I was a position guy in college more than a takeaway guy, but I was still aggressive, and didn’t sit back even though we ran a zone.  When teams run a passive, conservative Defense and lose 6-5, it’s no one’s fault but theirs.

I was a position defender in college and still am a “position” defender when I play in tournaments/summer league.  That is my “strength”.  I teach my guys to play good defense, be in good position regarding body, feet and stick.

However,  I want my defenders on my own high school team to always think about where they are on the field but also take chances and attack the ball carrier.  Take the ball away or force the offense to do something other than eat the clock.  We will double-team, slide adjacent or attack 1 v 1, at any time, including when we are man down to force passes and rushing passes and maybe make a bad one so we get a turnover and start running, push and going up tempo.  We look for opportunities to take the ball away!!!

I am steadfastly opposed to the shot clock.  I dont need the rule makers to put in more rules, I need to adjust strategy and develop better defenders.  Running to the rule makers to change the game is like running to the governement to pass a law to solve a problem that does not exist!

Coaches, teach your defenders (d mids, LSMs and close defenders) to take the ball away when u need to!  Adjust your strategy not the rules

Teams stall when they have a lead, but not a dominate one.  They want to keep the ball and burn as much
clock as possible instead of scoring goals. 
If you are the losing coach, you have to decide the best thing you can
do to give your team a chance to win. 

Option A, which most people here suggest, go aggressively
after the ball carrier to try to create a turnover.  If this works, you get the ball back and preserve
the clock. 

Option B, which a lot of coaches do, be patient and sacrifice
clock while not giving up a goal.  If
this works, which it will because the winning team isn’t trying to score on
you, you eventually get the ball back, but with a lot less time on the
clock. 

I think what really drives the decision is how likely Option
A is going to work.  First, your take
away defender needs to get the ball on the ground; which is hard enough under
normal circumstances, but much more difficult in a stall situation.  The ball carrier isn’t trying to pass or shoot;
he just wants to keep the ball.  The “chance”
the defender has to take is giving up body position to get to the ball.  If that works, the ball is on the ground, if
it doesn’t, it’s going to lead to an unsettled situation. 

If it did work and the ball is on the ground, now it’s a fight
to get the ground ball, which could lead to an unsettled situation.  It’s important to point out that in the last
two minutes of a game when teams finally do try to aggressively take the ball
away, you’ll see players hold back on time and room shots or even empty nets to
burn up clock.  In that same situation
with 4 or 5 minutes to go, it makes more sense to take that shot. 

With Option A, a lot has to go your way, and if it doesn’t,
you are more likely to give up an easy goal and dig the whole you are in
deeper. 

Option B, while boring for players and fans alike, gives you
the best chance.  If a coach has to
choose between winning or entertaining fans, he will take winning every
time.