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.
