I saw this on Facebook recently. Overt the years I have tried to make this point in numerous ways to numerous people with varying degrees of success. This is short and sweet while driving the point home with precision and power.
Showing posts with label players. Show all posts
Showing posts with label players. Show all posts
Sunday
Friday
What do I look for in a player?
It wasn't very long ago that I was asked to observe tryouts for a U18 team of a club. I have known the coach of the team for a long time. We are friendly rivals on the pitch and friends in real life. The facts of the matter are, my team has gotten the best of his team more often than not and he wanted to learn more about what I look for in players. Before I agreed to observe his tryouts I felt it necessary to make two points; 1) what works for me might not work for him and 2) I don't always get it right. With that being understood I agreed to observe their tryouts.
When I arrived at the site there were cones everywhere I looked and I know I rolled my eyes. I wondered if "cone boy" was here for the tryouts too? Let me explain. The club I had been associated with for years had hired a trainer to work with some of its teams. I never met the gentleman, but would see him on occasion at the pitches. He really liked to use cones in his training. One day we counted how many he had placed out in preparation for that days training - nearly 300! He was instantly crowned "cone boy" by some of our players. Nothing derisive or negative intended. It was just an observation of a lot of cones being used.
A first glance at the tryout area saw 4 or 5 different spaces with cones laid out for the evaluation of technical and physical abilities. By now I was at least inwardly shaking my head. We greeted one another and introductions were made with other coaches in attendance. My role was defined as an observer of the tryouts. When I asked for clarification on what I was there to observe there was a moment of hesitation. I jumped in and asked if I were to watch the tryout process or was I there to watch the athletes trying out? It came about that I was there to do both in the sense I could watch the process and perhaps help make personnel decisions on the last few spots.
Well, alright then.
There were 6 stations set up for the tryout process
1) 40 yard dash
2) 20 meter shuttle
3) Running with the ball over a course of 50 yards
4) Cuts and Turns over a 40 yard slalom course
5) Juggling
6) Striking the ball on goal
I dutifully watched the players perform at each station while carrying around a clipboard with a pen tucked in my pocket. An hour and a half later the tryout was apparently done as they called the young men in for a final chat. After the athletes were dismissed the coaches gathered and began comparing notes. I listened as timed results were rattled off, number of successfully consecutive juggles completed were accounted for and consistency of strikes on net were discussed. There were a few athletes that stood out as the "best" and a few others that were quickly eliminated from consideration for having the worst times. It came down to making a decision from amongst 7 boys for the final 3 spots on the team. This is when they turned to me.
I told the group of 6 coaches there that I had nothing to add and handed in my devoid of any notes clipboard. The looks among that group of men were priceless. They ran the gamut - shocked, snickering, angry, disbelief, curious. I knew someone would inquire about my reply and when they did my response was simple.
"You tested for technical ability and athleticism. You have those results on your clip boards. You did not test for tactical understanding or psychology, unless observing how the athletes handled your dog and pony show qualifies as a measure of their mental toughness."
After things calmed down a bit I explained there are four areas that should be evaluated.
Technical
Tactical
Physical
Psychological
These experienced coaches knew this. What they didn't know was how to run a proper tryout. Eventually I was asked how I conduct tryouts. They wanted to know what activities I used and what I looked for in a soccer player. I referred them back to the 4 areas listed directly above this paragraph and commented that while all are inter-related the one I prioritize is the Tactical consideration. This is the one area their tryout completely failed to address. The players never played the game during the tryout.
The tryouts I observed that day identified the Big, Strong, Fast athletes present.
What a tryout like this misses entirely is the fact pace of play is far more about decision making ability on and off the ball than it is about pure physical speed. Soccer is a thinking man's game.
At my suggestion, everyone who had tried out that day was invited back to a second tryout session held a few days later. This time dynamic stretching was performed in groups and then sides were chosen for small-sided play before we ended with full 11 v 11 play. I asked the coaches (5 of the original 6 were present at the second tryout session) to observe who was leading dynamic stretching. Which players were cutting corners or not finishing a stretch completely. In small sided play we watched the order players were chosen for teams in. Then we watched for the players who most consistently lost possession of the ball. When teams were selected once again, we observed where the players who constantly lost possession of the ball were chosen. We looked for how a player prepared to play the ball. We looked for players who played with an economy and efficiency of touches. Did a player receive with hips open to the field whenever possible? Was a pass made to the proper foot or proper space? Was a player capable of playing 1 touch or 2 touch soccer? Did a player take multiple touches when 1 or 2 touches would have sufficed? Is the player a disciplined 1 v 1 defender or do they constantly stab at or dive in on the ball? As a defender did they work to make the attack predictable.
The above paragraph is all about on-the-ball abilities. How a player combines mental decision-making abilities with technical abilities.
Here's a secret that's really not a secret at all. A typical player will have possession of the ball for approximately 3% of a match. What is the player doing the other 97% of the time?
So we also watched players when they did not have the ball. Were they ball watchers or were the game watchers? A ball watcher typically plays one-decision soccer. They tend to be focused on the ball and oblivious to the greater game at large. When they obtain possession of the ball is when they begin to decide what they will do with it next. Maybe. They might be so focused on being first to the ball that even gaining possession of the ball is a secondary consideration.
Game watchers tend to be "ahead of the game" and capable of playing one-touch or two-touch soccer in most instances because they play "multiple-decision" soccer. They know their next play before their first touch on the ball. A game-watchers successful pace of play readily stands out. They appear faster in a physical sense than perhaps they tested to be.
And movement off the ball or support is not relegated to attacking play. When attacking does a player move to create numbers up situations in his teams favor? Does the player without the ball move to create space for a teammate or recognize and move into available space? Defensively does a player move into proper support position in relation to the on-the-ball defender? Does the off-the-ball defender seek to balance the defensive shape? We looked for quality of communication both of the verbal sense and physically. Who directed traffic and did they do so from a ball watchers perspective or that of a game watcher?
We also observed mental toughness. When a player encountered adversity on the pitch, how did he respond? I do not want to see a kid hang his head and call out "my bad." I want the kid who stays in the game and when next he encounters a similar situation has a different solution ready to handle it. I want the kid, who when he loses possession of the ball immediately assesses the situation and deploys himself in the best possible manner to help his team regain possession. Perhaps that is immediately contesting the ball to win it back or perhaps it entails getting back behind the ball and into a support position as quickly as possible. Either way, I want immediate and decisive action over hanging heads and jogging. The quality of the decision will expose whether the player was ball watching or game watching in deciding how to act.
The second session concluded after nearly 2 hours of playing the game. The players were dismissed and the coaches gathered to discuss what they had observed. Not surprisingly a couple of the better athletes did not grade out nearly as highly as they did after the first session while a couple of the "worst" athletes received surprisingly high grades on their tactical abilities. In the end, when the coaches asked my opinion on filling the last few roster spots I was able to comment on individual players and communicate to them my opinions based on having seen players actually playing the game they were trying out to play.
What do I look for in a player?
I want game watchers who place the team above themselves and demonstrate mental toughness in overcoming adversity.
Then I look to technique and physical ability.
All the technique in the world is rendered inadequate if the decision-making process is shoddy. Skill without tactical understanding of how to apply it slows the pace of the game to a crawl and results in self-inflicted pressure. I want speed! I want pace of play! And that starts with communicative game watchers and multiple-decision players.
When I arrived at the site there were cones everywhere I looked and I know I rolled my eyes. I wondered if "cone boy" was here for the tryouts too? Let me explain. The club I had been associated with for years had hired a trainer to work with some of its teams. I never met the gentleman, but would see him on occasion at the pitches. He really liked to use cones in his training. One day we counted how many he had placed out in preparation for that days training - nearly 300! He was instantly crowned "cone boy" by some of our players. Nothing derisive or negative intended. It was just an observation of a lot of cones being used.
A first glance at the tryout area saw 4 or 5 different spaces with cones laid out for the evaluation of technical and physical abilities. By now I was at least inwardly shaking my head. We greeted one another and introductions were made with other coaches in attendance. My role was defined as an observer of the tryouts. When I asked for clarification on what I was there to observe there was a moment of hesitation. I jumped in and asked if I were to watch the tryout process or was I there to watch the athletes trying out? It came about that I was there to do both in the sense I could watch the process and perhaps help make personnel decisions on the last few spots.
Well, alright then.
There were 6 stations set up for the tryout process
1) 40 yard dash
2) 20 meter shuttle
3) Running with the ball over a course of 50 yards
4) Cuts and Turns over a 40 yard slalom course
5) Juggling
6) Striking the ball on goal
I dutifully watched the players perform at each station while carrying around a clipboard with a pen tucked in my pocket. An hour and a half later the tryout was apparently done as they called the young men in for a final chat. After the athletes were dismissed the coaches gathered and began comparing notes. I listened as timed results were rattled off, number of successfully consecutive juggles completed were accounted for and consistency of strikes on net were discussed. There were a few athletes that stood out as the "best" and a few others that were quickly eliminated from consideration for having the worst times. It came down to making a decision from amongst 7 boys for the final 3 spots on the team. This is when they turned to me.
I told the group of 6 coaches there that I had nothing to add and handed in my devoid of any notes clipboard. The looks among that group of men were priceless. They ran the gamut - shocked, snickering, angry, disbelief, curious. I knew someone would inquire about my reply and when they did my response was simple.
"You tested for technical ability and athleticism. You have those results on your clip boards. You did not test for tactical understanding or psychology, unless observing how the athletes handled your dog and pony show qualifies as a measure of their mental toughness."
After things calmed down a bit I explained there are four areas that should be evaluated.
Technical
Tactical
Physical
Psychological
These experienced coaches knew this. What they didn't know was how to run a proper tryout. Eventually I was asked how I conduct tryouts. They wanted to know what activities I used and what I looked for in a soccer player. I referred them back to the 4 areas listed directly above this paragraph and commented that while all are inter-related the one I prioritize is the Tactical consideration. This is the one area their tryout completely failed to address. The players never played the game during the tryout.
The tryouts I observed that day identified the Big, Strong, Fast athletes present.
What a tryout like this misses entirely is the fact pace of play is far more about decision making ability on and off the ball than it is about pure physical speed. Soccer is a thinking man's game.
At my suggestion, everyone who had tried out that day was invited back to a second tryout session held a few days later. This time dynamic stretching was performed in groups and then sides were chosen for small-sided play before we ended with full 11 v 11 play. I asked the coaches (5 of the original 6 were present at the second tryout session) to observe who was leading dynamic stretching. Which players were cutting corners or not finishing a stretch completely. In small sided play we watched the order players were chosen for teams in. Then we watched for the players who most consistently lost possession of the ball. When teams were selected once again, we observed where the players who constantly lost possession of the ball were chosen. We looked for how a player prepared to play the ball. We looked for players who played with an economy and efficiency of touches. Did a player receive with hips open to the field whenever possible? Was a pass made to the proper foot or proper space? Was a player capable of playing 1 touch or 2 touch soccer? Did a player take multiple touches when 1 or 2 touches would have sufficed? Is the player a disciplined 1 v 1 defender or do they constantly stab at or dive in on the ball? As a defender did they work to make the attack predictable.
The above paragraph is all about on-the-ball abilities. How a player combines mental decision-making abilities with technical abilities.
Here's a secret that's really not a secret at all. A typical player will have possession of the ball for approximately 3% of a match. What is the player doing the other 97% of the time?
So we also watched players when they did not have the ball. Were they ball watchers or were the game watchers? A ball watcher typically plays one-decision soccer. They tend to be focused on the ball and oblivious to the greater game at large. When they obtain possession of the ball is when they begin to decide what they will do with it next. Maybe. They might be so focused on being first to the ball that even gaining possession of the ball is a secondary consideration.
Game watchers tend to be "ahead of the game" and capable of playing one-touch or two-touch soccer in most instances because they play "multiple-decision" soccer. They know their next play before their first touch on the ball. A game-watchers successful pace of play readily stands out. They appear faster in a physical sense than perhaps they tested to be.
And movement off the ball or support is not relegated to attacking play. When attacking does a player move to create numbers up situations in his teams favor? Does the player without the ball move to create space for a teammate or recognize and move into available space? Defensively does a player move into proper support position in relation to the on-the-ball defender? Does the off-the-ball defender seek to balance the defensive shape? We looked for quality of communication both of the verbal sense and physically. Who directed traffic and did they do so from a ball watchers perspective or that of a game watcher?
We also observed mental toughness. When a player encountered adversity on the pitch, how did he respond? I do not want to see a kid hang his head and call out "my bad." I want the kid who stays in the game and when next he encounters a similar situation has a different solution ready to handle it. I want the kid, who when he loses possession of the ball immediately assesses the situation and deploys himself in the best possible manner to help his team regain possession. Perhaps that is immediately contesting the ball to win it back or perhaps it entails getting back behind the ball and into a support position as quickly as possible. Either way, I want immediate and decisive action over hanging heads and jogging. The quality of the decision will expose whether the player was ball watching or game watching in deciding how to act.
The second session concluded after nearly 2 hours of playing the game. The players were dismissed and the coaches gathered to discuss what they had observed. Not surprisingly a couple of the better athletes did not grade out nearly as highly as they did after the first session while a couple of the "worst" athletes received surprisingly high grades on their tactical abilities. In the end, when the coaches asked my opinion on filling the last few roster spots I was able to comment on individual players and communicate to them my opinions based on having seen players actually playing the game they were trying out to play.
What do I look for in a player?
I want game watchers who place the team above themselves and demonstrate mental toughness in overcoming adversity.
Then I look to technique and physical ability.
All the technique in the world is rendered inadequate if the decision-making process is shoddy. Skill without tactical understanding of how to apply it slows the pace of the game to a crawl and results in self-inflicted pressure. I want speed! I want pace of play! And that starts with communicative game watchers and multiple-decision players.
Saturday
Burn Off
I was awoken this morning by a deafening explosion. An isocracker at the local refinery exploded and shook our entire house. There were no injuries or fatalities associated with the explosion and fire. They have everything contained and are allowing the remaining crude oil to burn off.
This mornings events got me to thinking of players, coaches, parents and even referees who can be volatile during matches. Sometimes people allow their emotions to explode and when this happens it is often prudent to allow whatever is fueling the outburst to burn off before confronting the individual or attempting to address the issue. Sometimes a yellow card caution or a red card send off is unfortunately necessary to allow the cooling off period to ensue.
Some memorable incidents I have witnessed fall into two basic categories - uncontrolled and controlled. The uncontrolled might include a parent being "thrown out" or sent to the parking lot for abusive language or behavior toward an official. Or perhaps a player sent off for violent conduct. I have seen coaches, more so in basketball, intentionally gain a referee's attention with a controlled or intentional outburst designed to do so.
In each case it seems to me the person "going off" feels a need to be heard. Once they have had their say, the incident often ends then and there. The impact such outbursts have can be wide ranging. Sometimes a coach needs to "fight" for his or her players. Giving a referee a good ear full perhaps sends a message to the players the coach has their backs. When done intentionally, this could fall under the heading of gamesmanship. A controlled explosion for a designed purpose, if you will. Limited collateral damage.
Uncontrolled explosions, or when emotions run amok, are far more dangerous. Left unchecked these explosions can lead to violence, injury and as we are sometimes reminded of, death. When this occurs the intrinsic value of athletics is lost. When winning or losing becomes more important than the spirit of the game emotions get the better of people - almost always with negative consequences.
The character Chick Hicks in Disney's movie "Cars" is used to drive this point home. I use this example because it is one this generation of young players is familiar with. Chick is focused solely on winning the Piston Cup much as the movies protagonist Lightning McQueen is at the start of the story. The tale is of Lightning McQueen's growing to appreciate the intrinsic value of the overall experience. That it can never be and never is about the individual.
A soccer match is a team effort. It takes two teams, two coaching staffs, a referee crew, ground crew, spectators, ball boys, scoreboard operator, box office personnel, concessions workers and more to have a quality experience. Everyone has a role to fill. No one person's role being more significant than another persons role. We are all dependent on one another.
The refinery fire this morning will have a similar impact on its operation. My understanding is the isocracker that exploded is one of the first steps in the refining process. It heats the crude oil so separation can begin to take place before different parts are refined into a various products. That explosion will set things back for quite some time. An uncontrolled explosion on the pitch can have much the same effect.
This mornings events got me to thinking of players, coaches, parents and even referees who can be volatile during matches. Sometimes people allow their emotions to explode and when this happens it is often prudent to allow whatever is fueling the outburst to burn off before confronting the individual or attempting to address the issue. Sometimes a yellow card caution or a red card send off is unfortunately necessary to allow the cooling off period to ensue.
Some memorable incidents I have witnessed fall into two basic categories - uncontrolled and controlled. The uncontrolled might include a parent being "thrown out" or sent to the parking lot for abusive language or behavior toward an official. Or perhaps a player sent off for violent conduct. I have seen coaches, more so in basketball, intentionally gain a referee's attention with a controlled or intentional outburst designed to do so.
In each case it seems to me the person "going off" feels a need to be heard. Once they have had their say, the incident often ends then and there. The impact such outbursts have can be wide ranging. Sometimes a coach needs to "fight" for his or her players. Giving a referee a good ear full perhaps sends a message to the players the coach has their backs. When done intentionally, this could fall under the heading of gamesmanship. A controlled explosion for a designed purpose, if you will. Limited collateral damage.
Uncontrolled explosions, or when emotions run amok, are far more dangerous. Left unchecked these explosions can lead to violence, injury and as we are sometimes reminded of, death. When this occurs the intrinsic value of athletics is lost. When winning or losing becomes more important than the spirit of the game emotions get the better of people - almost always with negative consequences.
The character Chick Hicks in Disney's movie "Cars" is used to drive this point home. I use this example because it is one this generation of young players is familiar with. Chick is focused solely on winning the Piston Cup much as the movies protagonist Lightning McQueen is at the start of the story. The tale is of Lightning McQueen's growing to appreciate the intrinsic value of the overall experience. That it can never be and never is about the individual.
A soccer match is a team effort. It takes two teams, two coaching staffs, a referee crew, ground crew, spectators, ball boys, scoreboard operator, box office personnel, concessions workers and more to have a quality experience. Everyone has a role to fill. No one person's role being more significant than another persons role. We are all dependent on one another.
The refinery fire this morning will have a similar impact on its operation. My understanding is the isocracker that exploded is one of the first steps in the refining process. It heats the crude oil so separation can begin to take place before different parts are refined into a various products. That explosion will set things back for quite some time. An uncontrolled explosion on the pitch can have much the same effect.
Monday
Commitment.
It continues to amaze me how an issue will come to my attention from multiple sources in the same general time frame, but such is the case with commitment issues concerning coaches this fall.
In one case a head coach failed to show for a match without forewarning or explanation?
In another case an assistant with stated desire to be the head coach repeatedly fails to show up for practices or games.
In yet another case I have repeatedly heard an assistant identified in pre-game introductions but have never seen him present.
A fourth case involves an assistant who shows up periodically at his own convenience and is then upset when he is not included in pre-game introductions.
I understand that people often underestimate the commitment required to coach. The hours are long and the pay is miniscule. I once tracked the hours I put in as a high school coach and then figured out my hourly wage. $.35 / hour. When I factored in gas & oil for my car I actually lost money that season. So, yeah, I get it.
I also understand that people who are hired on as a "volunteer assistant" may not feel as obligated to be fully committed. Well, no, I actually do not understand this at all, but that is me. I was a volunteer assistant at Shawnee High School in Lima, Ohio for a number of years and never missed a an open field, a summer camp session, practice or game in all the years I was on staff. Never. I can remember being sick with a cold, standing in a torrential downpour for both the JV and Varsity games at Van Wert and still showing up for stretching practice the next day. I suppose that's just the "old school" in me coming out.
I fired an assistant for missing practices, missing games and going to the concession stand during games among other reasons.
Seriously folks, how can you expect student athletes to be committed to the team if coaches are setting examples like this?
If you are going to accept a coaching position, you owe it to the players to be fully committed to them. They deserve that from you. And you have absolutely no right at all to expect let alone demand anything more of players than what you give to them.
In one case a head coach failed to show for a match without forewarning or explanation?
In another case an assistant with stated desire to be the head coach repeatedly fails to show up for practices or games.
In yet another case I have repeatedly heard an assistant identified in pre-game introductions but have never seen him present.
A fourth case involves an assistant who shows up periodically at his own convenience and is then upset when he is not included in pre-game introductions.
I understand that people often underestimate the commitment required to coach. The hours are long and the pay is miniscule. I once tracked the hours I put in as a high school coach and then figured out my hourly wage. $.35 / hour. When I factored in gas & oil for my car I actually lost money that season. So, yeah, I get it.
I also understand that people who are hired on as a "volunteer assistant" may not feel as obligated to be fully committed. Well, no, I actually do not understand this at all, but that is me. I was a volunteer assistant at Shawnee High School in Lima, Ohio for a number of years and never missed a an open field, a summer camp session, practice or game in all the years I was on staff. Never. I can remember being sick with a cold, standing in a torrential downpour for both the JV and Varsity games at Van Wert and still showing up for stretching practice the next day. I suppose that's just the "old school" in me coming out.
I fired an assistant for missing practices, missing games and going to the concession stand during games among other reasons.
Seriously folks, how can you expect student athletes to be committed to the team if coaches are setting examples like this?
If you are going to accept a coaching position, you owe it to the players to be fully committed to them. They deserve that from you. And you have absolutely no right at all to expect let alone demand anything more of players than what you give to them.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)