The Preston North End Women are still on break, but I'm going to the first team match at Deepdale this afternoon. While anyone in North America could have watched the Arsenal v. Chelsea match last night, so I have no unique insight, I believe there are key mistakes Ancelotti made last night from which we can all learn.
To be clear, Carlo Ancelotti is superb manager whose trophy cabinet includes winner's medals from the EPL, Serie A, Coppa Italia, FA Cup, European Cup and so on. But by his own admission, he was sleep-walking through last night's match, "I'd seen some very good training sessions this week, so I did not expect this. We have to wake up. Until now we've been sleeping. But maybe I have to be the first to wake up."
Chelsea's strategy was simple, tested, and had been successful before. They came out in a 1-4-3-3, sitting deep and narrow, and inviting Arsenal to come at them. Arsenal have been bullied by Chelsea recently, having not beaten Chelsea since November of 2008. However, last night proved different as Arsenal were willing to take the game to Chelsea, and when they lost possession, Arsenal were relentless, co-ordinated, and effective on the press. The following graphic demonstrates just how good the Arsenal press was; it is a comparison of the number and location of interceptions by both teams during the course of the match.
by Guardian Chalkboards
Chelsea was not able to get anything moving forward, and the midfield was completely overwhelmed. In the entire first half, Essien, Lampard, and Mikel completed nine positive passes in the Arsenal third between them, and only two after the sixteenth minute. When Ancelotti chose to use Ramires for Mikel and drop Essien into the holding position, it was clear he had no plan B. It was effectively a like-for-like switch and saw no change in Chelsea's overall shape and organization.
Further, I would argue that removing Mikel rather than Lampard showed a lack of courage. Lampard has been sorely missed since his injury, but he brought nothing to the side in the first half. His passing was erratic, movement off the ball poor, and due to Arsenal's pressing, he had no room to move forward on a marauding run. Mikel at least kept Fabregas a little deeper by consistently marking hm goal side, thus forcing Fabregas to move to his own goal for operational space. Also, Mikel's passing efficiency was the best of the Chelsea midfielders, 20 completed of 23 attempted in the first half. Yes, Lampard creates problems when he is at his best, but Arsenal clearly had him solved, and a change in approach was demanded.
The following graphic compares the passing of Lampard to Fabregas in the middle half of the match, when the outcome was decided. It's not entirely a fair comparison as Fabregas is a player of different qualities, however both filled the role of the key attacking player in their respective midfields. Of note is Fabregas completed five passes in the Chelsea penalty area. During the same period, Lampard completed only six passes in the Arsenal half, one of those a drop, and another square.
by Guardian Chalkboards
Ramires proved no more effective or creative in the midfield, and two remaining substitutions were likewise like-for-like, Kakuta for Malouda, moving Kalou to the left and Kakuta playing wide-ish right, and Boswingwa for Ferreira. The only time Chelsea appeared dangerous and capable of closing the 3-1 lead was about the 70th minute when for two or three sequences, Kakuta came underneath Drogba into his favored role as an attacking central player, and Ramires moved slightly higher and wider as he does with Brazil, and Chelsea played a lopsided 4-diamond-2 (or 4-trapezium-2). It appeared to be by happenstance and not design however, as they reverted to type with Kakuta pushing back wider and higher and played a rigid 1-4-3-3 for the remainder of the match that Arsenal had no problems containing.
So what can we learn from all this? I take away two lessons:
1) Even if plan A is remarkably cunning, has worked in the past (and to re-iterate, Chelsea has dominated Arsenal for five matches with roughly the same game plan), and has looked sharp in training, it is important to have a plan B.
2) Don't be afraid to remove your "best player" if he isn't contributing anything to the match. Lampard never looked like providing anything positive in the match, great player though he may be.
As coaches, it is incumbent upon us to "be the first to wake up," to use Ancelotti's phrase, and give our players the best opportunity to succeed. We can't fall in love with something we've seen in training when it's just not happening in the game. Indeed, in training we need to look for qualities in our players and patterns that develop that give us flexibility in our approach, so that when plan A fails we have something to give the players without re-inventing the wheel. Chelsea came up against a well prepared, organized, and inspired Arsenal squad last night, and collectively they simply lacked answers for the questions Arsenal posed.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Saturday, December 25, 2010
White Christmas
It's a white Christmas in Preston, as you can see looking out the window. The weather forecast looks positive, however. Tomorrow we are heading about freezing, and there is no freeze forecast for ten days. We'll see if we get enough thaw to train outside before our FA Cup match on 9 January.In the meantime, I hope everyone enjoys their holiday, and are safe and warm.
Cheers,
Harry
Friday, December 24, 2010
Manager-Director-Coach-Assistant-Trainer
So what's in a name?
Not much, really: when we talk about a manager in England, it's very different than when we talk about a manager in the US. A trainer means something completely different in college than it does in a youth club. However, how we organize our roles, both within an organization, and organizing ourselves for the different roles we play can be a big determinate in how effective we are.
It may seem a little odd to American ears when a manager is talked about "being active on the training ground." What else would the manager do? Well, actually, quite a lot. The English structure of coaching a squad is much more analogous to the college football model in the US than how most of us manage our college teams or youth clubs. The manager sets the agenda, but the coaching staff generally conducts the training. In American college football, the traditional role of the head coach, epitomized by Bear Bryant, was to watch the practice, and decide who was or was not ready for the weekend game. (Preston's first team training ground has a scaffolding tower reminiscent of the Bear's tower over-looking the Alabama practice fields, though admittedly much smaller than the Bear's.) A professional football manager usually does much the same, and is managing a coaching staff that does the bulk of the daily work of preparing the team to the manager's specifications.
The key role of the manager, in terms of training, is defining the problems to be addressed – what can we improve on the most in the shortest amount of time that will have the greatest impact on our play? Having a bit of distance from the daily tempo of training can be a big help in seeing what the “big picture” items are. I can't imagine there are many among us who haven't at some point in our careers done three, four, five training sessions in a row on basically the same topic because “the players just aren't getting it.” Well, perhaps that is as much as they will get right now, and our time would be better used moving on to something else. Or, perhaps if we had the manager's eyes up on the tower watching, he could tell us where the breakdown is.
It makes sense: the manager's remit with a professional club is to insure results, which may include avoiding relegation, gaining promotion, winning silverware. A coach, on the other hand, is to improve the individual players and the cohesion of the unit to raise the level of play of the squad as a whole. In other words, the coach gives the manager the tools to his job, while the manager keeps a "big picture" view and defines the coaches' tasks within the organization: what players need work on specific skills or decision making processes, what units within the team need to improve, and, of course, what "improvement" means. The manager then directs the staff who does the bulk of the training. If the manager wants to play indirect, possession football with a five man midfield, clearly training sessions working with a four man midfield playing direct, over-the-top balls to the forwards are not merely useless, but actually detrimental. Sometimes the manager will make a coaching point, lead an exercise, or conduct an entire training session. Or he might not be at training at all, but instead evaluating a prospective player or scouting an opponent.
One person can, of course, both manage and coach, but I think it's helpful to think of the roles as separate. By clearly defining our roles, we can focus on doing one job at a time, and doing it well. For those of us who have coached at small colleges, we oftimes find ourselves doing everything, from laundry to recruiting to coaching, and everything in between. An organization needs to have an overarching vision, an organizing force to achieve that vision, and then technical expertise to actually achieve it. Even if it is one person filling all of the roles, just to keep your sanity you need to be able to compartmentalize. One day, I'm setting the vision; in the morning, I'm determining the strategy and organization of the squad; in the evening, I'm doing the actual training. Blurring the lines muddles your thinking, and you start discussing philosophy of teaching in a training session, rather than actually teaching in the session.
I think a clear separation of roles has an application in youth coaching as well. In my experience, many clubs are in desperate need of a director of coaching -- someone who can set the vision for the club, create a coherent curriculum for player development, and engender a common club culture so the club is something more than an accretion of teams who wear the same shirt. However, once a DOC is hired, individual coaches often resist any influence on their team, and even view help as an encroachment on their authority. The coach, in short, doesn't want to be managed, and I think sometimes that is a failure to define the roles of director and coach and how they are separate, even if one person fills both roles, such as a head coach working without a DOC. Without club direction, the head coach of a team, whether he realizes it or not, is creating the developmental curriculum, defining the vision, and creating the culture that each player (and parent) recognize as "the club." Simply recognizing the differences in roles can make the arrival of the DOC seem like a relief -- finally the head coach can do away with the visionary hat, and focus on managing and training the team.
Likewise, as youth coaches we often make poor use of our assistants, preferring to manage and coach simultaneously and making poor use of the resource of a second coach. Sometimes it's a result of our assistant not having the necessary skill to run a session, but I think a lot of the time it is a failure of ego: we don't want to surrender control; and sometimes it's a failure of our own skill: we can't really define the problem we want the assistant to address in the session. Separating the role of manager and coach,even if one person has both of those roles and only separates them in their own thinking, helps to give a focus to the head coach/manager so that problems can be adequately defined and addressed.
Another way I have seen some youth clubs in the US divide the tasks of managing and coaching, and one that I think makes a lot of sense in the American game, is the distinction between coach and trainer. I've seen it the most where parent coaches function as the head coach, but a more experienced technician (oftimes a coach contracted from a third party service such as Midwest or Challenger) conducts one or more of the weekly training sessions. The head coaches of the various teams tell the trainers where the squads did well or did poorly, and the trainers then devise and run the sessions. The head coach has the opportunity to watch his squad at work without the emotion of a competitive match and can make some judgments about playing time and position. Also, hopefully, the head coach can learn something from the trainer about the game. It is, in some ways, upside down from the English model, where the manager is usually the senior partner in terms of experience (many coaches in professional clubs are, ultimately, aspiring managers) but I still think its something that can make sense for a lot of clubs. It maximizes coaching expertise and increases involvement of the club in the growth and development of each player.
So what's in a name? Maybe not much, but there is a lot to the roles those labels signify. I think that by clearly defining what each role in an organization is and does, we improve our teaching effectiveness, and maintain a bit more sanity. So what if you are it all by yourself --visionary, manager, technician, and laundry man, bus driver, and cook? Well, sitting down and clearly distinguishing each one of those roles can help do each job better. Don't try and cook while you're driving the bus -- you won't do either well. Likewise, don't try and devise a developmental philosophy while you're teaching midfield transition --again, you'll frustrate yourself doing neither well. The English distribution of labor won't necessarily make sense in the US -- we have different resources and needs, but a clear structure of the distribution of labor is a helpful tool to get the most of the resources we have and insure that our needs are addresed.
Not much, really: when we talk about a manager in England, it's very different than when we talk about a manager in the US. A trainer means something completely different in college than it does in a youth club. However, how we organize our roles, both within an organization, and organizing ourselves for the different roles we play can be a big determinate in how effective we are.
It may seem a little odd to American ears when a manager is talked about "being active on the training ground." What else would the manager do? Well, actually, quite a lot. The English structure of coaching a squad is much more analogous to the college football model in the US than how most of us manage our college teams or youth clubs. The manager sets the agenda, but the coaching staff generally conducts the training. In American college football, the traditional role of the head coach, epitomized by Bear Bryant, was to watch the practice, and decide who was or was not ready for the weekend game. (Preston's first team training ground has a scaffolding tower reminiscent of the Bear's tower over-looking the Alabama practice fields, though admittedly much smaller than the Bear's.) A professional football manager usually does much the same, and is managing a coaching staff that does the bulk of the daily work of preparing the team to the manager's specifications.
The key role of the manager, in terms of training, is defining the problems to be addressed – what can we improve on the most in the shortest amount of time that will have the greatest impact on our play? Having a bit of distance from the daily tempo of training can be a big help in seeing what the “big picture” items are. I can't imagine there are many among us who haven't at some point in our careers done three, four, five training sessions in a row on basically the same topic because “the players just aren't getting it.” Well, perhaps that is as much as they will get right now, and our time would be better used moving on to something else. Or, perhaps if we had the manager's eyes up on the tower watching, he could tell us where the breakdown is.
It makes sense: the manager's remit with a professional club is to insure results, which may include avoiding relegation, gaining promotion, winning silverware. A coach, on the other hand, is to improve the individual players and the cohesion of the unit to raise the level of play of the squad as a whole. In other words, the coach gives the manager the tools to his job, while the manager keeps a "big picture" view and defines the coaches' tasks within the organization: what players need work on specific skills or decision making processes, what units within the team need to improve, and, of course, what "improvement" means. The manager then directs the staff who does the bulk of the training. If the manager wants to play indirect, possession football with a five man midfield, clearly training sessions working with a four man midfield playing direct, over-the-top balls to the forwards are not merely useless, but actually detrimental. Sometimes the manager will make a coaching point, lead an exercise, or conduct an entire training session. Or he might not be at training at all, but instead evaluating a prospective player or scouting an opponent.
One person can, of course, both manage and coach, but I think it's helpful to think of the roles as separate. By clearly defining our roles, we can focus on doing one job at a time, and doing it well. For those of us who have coached at small colleges, we oftimes find ourselves doing everything, from laundry to recruiting to coaching, and everything in between. An organization needs to have an overarching vision, an organizing force to achieve that vision, and then technical expertise to actually achieve it. Even if it is one person filling all of the roles, just to keep your sanity you need to be able to compartmentalize. One day, I'm setting the vision; in the morning, I'm determining the strategy and organization of the squad; in the evening, I'm doing the actual training. Blurring the lines muddles your thinking, and you start discussing philosophy of teaching in a training session, rather than actually teaching in the session.
I think a clear separation of roles has an application in youth coaching as well. In my experience, many clubs are in desperate need of a director of coaching -- someone who can set the vision for the club, create a coherent curriculum for player development, and engender a common club culture so the club is something more than an accretion of teams who wear the same shirt. However, once a DOC is hired, individual coaches often resist any influence on their team, and even view help as an encroachment on their authority. The coach, in short, doesn't want to be managed, and I think sometimes that is a failure to define the roles of director and coach and how they are separate, even if one person fills both roles, such as a head coach working without a DOC. Without club direction, the head coach of a team, whether he realizes it or not, is creating the developmental curriculum, defining the vision, and creating the culture that each player (and parent) recognize as "the club." Simply recognizing the differences in roles can make the arrival of the DOC seem like a relief -- finally the head coach can do away with the visionary hat, and focus on managing and training the team.
Likewise, as youth coaches we often make poor use of our assistants, preferring to manage and coach simultaneously and making poor use of the resource of a second coach. Sometimes it's a result of our assistant not having the necessary skill to run a session, but I think a lot of the time it is a failure of ego: we don't want to surrender control; and sometimes it's a failure of our own skill: we can't really define the problem we want the assistant to address in the session. Separating the role of manager and coach,even if one person has both of those roles and only separates them in their own thinking, helps to give a focus to the head coach/manager so that problems can be adequately defined and addressed.
Another way I have seen some youth clubs in the US divide the tasks of managing and coaching, and one that I think makes a lot of sense in the American game, is the distinction between coach and trainer. I've seen it the most where parent coaches function as the head coach, but a more experienced technician (oftimes a coach contracted from a third party service such as Midwest or Challenger) conducts one or more of the weekly training sessions. The head coaches of the various teams tell the trainers where the squads did well or did poorly, and the trainers then devise and run the sessions. The head coach has the opportunity to watch his squad at work without the emotion of a competitive match and can make some judgments about playing time and position. Also, hopefully, the head coach can learn something from the trainer about the game. It is, in some ways, upside down from the English model, where the manager is usually the senior partner in terms of experience (many coaches in professional clubs are, ultimately, aspiring managers) but I still think its something that can make sense for a lot of clubs. It maximizes coaching expertise and increases involvement of the club in the growth and development of each player.
So what's in a name? Maybe not much, but there is a lot to the roles those labels signify. I think that by clearly defining what each role in an organization is and does, we improve our teaching effectiveness, and maintain a bit more sanity. So what if you are it all by yourself --visionary, manager, technician, and laundry man, bus driver, and cook? Well, sitting down and clearly distinguishing each one of those roles can help do each job better. Don't try and cook while you're driving the bus -- you won't do either well. Likewise, don't try and devise a developmental philosophy while you're teaching midfield transition --again, you'll frustrate yourself doing neither well. The English distribution of labor won't necessarily make sense in the US -- we have different resources and needs, but a clear structure of the distribution of labor is a helpful tool to get the most of the resources we have and insure that our needs are addresed.
Monday, December 20, 2010
Winter Break
The hardest thing about losing fixtures to postponement is keeping the squad sharp. No matter how motivated and energetic a manager, coaching staff, and playing squad are, week after week of postponements, delays, and no competition, makes for stale training sessions and it can be a struggle to get the focus back when the season does begin.
I think a lot of factors are working in our favor, and it shows in the quality of training this week. First, we do have a strong and motivated squad. Without the baseline commitment from the players, nothing else can happen. The manager and club secretary have been proactive in getting training facilities for us, so while a lot of clubs aren't working at all, we are still working, and though we haven't been able to test ourselves in a match, improving. Finally the timing of myself coming on as First-team Coach and Luke as Assistant Head Coach probably couldn't be better. The players are hearing new voices, all of which are coherent (and it's really neat to be on a staff that really sees the same issues and largely the same solutions) but our presentation is always just a bit different from each member of the coaching staff, and the players are really responding.
We have done a lot of five-a-side competitive play, and the players are really stepping up and playing to win. For the most part, we have been coaching at breaks, just giving a few observations, and maybe making a quick point to an individual player during the session. This past week, we shifted gears a little bit and ran a more structured session on Friday, continuing to work on speed of play and field awareness.
I have noticed that players here tend to be a little more set in the way they want a training session to be run, but they have been willing to trust me as I structure a session a little differently than to what they are accustomed. It brings up an important point in any coaching situation: credibility. It is inherent when teaching that the teacher is placing the student in a situation where her competency is challenged, and in some way, asked to move outside of her comfort zone. There has to be a basis of trust in the relationship between player and coach for that learning experience to occur. The weaknesses of a player are not exposed to belittle them, but rather to improve them. Without trust in the coach's personality, as well as professional credibility that there is something the coach has to teach, players will resist the teaching moment.
Thus far, the Preston North End Women have extended me that trust, and on Friday especially, I could see positive results. As we began playing a multi-goal game, the first mini-game to three took about five minutes. In the stoppage, I pointed out our movement off the ball was not good, and we needed to get that going in order to find balls into the seams. The players took it to heart, and the second mini-game was less than ninety seconds before five goals were scored (3-2 scoreline.) At that point, we could begin teaching the vision, awareness, and game intelligence issues that we wanted to improve. It was rewarding to be able to move to some "higher level" points such as using the ball as a vehicle of communication. It has been awhile since I have had a group of players technically sound and tactically astute enough that I can begin introducing some of the higher level thought process type of points into the session (without forcing it.)
Coming up, we have fitness testing for the Christmas break, then we reconvene to prepare for our FA Cup Second Round tie with Rochedale. Hopefully the snow will thaw over the Christmas break and we will continue to build from our recent training and apply what we've worked on into creative play in the full-size game.
I think a lot of factors are working in our favor, and it shows in the quality of training this week. First, we do have a strong and motivated squad. Without the baseline commitment from the players, nothing else can happen. The manager and club secretary have been proactive in getting training facilities for us, so while a lot of clubs aren't working at all, we are still working, and though we haven't been able to test ourselves in a match, improving. Finally the timing of myself coming on as First-team Coach and Luke as Assistant Head Coach probably couldn't be better. The players are hearing new voices, all of which are coherent (and it's really neat to be on a staff that really sees the same issues and largely the same solutions) but our presentation is always just a bit different from each member of the coaching staff, and the players are really responding.
We have done a lot of five-a-side competitive play, and the players are really stepping up and playing to win. For the most part, we have been coaching at breaks, just giving a few observations, and maybe making a quick point to an individual player during the session. This past week, we shifted gears a little bit and ran a more structured session on Friday, continuing to work on speed of play and field awareness.
I have noticed that players here tend to be a little more set in the way they want a training session to be run, but they have been willing to trust me as I structure a session a little differently than to what they are accustomed. It brings up an important point in any coaching situation: credibility. It is inherent when teaching that the teacher is placing the student in a situation where her competency is challenged, and in some way, asked to move outside of her comfort zone. There has to be a basis of trust in the relationship between player and coach for that learning experience to occur. The weaknesses of a player are not exposed to belittle them, but rather to improve them. Without trust in the coach's personality, as well as professional credibility that there is something the coach has to teach, players will resist the teaching moment.
Thus far, the Preston North End Women have extended me that trust, and on Friday especially, I could see positive results. As we began playing a multi-goal game, the first mini-game to three took about five minutes. In the stoppage, I pointed out our movement off the ball was not good, and we needed to get that going in order to find balls into the seams. The players took it to heart, and the second mini-game was less than ninety seconds before five goals were scored (3-2 scoreline.) At that point, we could begin teaching the vision, awareness, and game intelligence issues that we wanted to improve. It was rewarding to be able to move to some "higher level" points such as using the ball as a vehicle of communication. It has been awhile since I have had a group of players technically sound and tactically astute enough that I can begin introducing some of the higher level thought process type of points into the session (without forcing it.)
Coming up, we have fitness testing for the Christmas break, then we reconvene to prepare for our FA Cup Second Round tie with Rochedale. Hopefully the snow will thaw over the Christmas break and we will continue to build from our recent training and apply what we've worked on into creative play in the full-size game.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
OK, That's Real Snow
But I will admit that Friday night that was real snow -- it would have shut down Pittsburgh for a few hours, and even Buffalo would have taken notice. The first flakes fell after I left for training at 520. By the time we were leaving Preston an hour later, it was coming down steady, likely half an inch an hour or so. Leaving the gym in Croxteth at 915, we were faced with about four inches. By the time we caught a taxi in Standish at 4am, there were fourteen inches on the ground.
Taxi in Standish? How's that, you say.
Well, I expect the story of our epic journey will make it to a cinema near you sometime soon. We are negotiating with several studios, and hoping for a starring cast of Bruce Willis, Colin Farrell, and Christian Bale (or maybe David Tennant if he's willing to do an English accent again.) The short version is the M6 was stopped due to a series of wrecks just above the M58 junction about 1030. The car died about 1230, and we couldn't restart it, but were, thankfully, on the hard shoulder. Knowing it would be hours before we moved again, we hiked a half mile to a fellow stranded PNE player. There were then seven of us, more than could fit in the car, so once the players were safe and warm, the three coaches began our trek northward on foot.
The M6 did eventually get moving again, and our players, who were at 1030 when traffic stopped, only about 15 miles from Preston, got home at 4am. We made it to the village of Standish, where we were able to negotiate a taxi to take us the rest of the way, and I was home and dry at 5am.
Here in Preston, there is not as much snow -- only about six inches. Still, with the cold, we are pretty well done until the first of the year. We have drawn Rochedale in the FA Cup, and hopefully the speed of play and awareness that we've developed in the last couple of weeks will be seen when we move outside, and we will go through to the third round, and start a run in the League.
Having spent the last four winters in western PA, I can say definitively, yep, that's a real snowfall. No complaints about cancellations and postponements from me.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
First Team Men at Deepdale
This weekend I was able to get to Deepdale on Saturday to see Preston North End v. Ipswich. The scoreline of 1-0 was about right: Preston had the better of it but not by much. 2-0 would have been flattering to the hosts, and you couldn't have argued 1-1 was unlucky.
Watching a match live is a completely different experience than on television. PNE and Ipswich are both strugglers this year in the Championship, but the level of play is well beyond USL D-2, and in most respects above MLS as well. One of the factors limiting the development of the game in America is the geography of getting developing players to a match. In Greensburg, Pennsylvania, I am 40 miles from NCAA D1, 45 miles from USL D-2, 200 or so from MLS. Obviously, in the northwest of England we are knee-deep in Premiership and Championship soccer -- something like a twenty full-professional clubs within 50 miles.
After the match at Deepdale, I had dinner while watching Newcastle v. Liverpool on TV. Although the camera angle is quite good at St. James' Park, I kept wanting the camera to zoom out so I could see more of what is going on off the ball. So much of the meaning of a match happens so far off of the ball, that without seeing top level play live, I think it is hard for young players to really develop the sense of being in the game when they are fifty yards from the ball.
Preston and Ipswich both played similar during the match -- buildup play was out of the back to the fullbacks or occasionally the outside midfielder, who would try and find the forwards either up the line with a chip or a big diagonal ball, and then the midfield would join in on the second action. Certainly not the most elegant play in the world, but effective (and in the professional leagues results are always paramount, particularly for PNE and Ipswich where both managers are fighting for their professional lives) and entertaining. In Preston's case, also very much playing to their strengths as their right back, Billy Jones has an impressive range of passing and field awareness, and the center forward, Jon Parkin is a huge target to hit up front.
As I watched the game, I began to wonder about the differences between the English and American player. I am beginning to develop a suspicion that it's not technique, or at least not technical skill. Rather I think the difference is the application of technique -- what skill to use in what situation. That, I believe, is a function of awareness of the game beyond your feet.
To explain (or at least attempt to, I'm still formulating all of this in my head): pure technical skill is the ability to control the ball, but applied technical skill is the ability to control the ball into the appropriate space given to you by the game. A perfectly controlled first touch into the path of the defender is no good. A partially controlled first touch into space that allows for a through pass to a teammate in an attacking position on the next touch is brilliant. I remember watching the PAWest Olympic Development 1991(?) boys team train a few years back. Almost every player was technically clean and could receive a driven ball with a controlled first touch on either foot, inside, outside, laces, or even heel. The problem was they would receive inside, outside, laces, heel, right or left -- regardless of what the situation was. However in training, they had the time and space to get away with it, as rarely was the defender closing at full speed to punish the player for the incorrect technique.
And therein lies my current working theory about the limitation of American player development: we don't train hard enough. In training, our players tend to go about 80% -- we don't recognize the visual cues of the game at 100%, and we aren't punished for inappropriate technical responses. As sharp as our elite players are in a technical vacuum, in match conditions we break down into "soccer in a blender." I don't think that is because we are not technically capable, but rather we are not technically astute enough to apply what we have learned and are able to do.
In working with the Preston North End Women's team, as we get warm, I only have to say once, "okay, we should be at match speed now." With ANY American team, I spend half the training session trying to get them to go in harder. When teams here play match condition, a referee is picked. I can't ever remember needing a referee with an American team. However, here in training there will be at least one tackle that will send a player crashing to the deck, sometimes a clean hit, sometimes not.
So there is one task I have: discover a way to bring the intensity, ferocity, and will to win of the training sessions here back to my teams in the US. Watching the first team men this weekend, they weren't perturbed at the physical speed of play and stayed on point technically and tactically in a way that elite American players rarely do. I think that is an artifact of seeing that speed in training every day from a very young age.
Watching a match live is a completely different experience than on television. PNE and Ipswich are both strugglers this year in the Championship, but the level of play is well beyond USL D-2, and in most respects above MLS as well. One of the factors limiting the development of the game in America is the geography of getting developing players to a match. In Greensburg, Pennsylvania, I am 40 miles from NCAA D1, 45 miles from USL D-2, 200 or so from MLS. Obviously, in the northwest of England we are knee-deep in Premiership and Championship soccer -- something like a twenty full-professional clubs within 50 miles.
After the match at Deepdale, I had dinner while watching Newcastle v. Liverpool on TV. Although the camera angle is quite good at St. James' Park, I kept wanting the camera to zoom out so I could see more of what is going on off the ball. So much of the meaning of a match happens so far off of the ball, that without seeing top level play live, I think it is hard for young players to really develop the sense of being in the game when they are fifty yards from the ball.
Preston and Ipswich both played similar during the match -- buildup play was out of the back to the fullbacks or occasionally the outside midfielder, who would try and find the forwards either up the line with a chip or a big diagonal ball, and then the midfield would join in on the second action. Certainly not the most elegant play in the world, but effective (and in the professional leagues results are always paramount, particularly for PNE and Ipswich where both managers are fighting for their professional lives) and entertaining. In Preston's case, also very much playing to their strengths as their right back, Billy Jones has an impressive range of passing and field awareness, and the center forward, Jon Parkin is a huge target to hit up front.
As I watched the game, I began to wonder about the differences between the English and American player. I am beginning to develop a suspicion that it's not technique, or at least not technical skill. Rather I think the difference is the application of technique -- what skill to use in what situation. That, I believe, is a function of awareness of the game beyond your feet.
To explain (or at least attempt to, I'm still formulating all of this in my head): pure technical skill is the ability to control the ball, but applied technical skill is the ability to control the ball into the appropriate space given to you by the game. A perfectly controlled first touch into the path of the defender is no good. A partially controlled first touch into space that allows for a through pass to a teammate in an attacking position on the next touch is brilliant. I remember watching the PAWest Olympic Development 1991(?) boys team train a few years back. Almost every player was technically clean and could receive a driven ball with a controlled first touch on either foot, inside, outside, laces, or even heel. The problem was they would receive inside, outside, laces, heel, right or left -- regardless of what the situation was. However in training, they had the time and space to get away with it, as rarely was the defender closing at full speed to punish the player for the incorrect technique.
And therein lies my current working theory about the limitation of American player development: we don't train hard enough. In training, our players tend to go about 80% -- we don't recognize the visual cues of the game at 100%, and we aren't punished for inappropriate technical responses. As sharp as our elite players are in a technical vacuum, in match conditions we break down into "soccer in a blender." I don't think that is because we are not technically capable, but rather we are not technically astute enough to apply what we have learned and are able to do.
In working with the Preston North End Women's team, as we get warm, I only have to say once, "okay, we should be at match speed now." With ANY American team, I spend half the training session trying to get them to go in harder. When teams here play match condition, a referee is picked. I can't ever remember needing a referee with an American team. However, here in training there will be at least one tackle that will send a player crashing to the deck, sometimes a clean hit, sometimes not.
So there is one task I have: discover a way to bring the intensity, ferocity, and will to win of the training sessions here back to my teams in the US. Watching the first team men this weekend, they weren't perturbed at the physical speed of play and stayed on point technically and tactically in a way that elite American players rarely do. I think that is an artifact of seeing that speed in training every day from a very young age.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Postponed. Again.
Well, not happy.
I was putting together my final notes for the pre match warmup and team talk and just about to prepare my notebook when the text came in that the pitch was frozen and we are postponed yet again.
It's disappointing for so many reasons, but among the top are I felt like the squad was well prepared and well focused to take on the top of the table Manchester City squad. Our session Friday night we focused on quick movement off the ball, in order to allow quick ball movement. They really seemed to be developing trust that quick play requires. Oftimes forwards don't make runs because the ball doesn't come out of the midfield quick enough; the midfield doesn't get the ball out because the forwards aren't making runs.
It takes a degree of faith and trust that the ball will be there when the run is made, and the run will be there when the ball is played. The trick is that we don't need to have one person making the run, optimally ten players should be working to be available for a pass. If ten people are thinking "what can I do next" likely at least two will be viable options in the first action.
In my experience, women tend to pick that up just a little quicker. I think it has something to do with faith and trust. Conversely, on a women's squad, I think it breaks down faster if the negative spiral starts. Once a technical competency is reached, I really believe a lot of this game boils down to confidence in your ability, and the ability of your teammates.
It's a shame they didn't wait to see how the pitches would thaw through the morning, because the Preston North End Women are certainly showing that confidence in training.
I was putting together my final notes for the pre match warmup and team talk and just about to prepare my notebook when the text came in that the pitch was frozen and we are postponed yet again.
It's disappointing for so many reasons, but among the top are I felt like the squad was well prepared and well focused to take on the top of the table Manchester City squad. Our session Friday night we focused on quick movement off the ball, in order to allow quick ball movement. They really seemed to be developing trust that quick play requires. Oftimes forwards don't make runs because the ball doesn't come out of the midfield quick enough; the midfield doesn't get the ball out because the forwards aren't making runs.
It takes a degree of faith and trust that the ball will be there when the run is made, and the run will be there when the ball is played. The trick is that we don't need to have one person making the run, optimally ten players should be working to be available for a pass. If ten people are thinking "what can I do next" likely at least two will be viable options in the first action.
In my experience, women tend to pick that up just a little quicker. I think it has something to do with faith and trust. Conversely, on a women's squad, I think it breaks down faster if the negative spiral starts. Once a technical competency is reached, I really believe a lot of this game boils down to confidence in your ability, and the ability of your teammates.
It's a shame they didn't wait to see how the pitches would thaw through the morning, because the Preston North End Women are certainly showing that confidence in training.
Saturday, December 11, 2010
Putting on the Kit
Just a personal note:
I caught a glimpse of myself in the mirror coming in from training last night, wearing my PNE top. I can't really describe what it's like to wear the same club colors as Shankly (he played 300 times for PNE), Finney, Moyes. It's humbling, but also inspiring. Certainly I'll never be a great man, and after my brief spell here, likely won't be remembered for long. However, to have the honor of wearing the shirt, I'll do everything I can to move the club forward in any little way I can.
Sir Tom expects nothing less.
I caught a glimpse of myself in the mirror coming in from training last night, wearing my PNE top. I can't really describe what it's like to wear the same club colors as Shankly (he played 300 times for PNE), Finney, Moyes. It's humbling, but also inspiring. Certainly I'll never be a great man, and after my brief spell here, likely won't be remembered for long. However, to have the honor of wearing the shirt, I'll do everything I can to move the club forward in any little way I can.
Sir Tom expects nothing less.
Friday, December 10, 2010
The Barcelona Problem
The cold continues to grip England, and our training session Wednesday was cancelled. Today we are indoors (and not at our usual venue) to prepare for this weekend's fixture with league leading Manchester City. Thus, due to the weather, no new insights to differences between coaching in England and the States. Rather, I have had several discussions over the last week (well, over the past year) about what we share in common: how we all want to play.
Barcelona has not necessarily redefined football, but their current play, club philosophy, and player development philosophy are the fruition of Rinus Michels' total football of forty-five years ago. Indeed, the youth system at Barça is modelled on the Ajax system, and while the result of many brilliant minds, Johan Cruyff was certainly at the forefront of the creation of La Masia. Coaches throughout the world now watch Barcelona, and we all pretty much agree, that's the way we want to play: technical precision, incisive passing, fluid team organization, relentless defensive pressure. It is tremendously simple, but simple is not the same as easy. In a lot of ways, coaching, from the youth level up through senior teams, can be defined as the series of compromises we must make between how our squad will actually perform and our ideal vision of Barça.
However, are any of those compromises inevitable? The problem Barcelona gives us is to see that if perfection isn't attainable, it very nearly is. How do we get there from here? It's easy to say that any team can play like that: all you need is Xavi Hernandez, Sergio Busquets, and Andres Iniesta in your midfield. Therein though lies a salient point: Xavi, Busquets, and Iniesta didn't fall out of the sky; they all played their youth ball for Barcelona, and though in Busquets case, he didn't join Barcelona until he was sixteen, he is second generation, as his father Carles is a product of the Barcelona youth system as well.
This week in the Champions League, the Barcelona team that dominated Rubin Kazan was largely a youth squad, and without Xavi or Iniesta, they controlled 79% of the possession -- nearly 4:1. Without the stars, they played exactly the same way, with tight control of the ball, constant circulation of players off the ball, and always, always, always, looking for the penetrating pass. I've never seen any of the youth teams of Barça play, but I am told that the U12s are exactly the same.
So, how do we teach that? That is the $1billion question (Forbes' valuation of FCBarcelona as of this year.) In the US, and especially on the women's side, we oftimes have very skilled teams that possess the ball just for possession's sake. One keeps looking for the incisive pass to break the defense down, but it never comes -- the ball just keeps going around and around. The contrast is a squad like I had last year at Greensburg. While we were not technically good enough to retain possession, we would fly at you on the counter attack. EVERY pass we attempted was the killer pass.
In some ways, Barcelona are more like the team always on the counter -- they are always looking for the killer ball, but they have the patience and technical skill to recycle (and can do so very nearly indefinitely) if the killer ball isn't available. Then, of course, once they lose possession, all eleven players are actively seeking to get it back, oftimes before the opposition even realizes they have gained possession. The anticipation and work rate of the squad is so great they see when a pass will be intercepted and are getting into defensive shape before the opponent even touches the ball.
At the senior level, I think we can influence players to play quicker, move off the ball, get work done early. But to have the confidence to do those things at the speed and precision of Barcelona, it has to begin early, and I think we have to have that picture in our heads when we are teaching the kids. Too often, we give up as coaches and tell kids to hit it long to the fast kid. It works, but you'd never see that at La Masia. In order to develop players, we must focus on development of players (again, very simple, but not necessarily easy.) That means that while we do play to their strengths, so they have success (and FUN!) in the game, we have to improve their shortcomings as well -- and that means we have to get kids away from the comfort and safety of kick and chase. They have to gain comfort on and vision with the ball, and above all the confidence to play with all of the skill they can muster at whatever point they are in their development.
It's a tightrope of instilling the confidence in the players to play with the poise exemplified by Xavi, but at the same time be very clear about shortcomings. I think it's just as damaging to tell a kid "great ball!" when he misses the forwards run by 20 yards as to tell him he's an idiot. The idea behind the missed ball might be good: but the goal in the execution must always be perfection. Each player must be accountable for his or her actions, as each player is responsible (and has the capability) for his or her own improvement. A player isn't going to get better if he is constantly told he's great, even though his balls are missing the forward by 20 yards. He will just continue hitting those balls and assuming there must be something wrong with the forward for being 20 yards away from those passes the coach keeps telling him are great.
Ultimately, I think the lesson of Barcelona is they are always seeking perfection. If we aim to be pretty good, we will be pretty good on our best days. But most of the time, we'll fall short and on bad days we'll be rotten. Barcelona aims for perfection every match, every training session. On their best days, they just might have a taste of it. But even on a poor night with the third string in, they are pretty good, tearing up the Russian champions.
Barcelona has not necessarily redefined football, but their current play, club philosophy, and player development philosophy are the fruition of Rinus Michels' total football of forty-five years ago. Indeed, the youth system at Barça is modelled on the Ajax system, and while the result of many brilliant minds, Johan Cruyff was certainly at the forefront of the creation of La Masia. Coaches throughout the world now watch Barcelona, and we all pretty much agree, that's the way we want to play: technical precision, incisive passing, fluid team organization, relentless defensive pressure. It is tremendously simple, but simple is not the same as easy. In a lot of ways, coaching, from the youth level up through senior teams, can be defined as the series of compromises we must make between how our squad will actually perform and our ideal vision of Barça.
However, are any of those compromises inevitable? The problem Barcelona gives us is to see that if perfection isn't attainable, it very nearly is. How do we get there from here? It's easy to say that any team can play like that: all you need is Xavi Hernandez, Sergio Busquets, and Andres Iniesta in your midfield. Therein though lies a salient point: Xavi, Busquets, and Iniesta didn't fall out of the sky; they all played their youth ball for Barcelona, and though in Busquets case, he didn't join Barcelona until he was sixteen, he is second generation, as his father Carles is a product of the Barcelona youth system as well.
This week in the Champions League, the Barcelona team that dominated Rubin Kazan was largely a youth squad, and without Xavi or Iniesta, they controlled 79% of the possession -- nearly 4:1. Without the stars, they played exactly the same way, with tight control of the ball, constant circulation of players off the ball, and always, always, always, looking for the penetrating pass. I've never seen any of the youth teams of Barça play, but I am told that the U12s are exactly the same.
So, how do we teach that? That is the $1billion question (Forbes' valuation of FCBarcelona as of this year.) In the US, and especially on the women's side, we oftimes have very skilled teams that possess the ball just for possession's sake. One keeps looking for the incisive pass to break the defense down, but it never comes -- the ball just keeps going around and around. The contrast is a squad like I had last year at Greensburg. While we were not technically good enough to retain possession, we would fly at you on the counter attack. EVERY pass we attempted was the killer pass.
In some ways, Barcelona are more like the team always on the counter -- they are always looking for the killer ball, but they have the patience and technical skill to recycle (and can do so very nearly indefinitely) if the killer ball isn't available. Then, of course, once they lose possession, all eleven players are actively seeking to get it back, oftimes before the opposition even realizes they have gained possession. The anticipation and work rate of the squad is so great they see when a pass will be intercepted and are getting into defensive shape before the opponent even touches the ball.
At the senior level, I think we can influence players to play quicker, move off the ball, get work done early. But to have the confidence to do those things at the speed and precision of Barcelona, it has to begin early, and I think we have to have that picture in our heads when we are teaching the kids. Too often, we give up as coaches and tell kids to hit it long to the fast kid. It works, but you'd never see that at La Masia. In order to develop players, we must focus on development of players (again, very simple, but not necessarily easy.) That means that while we do play to their strengths, so they have success (and FUN!) in the game, we have to improve their shortcomings as well -- and that means we have to get kids away from the comfort and safety of kick and chase. They have to gain comfort on and vision with the ball, and above all the confidence to play with all of the skill they can muster at whatever point they are in their development.
It's a tightrope of instilling the confidence in the players to play with the poise exemplified by Xavi, but at the same time be very clear about shortcomings. I think it's just as damaging to tell a kid "great ball!" when he misses the forwards run by 20 yards as to tell him he's an idiot. The idea behind the missed ball might be good: but the goal in the execution must always be perfection. Each player must be accountable for his or her actions, as each player is responsible (and has the capability) for his or her own improvement. A player isn't going to get better if he is constantly told he's great, even though his balls are missing the forward by 20 yards. He will just continue hitting those balls and assuming there must be something wrong with the forward for being 20 yards away from those passes the coach keeps telling him are great.
Ultimately, I think the lesson of Barcelona is they are always seeking perfection. If we aim to be pretty good, we will be pretty good on our best days. But most of the time, we'll fall short and on bad days we'll be rotten. Barcelona aims for perfection every match, every training session. On their best days, they just might have a taste of it. But even on a poor night with the third string in, they are pretty good, tearing up the Russian champions.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Quote of the Day
Well, probably quote of the season, if not of the career:
"Coach education is about dealing with individuals and getting the best out of them. It is not about mass production and rote learning."
-- Andy Roxburgh
I would say the same is true, probably more so, with player education and player development.
"Coach education is about dealing with individuals and getting the best out of them. It is not about mass production and rote learning."
-- Andy Roxburgh
I would say the same is true, probably more so, with player education and player development.
The Coaching Toolkit
Our fixture yesterday was again postponed due to weather. Although we got some rain to wash away a good deal of the snow, we are now in a cycle of sunshine and cold, but thawing, during the day, then hard freezes at night. As a result, the pitches (and roads) get a hard shell of ice at night, and it takes most of the day for it to thaw out. The positive of all of that is that every day it gets a little bit better. Although we might get some light snow tomorrow, by the weekend we are forecast to be back to seasonal: lows at or just above freezing, and daytime highs in the low 40s (5-7C).
So I'm hopeful we will get a match played on Sunday.
In the meantime, we trained again on the covered five-a-side pitch yesterday, and I very quickly realized adjustments I have to make to my coaching. We were playing small-sided matches, again just to maximize touches and movement. During a break I asked, "What's working for us? What are we doing when we are being successful?" and got startled stares. One of the senior players did chirp in with a very good point about speed of play, which allowed me to segue into a discussion about movement off the ball, but it is obvious that one of the teaching techniques I am most comfortable with, the Socratic method, is going to have to be used very sparingly. The squad appears to want precise, finely drawn instruction.
Which of course, any coach has to be able to do. In order to help a player improve, or to make a team better, we have to identify a discrete problem and provide a specific solution. The sum of all of the specific solutions a squad has, combined with the understanding and technique of the individual players, provides the palette for creative, and effective, play within the fluidity of the game. The advantage of the Socratic method is that it encourages player responsibility and synthesis of knowledge. As Bert van Marwijk noted in a recent interview in the The Technician (Feb. 2010) youth players "don't take responsibility any more, they don't think for themselves. Everybody tells them what to do, but I like them to be trained to think for themselves." Thus, the Scylla and Charybdis we coaches have to navigate is being too rigid in our training and dictating play to the players, creating automatons than cannot step up and take responsibility for the changing situation in a match, or being too vague and "philosophical" in approach, never giving the players tangible skills and specific insights that give a squad a shape and collective understanding, and a player the functional ability to contribute to their side's success.
It is obvious after two sessions that I will have to begin with very precise coaching points to expand into a more general framework of understanding about the game, rather than beginning with a general framework, and then filling in the specific details, as is my want and habit. A good coach has to be able to do both, to adapt to the learning style of a player and a team. I wonder if there is also an aspect of me being expected to prove myself to the squad. Any new coach has a degree of skepticism to overcome, and it is not mere perversity on the part of the players. Does the new coach have anything to offer? Will this person help us be better players, make us become a more successful team? It's a fair demand, and one that I hope thus far I've answered.
So I'm hopeful we will get a match played on Sunday.
In the meantime, we trained again on the covered five-a-side pitch yesterday, and I very quickly realized adjustments I have to make to my coaching. We were playing small-sided matches, again just to maximize touches and movement. During a break I asked, "What's working for us? What are we doing when we are being successful?" and got startled stares. One of the senior players did chirp in with a very good point about speed of play, which allowed me to segue into a discussion about movement off the ball, but it is obvious that one of the teaching techniques I am most comfortable with, the Socratic method, is going to have to be used very sparingly. The squad appears to want precise, finely drawn instruction.
Which of course, any coach has to be able to do. In order to help a player improve, or to make a team better, we have to identify a discrete problem and provide a specific solution. The sum of all of the specific solutions a squad has, combined with the understanding and technique of the individual players, provides the palette for creative, and effective, play within the fluidity of the game. The advantage of the Socratic method is that it encourages player responsibility and synthesis of knowledge. As Bert van Marwijk noted in a recent interview in the The Technician (Feb. 2010) youth players "don't take responsibility any more, they don't think for themselves. Everybody tells them what to do, but I like them to be trained to think for themselves." Thus, the Scylla and Charybdis we coaches have to navigate is being too rigid in our training and dictating play to the players, creating automatons than cannot step up and take responsibility for the changing situation in a match, or being too vague and "philosophical" in approach, never giving the players tangible skills and specific insights that give a squad a shape and collective understanding, and a player the functional ability to contribute to their side's success.
It is obvious after two sessions that I will have to begin with very precise coaching points to expand into a more general framework of understanding about the game, rather than beginning with a general framework, and then filling in the specific details, as is my want and habit. A good coach has to be able to do both, to adapt to the learning style of a player and a team. I wonder if there is also an aspect of me being expected to prove myself to the squad. Any new coach has a degree of skepticism to overcome, and it is not mere perversity on the part of the players. Does the new coach have anything to offer? Will this person help us be better players, make us become a more successful team? It's a fair demand, and one that I hope thus far I've answered.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Finally
We had a session last night in the covered five-a-side pitch -- it's a little bigger than a basketball floor, so about the same size as most futsal courts. Given the squad hasn't trained or played in over a week, we mostly just wanted to get some touches and some competition.
Right away I noticed a difference in the personal dynamics of the squad. With a senior women's squad in England, we have a greater diversity in background, both personal and in the game, and obviously a greater diversity in age than you ever see in the college game in the US. In college, the women on the squad tend to be each other's best friends, roommates, and classmates. While we may spend fifteen or twenty hours a week together on the training pitch, at matches, and on the bus, a lot of the players are together forty, fifty hours a week or more. While it is the game that brings them together in the pre-season, the social bonds they form are ultimately based on much more than soccer.
Here, some of the women are students, but at several different universities and schools. Some are working, some are mothers, and the only thing that brings them all together is the football. Thus, the focus during training is, at first blush, a little sharper. The conversations between playing segments tend to be a little more about the game, and I think that is largely due to the fact that football is the one thing everyone shares in common.
To get everyone some work, we played a 6v6 mini-tournament. (My team, trailing badly with only four draws from our first seven matches, ended in second place, 31-35.) The technical quality is similar to what one would expect from a Division I college squad in the US, though there are some differences -- technical receiving is better, with the PNE players consistently opening to receive the ball instead of the common mistake of poking at the ball with the near foot. However, the touch of American players is maybe a little softer, a little more closely under control. When I asked after the first round of play what we needed to improve, the near-unanimous response from the players was, "we need to talk more."
I guess some things are universal . . .
Right away I noticed a difference in the personal dynamics of the squad. With a senior women's squad in England, we have a greater diversity in background, both personal and in the game, and obviously a greater diversity in age than you ever see in the college game in the US. In college, the women on the squad tend to be each other's best friends, roommates, and classmates. While we may spend fifteen or twenty hours a week together on the training pitch, at matches, and on the bus, a lot of the players are together forty, fifty hours a week or more. While it is the game that brings them together in the pre-season, the social bonds they form are ultimately based on much more than soccer.
Here, some of the women are students, but at several different universities and schools. Some are working, some are mothers, and the only thing that brings them all together is the football. Thus, the focus during training is, at first blush, a little sharper. The conversations between playing segments tend to be a little more about the game, and I think that is largely due to the fact that football is the one thing everyone shares in common.
To get everyone some work, we played a 6v6 mini-tournament. (My team, trailing badly with only four draws from our first seven matches, ended in second place, 31-35.) The technical quality is similar to what one would expect from a Division I college squad in the US, though there are some differences -- technical receiving is better, with the PNE players consistently opening to receive the ball instead of the common mistake of poking at the ball with the near foot. However, the touch of American players is maybe a little softer, a little more closely under control. When I asked after the first round of play what we needed to improve, the near-unanimous response from the players was, "we need to talk more."
I guess some things are universal . . .
Thursday, December 2, 2010
On the (Frozen) Ground
Well, a good bit of England is paralyzed with cold and snow right now, and though we have it relatively good here in Preston, the pitches are frozen and we were unable to train on Wednesday. I'm looking forward to the first session with the squad tomorrow evening.
We had a staff meeting on Tuesday and got to know each other a bit and philosophy/system of play. I think we are all comfortable with each other, and feel that my voice, while different, will be coherent with the type of football we are trying to play. One note right away: there is certainly more of a willingness to use circuit training here. I think we Americans are a little hesitant because of the emphasis in coaching education on the focused topic session plan, moving from the basic to the complex. We are going to use small-sided circuit training where we are doing two or three related activities, but not building upon each other, as the players will be doing them in a different order. (That is, with three groups, one group will do activity A->B->C, whereas one will do B->C->A, and one C->A->B.) Then we will move onto phase and functional play. The working theory is that each activity will be organized around the same prevailing theme, and will take advantage of each coach's different style and emphasis. Thus, the players are exposed to a variety of different solutions and suggestions in the small-sided activities, and have a greater creative palette to solve the problems of the full-sided game.
I'm excited.
Hopefully the weather will warm enough that the weekend's cup fixture will not be postponed, and I'll get to see the squad in action. It's beautiful sunshine at the moment, and while cold, at least the sun is warming up the ground a bit.
As for just the basics of getting by, I have food in cupboard now, and had a good pie for lunch, so I'm settling in.
We had a staff meeting on Tuesday and got to know each other a bit and philosophy/system of play. I think we are all comfortable with each other, and feel that my voice, while different, will be coherent with the type of football we are trying to play. One note right away: there is certainly more of a willingness to use circuit training here. I think we Americans are a little hesitant because of the emphasis in coaching education on the focused topic session plan, moving from the basic to the complex. We are going to use small-sided circuit training where we are doing two or three related activities, but not building upon each other, as the players will be doing them in a different order. (That is, with three groups, one group will do activity A->B->C, whereas one will do B->C->A, and one C->A->B.) Then we will move onto phase and functional play. The working theory is that each activity will be organized around the same prevailing theme, and will take advantage of each coach's different style and emphasis. Thus, the players are exposed to a variety of different solutions and suggestions in the small-sided activities, and have a greater creative palette to solve the problems of the full-sided game.
I'm excited.
Hopefully the weather will warm enough that the weekend's cup fixture will not be postponed, and I'll get to see the squad in action. It's beautiful sunshine at the moment, and while cold, at least the sun is warming up the ground a bit.
As for just the basics of getting by, I have food in cupboard now, and had a good pie for lunch, so I'm settling in.
Monday, November 29, 2010
The Time is Now
The first problem I´m going to face is training in Baltic weather -- it´s just barely creeping above freezing in Northwest England now. The key I´ve found in training in Pittsburgh is no lines, little teaching, lots of movement. I remember training in March a couple of years ago on the turf at Hempfield and the wind chill was somewhere in the ballpark of 10F, so that experience will be put to good use.
I am checked in and on my way to the airport shortly. Hopefully I can get some sleep on the plane, so I´m not a zombie in tomorrow´s staff meeting. I need to be sharp, so I´m contributing from the time I hit the ground.
I am checked in and on my way to the airport shortly. Hopefully I can get some sleep on the plane, so I´m not a zombie in tomorrow´s staff meeting. I need to be sharp, so I´m contributing from the time I hit the ground.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Countdown
It´s time to start figuring out what to pack -- tough decisions when you have 50 pounds, plus a carry on, and it´s winter. While I´m doing laundry, I´m going over some of my past session logs and watching a little bit of video to stay sharp.
The weather in Preston hasn´t been bad -- cold, but little snow. The northeast, however, is blanketed in snow, and matches are being cancelled. That can always be tough -- sometimes the extra rest does a squad good, but sometime you can lose sharpness. I´m looking forward to Wednesday and seeing what we have, and how I can contribute.
Monday will be a long day -- three hour layover in Atlanta -- but I hope I can sleep on the plane and maybe catch a nap on the train from Manchester to Preston. Tuesday I´ll get settled, and then to work on Wednesday.
The weather in Preston hasn´t been bad -- cold, but little snow. The northeast, however, is blanketed in snow, and matches are being cancelled. That can always be tough -- sometimes the extra rest does a squad good, but sometime you can lose sharpness. I´m looking forward to Wednesday and seeing what we have, and how I can contribute.
Monday will be a long day -- three hour layover in Atlanta -- but I hope I can sleep on the plane and maybe catch a nap on the train from Manchester to Preston. Tuesday I´ll get settled, and then to work on Wednesday.
Monday, November 22, 2010
It´s Official!
After a series of conversations with Andy Burgess, manager at PNEWFC, I have my plane ticket and I will be joining the squad for training on Wednesday, 1 December.
On Tuesday, I will meet with Andy and we will go over the squad, some of the training and match issues, and I will get video of the season thus far to begin studying. The task ahead is daunting: can we move from mid-table to the promotion spots?
Already, one difference in the game culture I recognize: Andy, as manager, wants to be much more hands-off in training than an American head coach. As a head coach, that is certainly one of my weaknesses: I spend so much time and energy training that I don´t necessarily see ¨big picture¨ items, as a manager would. I did find this past season that video taping sessions helped me considerably. In American soccer, we don´t make a clear distinction between the manager, who guides the squad, and the coach, who implements training. It´s not that one person can´t fulfill all those roles, but it´s difficult to compartmentalize.
We use different parts of our brains when determining over-arching vision (such as playing philosophy, developmental philosophy, or program identity), match and training strategy (organization and design), and finally mechanical, hands-on training and implementation. The great coaches, Bear Bryant in American football, Bill Shankly in football, John Wooden in basketball, Anson Dorrance in college soccer, all recognize that need for compartmentalization and surround themselves with a staff that can fulfill those roles.
I hope that I can implement Andy´s vision and help move us up the table.
On Tuesday, I will meet with Andy and we will go over the squad, some of the training and match issues, and I will get video of the season thus far to begin studying. The task ahead is daunting: can we move from mid-table to the promotion spots?
Already, one difference in the game culture I recognize: Andy, as manager, wants to be much more hands-off in training than an American head coach. As a head coach, that is certainly one of my weaknesses: I spend so much time and energy training that I don´t necessarily see ¨big picture¨ items, as a manager would. I did find this past season that video taping sessions helped me considerably. In American soccer, we don´t make a clear distinction between the manager, who guides the squad, and the coach, who implements training. It´s not that one person can´t fulfill all those roles, but it´s difficult to compartmentalize.
We use different parts of our brains when determining over-arching vision (such as playing philosophy, developmental philosophy, or program identity), match and training strategy (organization and design), and finally mechanical, hands-on training and implementation. The great coaches, Bear Bryant in American football, Bill Shankly in football, John Wooden in basketball, Anson Dorrance in college soccer, all recognize that need for compartmentalization and surround themselves with a staff that can fulfill those roles.
I hope that I can implement Andy´s vision and help move us up the table.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
Trying to Make It Work
It´s been two and a half weeks since I resigned at Pitt-Greensburg, and two weeks since I was offered the coaching job at Preston North End Women´s FC. I think that I might have everything sorted out that I am going to be able to make it across the pond and start working next week.
I´m hoping to get a lot out of the next three months: working in an English club environment will be miles different from working in US college or US club. In addition to working as senior coach with PNE Women´s, I expect to be able to at least observe some academy and COE training sessions of some of the clubs in the Northwest.
The Northwest of England is a football hotbed -- of course most everyone on the planet is familiar with Liverpool and Manchester United, but just in the football league, there are well over a dozen clubs within thirty miles of Preston. PNE, of course, Wigan, Liverpool, Everton, Man City, Man Utd., Rochedale, Bury, Accrington Stanley, Burnley, Blackpool, Blackburn, Oldham, Bolton, and more. Of course, the population density is high, but still the Northwest supports as many professional clubs and produces more professional players as the entire North American continent.
It´s not just a learning tour though -- I really think I have something to bring to the table. With three years coaching college women, and several more coaching youth girls, my experience and my education bring something to the club. The women´s game, while it has much of the same shape as the men´s game, the actual application of the principles of play is very different. As few women can hit the sixty yard diagonal ball, an emphasis is placed on combination play, defensive shape, and support of the ball. With the amount of women´s soccer I´ve been watching, I expect I can provide meaningful insight into the game.
Can I translate that insight into helping move the squad up from the middle of the table?
It´s still not certain I will be on a plane next week, but that´s the plan. Over the next three months, I hope to be tracking my progress as a coach, and sharing what I´ve learned. Hundreds, maybe even thousands of English coaches have made the trip to teach us in the States. Do I have something to return to the home of football?
I´m hoping to get a lot out of the next three months: working in an English club environment will be miles different from working in US college or US club. In addition to working as senior coach with PNE Women´s, I expect to be able to at least observe some academy and COE training sessions of some of the clubs in the Northwest.
The Northwest of England is a football hotbed -- of course most everyone on the planet is familiar with Liverpool and Manchester United, but just in the football league, there are well over a dozen clubs within thirty miles of Preston. PNE, of course, Wigan, Liverpool, Everton, Man City, Man Utd., Rochedale, Bury, Accrington Stanley, Burnley, Blackpool, Blackburn, Oldham, Bolton, and more. Of course, the population density is high, but still the Northwest supports as many professional clubs and produces more professional players as the entire North American continent.
It´s not just a learning tour though -- I really think I have something to bring to the table. With three years coaching college women, and several more coaching youth girls, my experience and my education bring something to the club. The women´s game, while it has much of the same shape as the men´s game, the actual application of the principles of play is very different. As few women can hit the sixty yard diagonal ball, an emphasis is placed on combination play, defensive shape, and support of the ball. With the amount of women´s soccer I´ve been watching, I expect I can provide meaningful insight into the game.
Can I translate that insight into helping move the squad up from the middle of the table?
It´s still not certain I will be on a plane next week, but that´s the plan. Over the next three months, I hope to be tracking my progress as a coach, and sharing what I´ve learned. Hundreds, maybe even thousands of English coaches have made the trip to teach us in the States. Do I have something to return to the home of football?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)