Practice, er ... Training.

In many cases it is simply a case of semantics, but soccer and its culture is different from many “American” sports. I was once again reminded of this recently when a young player I am working with attempted to explain to his parent that I was “the trainer” and not a coach.  Even his coach was not quite sure what I was going to be doing with the team as he originally thought I was there to “condition” the boys. Seems he thought running, plyometrics and such would be a good thing for his team. When everyone saw me working with the boys on passing and receiving there was almost a sense of disappointment that I was there to conduct a practice session, i.e. coach them.

I have come to appreciate that “training” more closely approximates what it is I do with teams. In my mind, players can practice the individual fundamentals on their own. In training I put the team through a distinct progression of combined technical and tactical activities that train them how to work together on the pitch. In a sense it is learning how to properly apply the individual fundamentals they are working on developing.

The passing and receiving we were working on actually involved off-the-ball player movement as a means to prepare to play the ball, vision, back footed play, proper receiving and passing technique and much more. No one part being less or more important than the other. It’s sort of like playing in a concert band where each individual in each section learns their part and then the conductor puts all the different sections together to play the piece in its entirety. Each section has an equally important part. Independently they may not sound like much but together they are capable of producing beautiful music!

The trainer needs to have specific goals for each training session.  This is true regardless of if he is training a recreational level team, a national side or a team that falls somewhere in between. Therefore, a clear distinct training plan is necessary for each training session with specific goals in mind to be achieved.

When I state to people that I will often devote 1.5 hours towards planning a 1.5 hour training session I get a lot of doubtful looks in return.  However, it is true that I devote a lot of time to planning a proper practice, uh, training session. That single session training plan must fall within a framework of a seasonal plan that has within it monthly and even weekly plans.  

There is a certain amount of flexibility that must be involved in the process.  The seasonal plan will be designed to move the team from where it is at in the pre-season through to certain and predetermined developmental points at season’s end.  It cannot be a hip, hop and skip journey bouncing here and there. Rather it is a process of reaching level 1 and proceeding through successive levels until the season end goal is achieved.

Each training session must provide an opportunity for players to develop technical excellence in their individual skill sets, opportunities to apply individual skill and basic combination play in small sided games before providing a simulated game environment for group tactics.  Pressure in the terms of available space and time to play in begin at a familiar and comfortable level increasing throughout the session until it culminates in actual game conditions.

I typically train a team once a week in season. I expect the coach to work with players on the same concepts I introduce during other practice / training sessions he holds. I will increase both the instruction given and the intensity of training sessions as the season progresses and the players prove capable of handling. By the end of the season the improvement in play should be self evident to my eye and hopefully to that of players, coaches and parents as well.

Have no regrets.

 

You never, ever want to walk off the pitch

 

thinking to yourself,

 

you could and should have done more to prepare

 

for the opportunity you just squandered.

 

 

 

First and foremost is to have a passion for the game.

 

To love the day for the opportunity to play,

 

to love the feel of the ball on your foot,

 

to love the essence of the game

 

and the part you play in it.

 

 

 

Decison Making in Soccer continued

Over the last couple of days I have begun attempting to capture the decision making process in soccer and put it into words the layman can understand.In Friday's article, Decision making and it's impact on the game we explored some of the basic concepts of decision making in soccer before narrowing our focus to the decisions a player in possession of the ball must make.  Yesterdays article, More on Decision Making in Soccer  we began dissecting the faults in the actual process many players go through to reach a decision.  Today I will attempt to present a different way for layers to approach the decision making process when they are about to be in possession of the ball or wish to be in possession of the ball and how this impacts their decision making processes once actually in possession of the ball.

One of my pet peeves in soccer is the player who stands around waiting for someone to play him the ball or perhaps even worse, to play him through. This player is extremely predictable and easily defended. Another pet peeve is the player that moves for the ball only to "win it" or "receive it" then immediately aimlessly whack it away. There simply isn't much thought put into these decisions, is there?

So what should these players be doing?

The one thing I wished was taught better at a younger age is the concept that ball movement in predicated on off-the-ball player movement. When the ball moves with purpose their is a shared responsibility to maintain possession of it. The passer must deliver an accurate and properly weighted pass and the receiver must receive with a quality first touch. That's the simple version of shared responsibility in passing and receiving. It is a simplistic look at the decision making process when in possession of the ball as well. If only it were actually that simple.

Let's compare and contrast from the perspective of the player receiving or wining the ball.

First, the player is ball oriented meaning his focus is largely on the ball. He concentrates of seeing the ball, receiving or winning the ball and only then makes a decision on how to play the ball.. Many players utilizing this style of play end up self-inflicting pressure resulting in panicked play. After gaining possession of the ball the player will attempt to discern the correct play to make. If his teammates are playing in he same manner as he is - watching the ball and not moving purposefully - he onus is on this players to maintain possession of the ball, likely having to shield it from an opponent(s) and trying to find someone to pass to. In short, this player is doing far more than his share of the work.

Now let's look at a player who is game oriented. Yes, there is still a focus on the ball but before this player receives the ball he has positioned himself in the best possible manner to do so. The decision on how to do this comes from being a game observer. He will have positioned himself with his hips open to as much of the field as possible. This player will have a plan fort where and how he wants to play the ball next before his first touch on the ball.  Now, if his teammates are playing in the same manner, one or more will have been moving into this players field of vision before this player ever touches the ball allowing this player to make a decision on where to play the ball next and how it should be played. The likelihood of a good decision being made increases exponentially in this sequence of play as does the probability of a quality first touch and and well executed play to follow.

Instead of self-inflicting pressure this second player provides himself with more time to make decisions and more space to play in even when the actual physical confines in which he must play are not significantly enhanced. It is the preparation and planning ahead of time that makes the difference for him.

It is clear which decision making process is the better of the two.  It is a shame we do not train young players better on the proper way to make decisions on the field. It is perhaps the greatest weakness in the American soccer culture.

Scouting the Opposition

The reason coaches scout the opposition is to gain an advantage for their own team. It can help to know the opponents formation, whether they play zonal or man marking defense, their set pieces and certainly the most dangerous opposing players. It is quite natural to want any and every advantage we can accumulate.

There is also some inherent risk in scouting opponents and I will use two examples from this summer to highlight what I mean by this.   

The first example comes from my spring team. We were set to play for the championship of the Creek Classic against a league rival. We had defeated this same team twice earlier in the season. The first match was a close hard fought win at their place, The second was a more comfortable win on our home pitch. This third match was on a “neutral: pitch in the opponent’s backyard. 

I knew from the first two meetings that they would seek to double and even triple team our Portuguese exchange student, Calo. The first meeting he played forward for us and they had a difficult time handling him. The second meeting, in anticipation of them double teaming Calo we moved him around quite a bit. For this third meeting, we intentionally didn’t even start him.

We had another secret weapon they were largely unaware of due to his being injured much of the year. Unbeknownst to the opponents, Taylor was a goal scoring machine for us. Beginning the match with Calo on the bench momentarily threw them off their game plan. We went up 2 – 0 before Calo entered the game and for all intents and purposes the game was over by halftime.  It was 3-1 with Taylor having scored twice and the opponents lone goal coming very late in the half as I rested the starters. We started the second half with both Calo and Taylor on the field as they had begun to double team Taylor. Now they had to pick and choose their posion. We won by a comfortable 6-2 margin with my having called off the dogs early.

I firmly believe because our opponents had built a game plan around stopping Calo based on what he had been able to do against them in the first two games  his absence from the starting line confused them. Then having to deal with both Calo and Taylor simultaneously in the second half caught them completely off guard. It just wasn’t in their scouting report on us rendering that report useless.

The second example comes from the Findlay at Shawnee game I wrote about earlier this week. I had accompanied a couple members of Shawnee’s coaching staff to scout Findlay 2 days prior to Shawnee playing them. Their opponent that evening played a 4-4-2 man-marking system. Shawnee plays a 4-3-3 zonal system. I attempted to broach the subject of how Findlay’s approach might differ against Shawnee due to the difference in systems, but did not get a lot of reaction to this. The consensus seemed to be that Findlay wouldn’t change anything. I wasn’t so sure.

A couple of nights later everyone was proven right. Findlay began the game playing exactly as they had when we scouted them. Shawnee held their own during the first half and quite honestly probably had the better chances. Good call by our coaches and we went to half tied 0- 0.

To start the second half it was immediately obvious Findlay had entirely changed their approach to the game. The scouting report Shawnee had on them could have been thrown out the window for it was now useless. Findlay made the adjustments based on Shawnee’s system of play that I had warned about. Being completely honest, I did not know exactly what adjustments they would make, only that they would adjust to having to defend three forwards instead of defending two forwards. They did and completely dominated the second half winning the game 2-0. Kudos to Findlay’s coaching staff on the adjustments they made. It was the difference in the game.

The point being made here is one must be careful in scouting opponents. In the first case above our opponents did not anticipate I would change our lineup thereby negating what I know was a large part of their pre-match planning. In the second case above Shawnee scouted an opponent against a team using a drastically different system than what Shawnee would employ two nights later largely rendering Shawnee’s scouting report useless after halftime adjustments by Findlay.

Scouting reports need to come with a warning and understanding that they are based on limited exposure to the opponents. Adjustments and adaptations are likely to be made on a game by game or opponent by opponent basis. The scouting report is a basic foundation from which to build your own game plan but it would be prudent to attempt to anticipate the adjustments the opposition will make to defend and attack YOUR system as opposed to how they defended or attacked the opponents you scouted then against.

I consider the first half of the match you play against the opponent to be the critical time to scout and those precious minutes at half time to be crucial game planning time. Even then there must be recognition the opponents have also been scouting you during the first half and are busy making adjustments to their own game plan. Can you anticipate what those adjustments will be and incorporate them into the game plan you present at halftime? That right there is often the difference between winning and losing.

One of the best in the world at half time adjustments is USMNT coach Jurgen Klinsmann. How many times have we seen the US struggle in the first half of matches only to come out in the second half with a dominating performance? I have long had a fascination with half time adjustments but have only begun to really study the process the last 4 or 5 years as I have studied game tape and evaluated my own performances as a coach. 

In the first example above I was ahead of the game in my scouting and anticipation of what the opposition would do, how they would react. In the second example, I “knew” Findlay would make adjustments due to Shawnee playing a different system, but I failed to anticipate what the adjustments would be. It was not until reviewing the film of the game that the changes became apparent. Another learning experience for me. By watching the tape from a Findlay perspective I discovered what they had seen to prompt the changes they made at half time to swing the game in their favor. In a way, Findlay used our own scouting against us much as I did to the opponents in the first example above. I’m better for the experience but it was still a painful lesson to learn.

More on Decision Making in Soccer

Much of yesterdays focus was on the decisions that need to be made when an individual is in possession of the ball.  As I re-read that article I decided the next natural progression is to take a look at how to make those decisions. Training players in the art of decision making is perhaps most overlooked facet of the game here in the United States.  I would like to change that even it it is one camp at a time.

A significant part of the problem is the emphasis placed on winning youth soccer matches. In recreational leagues winning is often fueled by the coaches need to win to prove his worth as a coach. Parents certainly get caught up with winning as this seems to somehow validate their child's rank at the head of his class? I am not against winning, per se.  No, I am against winning at the expense of proper development. What does this have to do with decision making in the game of soccer?

Glad you asked!

At the youngest and most basic levels of the game it is often the biggest, strongest, fastest kids that dominate through natural ability. Even as the players grow older and the level of play advances play often remains pretty much the same. Teams look to "play through" fast forwards in pursuit of goals. It is dump and run soccer. It also limits the decision making process by all but eliminating other choices or options. The method of attack when in possession of the ball becomes very predictable thereby actually increasing the risk factor with every successive through ball played.

I refer to the thought process behind this style of soccer as "See ball. Win ball. Whack ball."

Okay, at the better levels of club and high school soccer it is more than that, but often times not much more. When conducting speed or pace of play camps for teams I attempt to redefine the way most players think the game. Even though see ball, win ball, whack ball has three parts it is basically one decision soccer. What I mean by this is the decision for what to do with the ball is made when the ball has been won. I believe the key is to make the decision on how to play the ball before your first touch.

Once again, I am going to leave you the reader hanging as I want you to ponder the significance of timing in the decision making process.  Until tomorrow.....

The point of possession is to create

numerical advantage so as to attack the

opposition in a fashion that will lead

to a GOAL for your team.

The Five "S's" of Soccer

The Five S’s of Soccer are

 

Stamina

 

Speed

 

Strength

 

Skill,

 

 Spirit

 

and the greatest of these is Spirit.

The False Nine

The False Nine is a center forward with a non-traditional role.  The Nine position has long been defined by players who push high on the opponents backs looking to be played through for goal scoring opportunities.  The advent of zonal defending has forced changes to the role and responsibilities of the Nine position. Today the False Nine typically plays a bit withdrawn, often back to goal and is tasked with diverting the opposing back lines attention from others making forward runs and distributing the ball to teammates  This does not mean the False Nine is not a goal scorer, only that goal scoring opportunities for the position are generated differently than has been tradition. On my teams we refer to the Nine / False Nine as the Target Forward.

We expect our target forward to provide initial penetration by pushing opponents back toward their own goal, but instead of looking to be played through the primary reason is so the target forward can then check back to a ball played to his feet by a defender or midfielder.  The traditional Nine would push opposing backs towards their own goal looking for the flighted dump and run service from backs or midfielders.  The modern role for a center forward is to push the backs towards their own goal and then have them come back forward to defend against the False Nine receiving the ball at his feet.

As the ball is played to the feet of the False Nine and the opposing backs are stepping to meet that threat, wing forwards and mids, perhaps even a back are starting strong penetrating runs to be played through either directly by the False Nine or off a drop pass from the False Nine to a CM.  The through ball, or dump and run, is still very much alive but its execution has been adapted to beat today's zonal defenses  that have become far more common than the man-marking systems prevalent in days gone by.

I feel it important to note that a Target Forward does not present a stationary target.  Rather the False Nine / Target Forward must be very active and have a high work rate.  He must be in constant motion and vary his runs so as not to become predictable. In addition to "V" cuts that push defenders back before checking to the ball, bent runs back towards his midfield can also be employed. Sometimes the False Nine will drift to the weak side in order to check back to ball side. Other times he will move strong to ball side serving as much as a decoy as an actual target.  Deception is very much a part of his game.

Once in possession of the ball his primary role is not to take on defenders to create goal scoring opportunities for himself but to continue engaging defenders to create opportunities to distribute the ball to teammates who then advance the ball. Think of it in this manner - the False Nine is a creative distributor in the middle third of the field, then in the final third he is on the receiving end of distributions for goal scoring opportunities from the player he has played through. Still a goal scorer but also a facilitator of the attack = The center forward / modern Nine / False Nine / Target Forward.

Congratulations Campers!

Three of the teams we worked with this summer had their opening matches Saturday.... and all three teams won!

Congratulations to the Liberty Center Lady Tigers on their  3-2 win over Toledo Bowsher!

Congratulations to the Lima Senior Spartans on their 4-0 win over Lincolnview!

Congratulations to the Piqua Indians on their 11-0 win over Preble Shawnee!

May continued success follow each of you throughout your seasons!

Imagine if you will...

There have been multiple requests made to re-post this article. I am honoring those requests because the points of emphasis contained within are worthy of being reviewed again.


I have been coaching various sports for nearly 30 years now. Sometimes I wonder why I have stuck with it but mostly I enjoy working with players. To be witness to individuals developing their talent and combining it with others to form a team can be a wonderful experience. There is a process to it all and it never seems to grow old.

As a coach I want to see consistency in performance from the players I work with. Since I demand consistency from them I believe they deserve consistency from me. When we are able to combine consistency with continuous and constant improvement, good things happen for everyone involved. Sometimes things work out better than others but generally progress is made, experienced gained, a little something about life is learned.

Today I do the work others will not

So tomorrow I will make the plays others cannot.

Three ideas about mistakes

1) Own up to making them

2) Learn from them

3) Do not repeat them



12 Games in 7 Days

By the end of this evening I will have watched 12 high school soccer matches in the last 7 days.  The reasons vary from making follow up calls with teams I have conducted camp for, to watching players from my spring team play, to advanced scouting, to scouting for a recruiting service to watching my son and his cousins play.  My wife, in true "Soccer Mom" spirit often accompanies me to these games.

The experience is generally an enjoyable one, but I do admit to becoming frustrated now and again as I watch a disorganized team sabotage its own efforts through disconcerted play.  I watch as a team consistently gets strung out over 50 - 60 yards and is unable to support one another on attack or when defending. Great individual effort on teams like this, but very little collective team effort.  Frustration sits in amongst players and coaches alike... and rightfully so.

I watched a recent high school match where the back line never advanced beyond 25 yards from their own goal. Not because they were bunkered in defending either. The rest of their team could often be found in the teams attacking third 50+ yards away yet here sat the backs in their defending third? 

Another team never allowed their center backs closer than 10 yards from the center line.  Wing defenders pushed up to the center line and a defensive mid was stationed centrally about the center line. The "attackers" often played 5 v 9 while the opponent kept one forward slightly withdrawn in front of the wing defenders / DM to patrol the 20-25 yard "hole" which she had to herself.

Then there is the ever popular "kick and run" method of attack that sees a speedy forward "played through" only to find herself 1 v 4 + GK and expected to score for her team.  I am quite serious about this.  Talk about playing on hope and a prayer or trying to catch lightning in a bottle!

It is discouraging and frustrating for me to watch this type of soccer at the high school level. I find myself attempting to discern the reasoning behind deploying resources in such a manner.  Apparently wishing to be secure in the back is a motivating factor?  Then I find myself wondering why increase the work load of the midfielders so significantly? Some of these teams are asking midfielders to control 50-60 yards without adequate support?  Or the poor forward played through who finds her advance stopped by multiple defenders and has no one available to pass to to relieve pressure?

Trust

I sometimes think a reliance on the super star forward to quite literally do all the work sends the message that others are not trusted to play all facets of the game.  Or that a defense held deep on its own side of the  field is because the midfielders cannot be trusted to pressure the ball in front of them?  Regardless of actual reason it seems trust, or lack thereof, is an over riding factor in the rather odd deployment of resources I am witnessing. Somewhere along the line these teams have forgotten:

Together
Everyone
Achieves
More!

Coaching the Details of The Process

After conducting a recent training session I found myself approximately 15 minutes away from a high school scrimmage featuring 3 time defending Division II State Champion Dayton Carroll against Sidney so naturally that is where I headed next. I was not disappointed in Carroll's performance. A week into practice and they looked as if they were in mid-season form.  Skill, size, speed, strength and tactical understanding were all in Carroll's favor, but that is not what really caught my eye.

Five minutes into the game I noticed how quiet the Dayton Carroll bench was. If I recall correctly there were 7 players and 3 coaches sitting on the benches and no one was talking.  It looked like they were watching a professional golf match or perhaps a tennis match as they sat quietly observing the action.

At the 25 minute mark Carroll went up 2 - 0 and things remained pretty much the same on their bench. That was about to change.  As the kickoff to restart the game was about to take place the Carroll head coach arose from his seat on the bench and began stalking the touchline.  Not understanding what had him so agitated I found myself watching him as much as I was watching the game.  I soon learned he was coaching the details of the process.  He did not want his team to lose focus or let up. Yes, they had controlled run of play and were leading 2-0, but there was still over a half to play.  I, myself, have often cautioned teams that the most dangerous score in soccer is 2-0.  The message behind this is to not allow yourself to believe you have the game won.  The team needs to keep doing what they have been doing in gaining the 2-0 advantage. Now, I witnessed that concept actually being coached to its fullest.

Carroll won possession soon after the kickoff to restart play and immediately began to switch the ball through their backs. The right center back (RCB) received the ball, looked up and played a ball diagonally forward into space down the right flank. Absolutely the correct read as the Sidney defense was slow in shifting over. They were moving on the completed pass as opposed to moving with the pass. The ball ended up being played too long and rolled out of bounds before the right wing midfielder (wing) could catch up with it.  I am thinking "good read, but poor execution" in regards to the RCB and his pass. The Dayton Carroll coach saw it a bit differently.  He admonished the wing for not having started wide enough.  "If you had been heels to the touch line when the pass was made, you would have gotten to the ball!"

A simply brilliant observation. 

Mind you. the wing was only 5 yards off the touch line when the pass was played, but the coach was 100% spot on in his observation and coaching point. If the wing had been on the touchline he would have had a much better / wider angle of pursuit to the ball. Great coaching point! 

The head coach continued to make this type of observation and coaching point for the next 10 minutes until his team scored again to go up 3-0.  He then spent the rest of the game on the bench watching his team play. I believe the final score was 6-1 in favor of Carroll with the result never in doubt. Many coaches would dismiss this scrimmage as being so lopsided neither team could learn much from it, but they would be dead wrong in this instance.  At least as it concerns the Dayton Carroll team, their coach and ... me.

Carroll's coached actively "coached" for 10 minutes of an 80 minute match and his team came away with a lopsided win. Quality over quantity. I found myself thinking how well he had handled keeping his team focused on the details when they went up 2-0.  I also found myself thinking how well he had used the scrimmage to prepare himself for the regular season. He was very cognizant of the game situation and on guard for the tiniest sign his players were not focused on the details of the process.  The coaching points he made were outstanding. Even more impressive was the teaching manner he used in addressing and correcting the slips he saw.  An outstanding job of  in-the-game coaching that was even more impressive than his teams performance in a 6-1 win.