poor system, not the game.

*There might have been more but those were not to be seen - you haven’t taught if they haven’t learned. 

There is a big difference between rigid system and a flexible structure which takes into account the complexity of the game (middle in the picture below). As mentioned earlier, Sweden possibly would have played better if they had a player / individual led, totally free offensive system (left in the picture below). It would have been more flexible and the very talented players would have been able to adapt to Finland’s game. Now they had one rigid set play (right in the picture) with no room for players to adapt to their surroundings. 

Picture 5 (source: https://methodkit.com/thoughts-behind/): Chaos with random connections (total freedom) on the left, complexity on the center where patterns and connections help players to connect with each other. On the right rigid system with no freedom to adapt.

This leads to the discussion about the preparation and the training process leading to the World Championships. If the coaches in any club / nation would really want to help their players to succeed in a complex system that is the game of floorball, they should start using nonlinear methods like constraints based approach/learning. This would affect the quality of team play in a holistic way and more directly.

That is a subject however that needs a post of its own. 

 

Sweden with no offensive organization - and no chance - in U19 World Championships finals

Sweden faced Finland in U19 Mens World Championships final 7.5. in Växjö, Sweden. In the semifinals Switzerland led by three goals with 8 minutes on the clock but Finland forced the game to the overtime and scored the golden goal. Sweden on the other hand won the Czech Republic 9-4 and although the Czechs led the game after the first period, in the end Sweden showed the difference in class. Finland cruised past Sweden in qualification round and with lots of talent and experience from Salibandyliiga and Divari, they started the game as favorites. The game ended with Finland winning 7-4 and although the score was somewhat even, Sweden never had a chance.

I analyzed the game from Sweden’s perspective with emphasis on the team level organization in different moments of play. 

Moments of the game - the moments are the same in floorball as in football. We could add also attacking special teams (power play) and defending special teams (box play) to the chart but in this post we will concentrate on these main moments. 

Sweden’s attacking organization problems - no structure and huge demands for individual player

Sweden had huge problems with their attacking organization throughout the game. Finland had chosen to press very often high with their wingers but with lots of space to exploit behind as the second line of defense positioned quite low. The ideal thing for Sweden would have been to create a 3v2 -overload against Finland’s two highest players or 2v1 against one or the other and get the ball to a player in positive body position immediately behind Finland’s pressing wingers. With that Finland would have had a lot of space to defend (almost 2/3 of the field). Sweden mostly started with back triangle - sometimes with two defenders and center higher in the middle - but without clear structure and plan from shift to shift where the ball would be played after initial dribbles to the middle. 

Sweden started the build up mostly with back triangle. As we can see from the picture, there is space behind Finland’s two pressing wingers but Sweden failed to use it throughout the game.  In the picture, the center has started his dribble from the right and after that the ball would be dropped to either the left or the right defender, usually left. From then on the movements of the players without the ball varied a lot creating a huge challenge for the individual decision making. 

The problems with the communication within the line started immediately after the backpass. Without clear structure where the players without the ball would move or position themselves after the backpass, the speed of play slowed down and Sweden was unable to break Finland’s press. 

The passing options for the player with the ball are limited as Finland's left defender has stepped up to cut a possible long pass and the other two Swedish players are in unplayable positions.

After the backpass, the off the ball movements of the Swedish attacking players varied from shift to shift. 

Without a clear plan how Finland’s press would be broken, Sweden were unable to create well-organized quality attacks and most of the time had to attack with numerical inferiority. 

When Finland’s wingers pushed higher to press Sweden’s defender even more, Sweden ran into more trouble. Again, lack of structure and preparation for these moments showed and the co-operation between bottom three players (usually defenders and center) were random and miscommunications common. 

 

When Finland pushed to even higher press, Sweden didn’t have a clear solution for these moments. Finland was able to win the ball very often - either in Sweden’s defensive zone or after and badly organized and numerically disadvantaged attack. Note that for example the moment in the picture is not an individual mistake from Swedish defender. It is a communication problem within the line and especially Swedish back three.

Because of lack of organization and / or offensive strategy, Sweden’s attacks were mostly numerically disadvantaged and individual players were put under too much pressure. As a result there were a lots of turnovers because of miscommunication and Finland was able to control the game without big problems or challenges with their defensive game. It has to be said that Finland’s choice of defensive tactics - especially pressing - gave (theoretically) lots of possibilities for Sweden to break the first line of pressure and then play 4v3 and 3v3 attacks against more or less unorganized Finland with lots of space to defend. Good example of this was Sweden’s first goal. However Sweden lacked offensive structure and clear plan and without it, the moments when Sweden was able to exploit the space were rare and the execution of those moments were random. 

Simple first pass from the bottom to the right support opens up the whole field as Finland’s first line of press is unable to force the player to make a bad pass and the second line of defense is positioned too low. After that it was only up to execution.

After the pass to the right, Finland's first defensive line was broken.  Good execution with the diagonal pass to the left opens up lots of time and space and the attack ends with a quality finish and first goal for Sweden. 

In the attacking zone Sweden more or less played 3v5 throughout the game as both defenders positioned themselves in the midline. Also the line wasn’t well organized when attacking, with big offensive and defensive balance issues. Because of this three things were bound to happen

 1) As Finland was playing with man-orientated zonal defense and Sweden had numerical inferiority in the final third, the attacks were cut very short

 2) Also, as both defenders were positioned in the midline, it was very hard for Sweden to trigger good counter pressing actions in negative transitions. 

 3) As the organization of the attacks were poor and both defenders were positioned so far away from the ball, it left Sweden with huge space in the middle for Finland to start their counter attacks after it had won the ball. 

In the picture Sweden has 2v4 man disadvantage in the final third, no time and space and no balance. 

Sweden had its best offensive moments at the end of the 2nd and the start of the 3rd period when especially the first line was able to break Finland’s pressing with couple of good organized attacks. As the first line clearly showed that it had the capacity to play as a unit and they could execute complex attacks, one has to wonder why it was the only one of Sweden’s lines to do that. Also it raises questions why even the first line couldn’t do that from shift to shift - of course there is also the opponent in the rink who tries to make things harder for the other team. Nevertheless, there should be signs of structures and organization even when not well executed. Sweden didn’t have those. 

This organized attack in the start of the third period from Sweden’s first line suggests that at least the first line had some plans how to break Finland’s defence. While it is hard to analyze from the broadcast where the Sweden’s top winger was positioned at the start of the attack, the other winger’s duty seemed to be to overload the central space in Finland’s defensive zone and create communication problems for Finland’s weak side defender (right in this picture) and center. 

Sweden’s center Weidman continued his run without the ball after the backpass. The left defender challenged the central space with the ball, dropped it to the right defender who played it deep.

This time Finland’s center and right defender failed to communicate in time leaving Weidman alone with the goaltender. 

It is safe to to argue that the Sweden’s coaching staff didn’t think the other lines could perform at the sufficient level and / or the teaching process of these organized attacks were not good enough. 

 ”You haven’t taught until they have learned.” - John Wooden

Defensive organization - a bit outdated and not well executed

Sweden chose to play traditional mid press zonal 2-1-2. While it definitely has advantages as a system - especially with Swedish team as it is so deeply rooted in Swedish floorball - it also has some issues which Finland with its more experienced roster and better offensive organization were able to exploit. 

Now this is more or less matter of taste. This kind of mid/low pressing zonal 2-1-2 is very common in Swedish floorball and it is safe to assume that it is quite easy for the coaching staff to organize and get all the players to the same page. One can argue that Sweden could have made Finland’s build up a bit more difficult if it wouldn’t have kept both of its defenders very low defending one Finnish attacker (it is actually 3v1 for Sweden in Sweden’s defensive zone). Maybe it would have been more difficult for Finland to break the press if the other defender would have been assigned to create another two-men pressing line with the center (making the formation mid/low press zonal 2-2-1), but it was not the biggest issue in this game. 

One of the decisions Sweden’s coaching staff had made was that in their own defensive zone Sweden would double team Finland’s ball carrier in the corner with their defender and game-side winger. While this makes sense in that perspective that Sweden could a) limit opponents options and b) win the ball, it also makes the positive transitions less effective. To win the game with a bit less quality in the roster and weaker offensive organization, Sweden would have needed to be brutal in transition moments. As each moment of the game, whether it is attack, defense or transitions, does not happen in a vacuum the failings in one moment will affect the executions and possibilities of high quality floorball actions in other moments. 

 

Sweden double teamed Finland's ball carrier in the corner but at the same time the decision took a lot of edge off from their positive transition moments. 

One advantage in zonal 2-1-2 - and in every other zonal system as well - is that in positive transitions the line knows more or less exact positions of the teammates and it makes decision making and even automatic floorball actions easier and at the same time, faster. Sweden’s decision to double team in defensive zone corners made the possible transitions less dangerous because it sacrificed one attacking player very deep in their own zone. As the center was assigned to take care of the central areas (and by the way, center’s body position was almost always negative in relation to a) Finland’s weak side players and b) Finland’s goal) and the weak side defender’s duty was to play the front of the net, it left only weak side winger in good position in case of Sweden winning the ball back. This does not make good sense as a tactical decision. 

The same decision also left Finland’s game-side defender with lots of space to exploit. Finland didn’t use this space very effectively but if it would have, it would have opened up many scoring chances for the game-side defenders and it would also had made Sweden’s positive transition moments even harder as the Finland’s defender would have been in ideal position to cut the counters short. 

Now, as Finland had a lot better offensive organization, it could and probably would have overloaded Sweden’s defensive zones corners if Sweden would have pressured the ball with only their game-side defender. While this is true and possibly one reason why Sweden decided to bring another player to double team Finland in the corners, there are other ways to deal with the situation. One possible solution in these kind of overload situations would have been to make the weak-side defender come to help the game-side defender. That would have of  course made the front of the net more vulnerable and the center’s defending space larger. But. We have to remember that if the pressure to the ball carrier is strong and the other defender would have been there to cover and create an even situation, it is one thing to know there is possible space in front of the net and other to take advantage of it. 

 

By ordering the weak-side defender to help the game-side defender in overload situations, Sweden’s wingers would have been in more favorable positions in case of positive transition and counter attack.  

There is always possibility to play more man-orientated system or mixed man/zonal defense which would make attacking teams overloads more difficult, but that is not very common tactics in Sweden and probably was not available tool for them. Of course totally different question is why is that so?

Transitions - victims of problems in attacking and defending

Then there are the transition moments. As mentioned earlier, the moments of the game are all interdependent and they do not happen in a vacuum. So everything that happens before the team wins the ball affects positive transition moments and everything that happens before the team loses the ball affect negative transition moments. 

As Sweden’s coaching staff prepared to play against Finland, they probably accepted that they were the underdogs. Finland had a lot of quality in their team and it was a favorite. But in a single deciding game anything is possible and with Sweden’s players quality, always possible. One strategic choice is to have a counter attacking game plan with strong emphasis on the transition moments. Now, while we don’t know if Sweden even thought of this, it certainly failed to make the best out of the transition moments (we also have to remember that Sweden still is the biggest and strongest floorball country and to play with ”minor team” tactics, it might not be satisfying way to win or ”The correct way to win”). 

But here’s the thing. We can’t really analyze transitions separate from the attacking organization or defensive organization as mentioned earlier. Sweden had so many problems in their offensive organization that they were doomed to fail in negative transitions, especially if they wanted to use effective counter pressing in their attacking zone. With players here and there and defenders playing ”safe” at the midline, there were no chance to organize the line fast enough to the counter pressing moments. While Sweden’s defense was a lot better organized than their attacks, it also had earlier mentioned problems if they truly wanted to be strong in their counter attacking game. 

Conclusion

Sweden played however one moment of the game well - their power play. We also saw in their power play that Sweden had lots of skill in their team. Good power play kept the end result somewhat pretty but the difference between the teams were huge. What the Sweden lacked was not physicality as their head coach said after the game. Sure, Finland had some experienced individuals hardened in the mens games but it certainly was not the biggest reason to Sweden’s lackluster effort. No, the biggest reason for Sweden’s defeat was their total lack of organized offensive tactics and strategy. This is at the same time surprising and not surprising at all. It still is a common thing in floorball as a sport that the tactical side of the game - especially organized offensive tactics - is overlooked and even seen as a threat for player development. Nothing could be further from the truth. On the contrary, if the coaching staff organized the teams offensive game well, it would give the players the possibility to perform at their best level. 

There has also been some arguments heard from Sweden that they should maybe modernize their defensive game. This is a good point and one thing Sweden should consider. But the main thing would be to modernize the offensive organization and the preparation process leading to the World Championships. The way to put some pressure on Finland is to find players who are good at playing with teammates, good at linking themselves within the line and who are good decision makers with and without the ball - players with fast-thinking brains. Put these kind of players together with a good offensive and defensive organization and Sweden will have a team that can perform with quality and ability to adapt. Will they win? It is always possible and it is possible even without major changes in the preparation. Would it be more probable? Definitely. 

 

Perttu Kytöhonka (@pkytohonka)