We had a really good training session last night. The players were sharp, open to coaching, and working hard. The session began with a quick summary of video analysis of the Rochdale match. All of the staff were amazed at just how dominating we were -- we knew we had the better of the match, but the level of control of possession, territory, and scoring chances was astounding. Again, cheers to Rochdale for asking questions on the counter attack and finishing the chances they were given.
Therein lies the first major coaching point of the session last night: we gave the chances to Rochdale. The Boss diagrammed the first goal and talked through the other two and was very clear about the failures that led to those chances, was very clear about who was responsible, and also very clear about how to fix those failures in the future. As Andy was talking, I remember thinking when Mia Hamm was asked what the most important quality for an elite soccer player to have, she replied, without hesitation, "Mental toughness." Part of mental toughness, maybe the most important part, is accepting responsibility for failure. In accepting responsibility for our failure, we also recognize our own authority to improve -- I made the mistake; I can learn to fix it. To be honest, I was a little leery of opening the training session with a very clear-eyed, clinical assessment of who did what wrong where. I realized by the end of the training session that I had failed to give our squad the credit for being as tough as they are -- and underestimating the strength of your squad can be as fatal a coaching mistake as overestimating them.
In both working with the senior women's squad, and also watching the Preston North End Center of Excellence, I see that English players, at least at the elite level, are certainly more accustomed to being called to account for shortcomings that their American counterparts. In our efforts to remain positive (and I am a huge believer in Tony DiCicco's "catch them being good" approach) I fear that we sometimes do a disservice to our players by failing to be clear about their failures. Certainly, players shouldn't be berated for shortcomings, but failing to acknowledge failure and assign responsibility can be just as damaging. An English phrase that I hate, and one that I hear American coaching using more and more, is "unlucky" when a player misses an opportunity. Well, it's not unlucky if a player misses an open net: it is a technical failure, and one the player must take responsibility for, because the player can fix a technical mistake. No one can fix being "unlucky."
The difference I see at this point in my career between a good coach and an excellent coach is the specificity of information to correct shortcomings in a player, a unit, or a squad. (For that matter, within a coaching staff as well.) While I have thought for a long time that specificiy is largely a technical matter, the recognition of fine details in a match, and how the accumulation of details affects the whole, I increasingly see the difference between good coaching and excellent coaching to be a moral matter as well. We must demand responsibility from the players, but to do so in a way that we make it clear that the player can affect positive change. We do not highlight a players mistake to berate or belittle a player, but rather the mistake is brought to attention because recognition is the first step towards remediation. Yes, there are cases where we can design a session and coaching points to fix problems the player isn't aware of, but it's more difficult as we get to the elite level and the margins of error are smaller, and the attention to detail is greater.
When coaching U8s, we pretty much don't have to tell a kid they made a mistake by toe-ing the ball -- they failed to control the ball, and we just teach them the techniques to gain control. As they master hitting the ball with the side foot and with laces, the players recognize they can control where the ball is going where they couldn't when hitting it with a toe. I think maybe too often we miss the opportunity to point out as a player gains mastery to be very clear that the player had a problem, and through hard work and attention to detail, the player fixed the problem. Too often, we just tell a kid she's great, she can hit the back of the net consistently now, or change directions and pace on the dribble, or whatever, and "you are really gifted." Without the association being explicitly made between the practice and the success, I think we are doing the player, and the person, a great disservice.
As chance would have it, after last night's training session where we began with a recitation of failure (as well as considerable praise for all that we did right, because 95% of the time, we were superb) the FA Insight Live website has a presentation from Alistair Smith on generational learning differences, and he discusses the work of Carol Dweck and her model of Fixed v. Growth mindset. Very briefly, people with a fixed mindset theory of self are invested in the notion that ability is related to gifts and are largely predetermined. As a result, they attribute failure to lack of ability, seek ego-driven relational praise ("You beat Timmy! You are special!"), and ultimately evade challenges as a threat as they might possibly expose a lack of talent that a fixed mindset personality does not believe they have the ability to remedy. Those with a growth mindset believe that ability is related to effort and thus is malleable. Failure is attributed to lack of effort, and they seek task related praise and improvement feedback, and seek additional challenges to extend themselves and grow their ability.
As I said, I have come to believe that coaching is, to a very large extent, a moral exercise. I have long railed against what I term the ESPN idea of "God-given talent." Certainly Leo Messi has certain inherent traits that contribute to his dominance on the pitch. More important however is the thousands of hours he has spent with a ball at his feet, watching the game, learning from coaches, and experimenting (and that includes failing) in training. Even things we think of as fixed, such as foot speed, are not. Go tell a track coach that the speed of a runner is predetermined. He will love to match up against your team in a meet, because while you are praising your runners for having "God-given speed" she is going to be teaching her runners how to be faster.
Our players must be held accountable for their shortcomings, so they can recognize their autonomy and ability to affect change and improve. When we see "talented" players hit a ceiling and suddenly fail to develop, I think those seeds have often been planted years earlier when as a kid the player was told they were "destined" for greatness. Destiny has nothing to with it: each player, each person participates in their growth every day, and their destination is not fixed. As coaches, we influence the path that our players take by the type of praise and type of corrections we make. It is critically important that when the shortcomings of a player are exposed that we are clear it's not because "you don't have talent" but because the player hasn't yet learned the solution to the failure exposed. As coaches, we are here to help find those solutions.
I do think there is a cultural element to all of this. I find that English players tend to be more open to criticism because they believe they can improve. American players tend to be more threatened, founded on a fear their talent is fixed and thus limited. That is a gross generalization to be sure, and perhaps not entirely valid. However, regardless of whether we coach in England, Pennsylvania, Mali, or Uzbekistan, we have a duty to the player to help them develop, and a player cannot, a person cannot be empowered to improve without a recognition that mistakes aren't "unlucky", they are opportunities for growth.
The FA Insight Live materials are available for coaches who are members of the Football Association Coaches' Association. For coaches based outside of the UK, associate memberships with access to online material are available; for information, go to: http://www.thefa.com/GetIntoFootball/FALearning/FALearningPages/FACoachesAssociation . For more information about the research and work of Carol Dweck, go to: mindsetonline.com. There are links on the information pages to purchase Professor Dweck's book.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
It's a Funny Old Game
Completely gutted. We dominated every phase of the match against Rochdale except for the one that counts -- putting the ball in the back of the net. Cheers to them, they were big, strong, fast, and could finish. We were occasionally a bit naïve in our defending and didn't put people on the floor when we should have. Perhaps because we were in their half almost all the time, we didn't get into the 18 and fire shots with the necessary urgency.
Ultimately, course, dominance is not enough. You have to put the ball in the net or its all for nought.
Going into training today, we have shortcomings to address, as any team always does. However, our challenge as a coaching staff is to be sure the squad knows we are on the right path. We are looking at some tactical changes to better take advantage of some of the qualities of our players, but no sea-change is needed. It's all in the details.
Of course, that is the difference between competence and excellence -- all of the little details. When we are teaching under 6s to receive a ball, it's the details that matter -- toe up, turn your hip. Those details they pick up at five become the technical foundation for them to be able to use the ball and then begin to see the game. Football is so complex that it's easy to paint in broad strokes: we have to possess, we defend as a unit, we set out in a 4-3-3, &c. &c. But it's in the details that wins and losses -- and development of players from good to excellent -- occur. How do we go about possessing? Where do we defend? What are our bands of organization? What are the tasks of each individual in a given organization, and where is the space, physical and psychological, for creativity?
So tonight we have to be sure that the players know the broad strokes are right -- but we, all of us, every coach, every player, have to hone in on the details and make them habitual. Do it right, every time, and accept nothing less.
Because we have two training sessions to be ready for a semi-final in our other cup competition. There is no time to moan about the past, only to use what it gives us to prepare for the future.
Ultimately, course, dominance is not enough. You have to put the ball in the net or its all for nought.
Going into training today, we have shortcomings to address, as any team always does. However, our challenge as a coaching staff is to be sure the squad knows we are on the right path. We are looking at some tactical changes to better take advantage of some of the qualities of our players, but no sea-change is needed. It's all in the details.
Of course, that is the difference between competence and excellence -- all of the little details. When we are teaching under 6s to receive a ball, it's the details that matter -- toe up, turn your hip. Those details they pick up at five become the technical foundation for them to be able to use the ball and then begin to see the game. Football is so complex that it's easy to paint in broad strokes: we have to possess, we defend as a unit, we set out in a 4-3-3, &c. &c. But it's in the details that wins and losses -- and development of players from good to excellent -- occur. How do we go about possessing? Where do we defend? What are our bands of organization? What are the tasks of each individual in a given organization, and where is the space, physical and psychological, for creativity?
So tonight we have to be sure that the players know the broad strokes are right -- but we, all of us, every coach, every player, have to hone in on the details and make them habitual. Do it right, every time, and accept nothing less.
Because we have two training sessions to be ready for a semi-final in our other cup competition. There is no time to moan about the past, only to use what it gives us to prepare for the future.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
FA Cup At Last!
Finally after two false starts, we play our second round FA Cup tie with Rochdale today.
I am coaching a team in the FA Cup. I remember the first FA Cup I saw live (1977 -- Man U defeated Liverpool 2-1, all three goals coming in about a five minute spell of the second half.) Growing up playing street soccer in the US, I was pretty sure I would never play in a World Cup, but the FA Cup seemed to be a possible dream. ABC again showed the final in 1982, when QPR took Tottenham to a replay. I was playing organized ball by then, and I dreamed of walking out in front of 100,000 at Wembley.
Well, there certainly won't be 100,000 at Preston Sports Arena this afternoon. And there will be no television cameras. However, there will be an American on the bench for Preston North End, and hopefully the work I have done over the last two months will help us move one step closer to lifting the cup.
I am coaching a team in the FA Cup. I remember the first FA Cup I saw live (1977 -- Man U defeated Liverpool 2-1, all three goals coming in about a five minute spell of the second half.) Growing up playing street soccer in the US, I was pretty sure I would never play in a World Cup, but the FA Cup seemed to be a possible dream. ABC again showed the final in 1982, when QPR took Tottenham to a replay. I was playing organized ball by then, and I dreamed of walking out in front of 100,000 at Wembley.
Well, there certainly won't be 100,000 at Preston Sports Arena this afternoon. And there will be no television cameras. However, there will be an American on the bench for Preston North End, and hopefully the work I have done over the last two months will help us move one step closer to lifting the cup.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Individual Training
One of the liberties that we have at Preston North End is a large enough coaching staff that we are able to work on very specific issues with players. Last night, with 20 players, we had five coaches, plus the manager. As a result, we are able to break out into smaller groups and work on specific items: technical defending, passing and possession, finishing, goalkeeping.
Our coaching training in the US is all about integrating the entire squad into training on a unified theme. Which is all fine and good, and really necessary when the player coach ratio is 1:16. However both at youth and college level, I think we overlook the opportunity to tailor teaching methods to small groups (other than the use of the goalkeeping specialist coach.) If there are two coaches and sixteen players available and four players have been identified with technical shortcomings bringing the ball down out the air, why not have one coach work with them separately while the rest of the squad works in a small-sided exercise with another coach?
Perhaps the biggest missed opportunity however is when you have four players who are very good at bringing the ball down out of the air and are ready for more advanced technical work and functional training than the rest of the squad. In that scenario, the two center forwards and two center backs who are ready for "next level" concepts and demands can be worked separately while the rest of the squad works on, say, delivering crosses. Then, for the final third of the session, re-integrate the squad, and ideas, and really see if you can develop the qualities of the players in the context of the entire squad.
The staff here at PNEWFC, most of whom have a background in the professional game, certainly seem to be much more comfortable with the small group technical/tactical/functional exercises than we, as Americans, tend to be. I look forward to working on my UEFA coaching badges in the future (most likely with the IFA, but depending on how the next couple of years shake out for me professionally, the FAI, FA, or SFA are all possibilities as well) and seeing how much of the comfort English coaches have in the smaller environment is cultural, and how much of that is enshrined in education.
Thinking about individual training returned my thinking to analysis again. One of the things I look for in watching opponents is consistent technical tendencies -- does the number #8 shirt like the ball at her feet or into space? When the number #10 turns, does she want to go right or left? By identifying the comfort zone of a player, we can then work to be sure our opponent is out of the comfort zone. Likewise, we can identify technical weaknesses and tactical blindspots in our own players. Each individual is going to have different weaknesses, but by grouping players by similar technical needs, you can work on those specific items.
Last night, I was working with only three players, all fullbacks, and each with different technical defending weaknesses and strengths. In spending time carefully watching sessions, as well as video analysis of matches, I had a very clear idea of what each player needed to improve upon. What Pip does well is one of Reg's weaknesses; what Alice does well is a weakness in Pip. And so on. So not only was I able to get a lot of repetition in with a small number, but I knew going in that I could use each player as models for each other. When I'd catch Reg doing something good, I would make sure she knew it, but also use it as an example of what I'm trying to get Pip and Al to do.
I would occasionally reference something that happened in a match or in a previous session, but for the most part that analysis was useful for me as a coach. It is a great temptation to give the player a "firehose" of data about themselves or about their opponent. However, as coaches and as managers, we have to be very aware that not all data is equal or necessarily probative in all applications. Some is useful for coaching, such as my understanding of the technical tendencies of the three fullbacks I was working with last night. Some data is useful for management, such as the patterns of play of the opposition, and their strengths to be negated and weaknesses to exploit. And some data is useful for players, such as how their immediate opposite will defend and can be beaten. Even then, depending on the player you may not want to present it to an individual, "the #7 is vulnerable to the dribble to her left" as you may have a player forcing play to the #7's left in inappropriate conditions. As a coach, we might just want to work in training the day before in taking the ball to the defenders left, and emphasize patterns of play that create that matchup. Other players though might perform better with the firehose of data aimed at them, and they will sift there. It depends on the learning style of the individual, and is a judgement call from the coach.
Our coaching training in the US is all about integrating the entire squad into training on a unified theme. Which is all fine and good, and really necessary when the player coach ratio is 1:16. However both at youth and college level, I think we overlook the opportunity to tailor teaching methods to small groups (other than the use of the goalkeeping specialist coach.) If there are two coaches and sixteen players available and four players have been identified with technical shortcomings bringing the ball down out the air, why not have one coach work with them separately while the rest of the squad works in a small-sided exercise with another coach?
Perhaps the biggest missed opportunity however is when you have four players who are very good at bringing the ball down out of the air and are ready for more advanced technical work and functional training than the rest of the squad. In that scenario, the two center forwards and two center backs who are ready for "next level" concepts and demands can be worked separately while the rest of the squad works on, say, delivering crosses. Then, for the final third of the session, re-integrate the squad, and ideas, and really see if you can develop the qualities of the players in the context of the entire squad.
The staff here at PNEWFC, most of whom have a background in the professional game, certainly seem to be much more comfortable with the small group technical/tactical/functional exercises than we, as Americans, tend to be. I look forward to working on my UEFA coaching badges in the future (most likely with the IFA, but depending on how the next couple of years shake out for me professionally, the FAI, FA, or SFA are all possibilities as well) and seeing how much of the comfort English coaches have in the smaller environment is cultural, and how much of that is enshrined in education.
Thinking about individual training returned my thinking to analysis again. One of the things I look for in watching opponents is consistent technical tendencies -- does the number #8 shirt like the ball at her feet or into space? When the number #10 turns, does she want to go right or left? By identifying the comfort zone of a player, we can then work to be sure our opponent is out of the comfort zone. Likewise, we can identify technical weaknesses and tactical blindspots in our own players. Each individual is going to have different weaknesses, but by grouping players by similar technical needs, you can work on those specific items.
Last night, I was working with only three players, all fullbacks, and each with different technical defending weaknesses and strengths. In spending time carefully watching sessions, as well as video analysis of matches, I had a very clear idea of what each player needed to improve upon. What Pip does well is one of Reg's weaknesses; what Alice does well is a weakness in Pip. And so on. So not only was I able to get a lot of repetition in with a small number, but I knew going in that I could use each player as models for each other. When I'd catch Reg doing something good, I would make sure she knew it, but also use it as an example of what I'm trying to get Pip and Al to do.
I would occasionally reference something that happened in a match or in a previous session, but for the most part that analysis was useful for me as a coach. It is a great temptation to give the player a "firehose" of data about themselves or about their opponent. However, as coaches and as managers, we have to be very aware that not all data is equal or necessarily probative in all applications. Some is useful for coaching, such as my understanding of the technical tendencies of the three fullbacks I was working with last night. Some data is useful for management, such as the patterns of play of the opposition, and their strengths to be negated and weaknesses to exploit. And some data is useful for players, such as how their immediate opposite will defend and can be beaten. Even then, depending on the player you may not want to present it to an individual, "the #7 is vulnerable to the dribble to her left" as you may have a player forcing play to the #7's left in inappropriate conditions. As a coach, we might just want to work in training the day before in taking the ball to the defenders left, and emphasize patterns of play that create that matchup. Other players though might perform better with the firehose of data aimed at them, and they will sift there. It depends on the learning style of the individual, and is a judgement call from the coach.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Preparing for the FA Cup
On Sunday, we meet Rochdale in the second round of the Women's FA Cup. Thankfully, the weather has been a bit kinder to us since Christmas and we have gotten some sessions in, including an extended 10v10 scrimmage on Wednesday looking at different players in different spots.
Ultimately, game preparation is, I think, pretty much the same anywhere. The coaching staff pours over any material they have on the opposition (I have been reviewing video of our prior meeting with Rochdale) and fitting together the best lineup to maximize the positive qualities of our players and take advantage of the opposition's weaknesses. Training tonight will be sharpening up players to get them prepared for the match. We have a large enough squad and a large enough staff that we can work on multiple topics. So while not every player is getting an individual session, they are being placed in a group to optimize their needs: finishing, group defending, range of passing.
I am certainly looking forward to the match, and I think the squad is keyed up and believing in themselves.
Nice article on Preston North End on Shekicks.com this week, and the Gaffer had some nice things to say about me. It's always fun to see your name in print: http://www.shekicks.net/news/view/2238 .
Ultimately, game preparation is, I think, pretty much the same anywhere. The coaching staff pours over any material they have on the opposition (I have been reviewing video of our prior meeting with Rochdale) and fitting together the best lineup to maximize the positive qualities of our players and take advantage of the opposition's weaknesses. Training tonight will be sharpening up players to get them prepared for the match. We have a large enough squad and a large enough staff that we can work on multiple topics. So while not every player is getting an individual session, they are being placed in a group to optimize their needs: finishing, group defending, range of passing.
I am certainly looking forward to the match, and I think the squad is keyed up and believing in themselves.
Nice article on Preston North End on Shekicks.com this week, and the Gaffer had some nice things to say about me. It's always fun to see your name in print: http://www.shekicks.net/news/view/2238 .
Monday, January 3, 2011
Process v. Results, Analytics and Teaching
On my agenda today is reviewing video of two matches played against our upcoming opponents in the FA Cup this weekend, Rochedale. Match analysis is one of the things I do rather well: I pick up patterns of play, see exploitable weakness, fixable problems, strengths to be reinforced. However, it has got me thinking a little more broadly about analysis, and the application of statistical data in the game, and even more broadly about the process of teaching, and its eventual relationship to results.
It is a general truism in any sport that the team with the best players usually wins. In cases where that doesn't prove true, the "lesser" team is better prepared, better organized, and yes, lucky. However, that luck, on reflection and research, is usually a planned event: the ball was played into an area the team felt they had a slight edge, and the opportunity was not missed.
But then, is then the team that was a little smarter, a little better prepared, a little more cohesive, then not filled with "better players?" The best example from this past year was Germany's thrashing of Argentina in the World Cup. Argentina featured an in-form Higuain, Messi, Tevez, DiMaria, while the closest Germany really had to a glamour player was Ozil. Yet the Germans comprehensively out-worked, out-numbered, out-thought, and out-played the Argentines.
In analysis, and particular statistic analysis, we look for meaningful data -- something that is variable, and thus can be changed, and will improve the likelihood of a positive result. However, such data is hard to find -- shots per game? Well, a forward who scores once per match but is shooting twelve times might be wasting possession, and his team ends up on a lot of 3-1 defeats. Passing efficiency? A midfielder who is completing 95% of their passes probably isn't getting the ball into dangerous areas. Xavi Hernandez is usually in the neighborhood of only 75-80%, however the passes that he fails to complete are generally into dangerous areas; perhaps only once a match does he surrender the ball in his own half. Virtually all data sets that you can gather about football have only conditional meaning: the data is only probative in relation to other data sets.
We teach techniques, insights, applications of the principles of play to make "the best players." Along the way, we tell ourselves the results are not necessarily indicative of developing those players. We have all seen the stellar U12 teams of a big kid up top who gets balls played over the top and bullies the game. Oftimes, the turnover of the squad by U16 is 80% and the big kid is frustrated and "burnt-out" by 15 because he has no strategy other than kick and chase.
And yet -- is there an analytical yardstick that we can see that the behaviours we teach will ultimately result in good play? Of course, at the end of the day, that is measured by goals scored and matches won. Or is the game so complex, with so many variables of position, communication, time and space, and the influence of players qualities that all data is either too general to be useful, or so specific that the data sample is too small to be meaningful?
We all know good play, a good player, and a good team when we see it. Or at least we think we do. Do we? Or is football management all alchemy? We are tossing the ingredients into the pot, and maybe Barcelona 2010 comes out or maybe it's the French national team of 2002.
I think it's more art than science -- that it is alchemy, but then again I have to wonder if maybe the great managers, the Cloughs, Busbys, Fergusons, Shankleys, didn't see discrete, quantifiable, analyzable (if that's a word) moments in the game, qualities in players, and even if they didn't consciously understand, knew from their insight, knowledge, and just sheer brilliance exactly how it would come together to create magic on the pitch.
(and trophies in the cabinetry . . .)
It is a general truism in any sport that the team with the best players usually wins. In cases where that doesn't prove true, the "lesser" team is better prepared, better organized, and yes, lucky. However, that luck, on reflection and research, is usually a planned event: the ball was played into an area the team felt they had a slight edge, and the opportunity was not missed.
But then, is then the team that was a little smarter, a little better prepared, a little more cohesive, then not filled with "better players?" The best example from this past year was Germany's thrashing of Argentina in the World Cup. Argentina featured an in-form Higuain, Messi, Tevez, DiMaria, while the closest Germany really had to a glamour player was Ozil. Yet the Germans comprehensively out-worked, out-numbered, out-thought, and out-played the Argentines.
In analysis, and particular statistic analysis, we look for meaningful data -- something that is variable, and thus can be changed, and will improve the likelihood of a positive result. However, such data is hard to find -- shots per game? Well, a forward who scores once per match but is shooting twelve times might be wasting possession, and his team ends up on a lot of 3-1 defeats. Passing efficiency? A midfielder who is completing 95% of their passes probably isn't getting the ball into dangerous areas. Xavi Hernandez is usually in the neighborhood of only 75-80%, however the passes that he fails to complete are generally into dangerous areas; perhaps only once a match does he surrender the ball in his own half. Virtually all data sets that you can gather about football have only conditional meaning: the data is only probative in relation to other data sets.
We teach techniques, insights, applications of the principles of play to make "the best players." Along the way, we tell ourselves the results are not necessarily indicative of developing those players. We have all seen the stellar U12 teams of a big kid up top who gets balls played over the top and bullies the game. Oftimes, the turnover of the squad by U16 is 80% and the big kid is frustrated and "burnt-out" by 15 because he has no strategy other than kick and chase.
And yet -- is there an analytical yardstick that we can see that the behaviours we teach will ultimately result in good play? Of course, at the end of the day, that is measured by goals scored and matches won. Or is the game so complex, with so many variables of position, communication, time and space, and the influence of players qualities that all data is either too general to be useful, or so specific that the data sample is too small to be meaningful?
We all know good play, a good player, and a good team when we see it. Or at least we think we do. Do we? Or is football management all alchemy? We are tossing the ingredients into the pot, and maybe Barcelona 2010 comes out or maybe it's the French national team of 2002.
I think it's more art than science -- that it is alchemy, but then again I have to wonder if maybe the great managers, the Cloughs, Busbys, Fergusons, Shankleys, didn't see discrete, quantifiable, analyzable (if that's a word) moments in the game, qualities in players, and even if they didn't consciously understand, knew from their insight, knowledge, and just sheer brilliance exactly how it would come together to create magic on the pitch.
(and trophies in the cabinetry . . .)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)