The following is an edited version of a reply to a question posted on a LinkedIn group: At what age should a kid be encouraged to follow a different sport?
The short answer is never. Or maybe always. The point is that kids should follow what they love. The question originally arose from: At what age do you know a kid isn't going to "make it"? There are plenty of reasons to play other than making a professional career out of it, and honestly if being a professional and collecting a paycheck are the primary reasons a ten year old plays, then a) he probably isn't going to "make it" and b) that's a lousy way to spend your childhood.
I know Leo Messi dreamed of being professional much younger than ten -- but you can see in the way he plays it's a love of the game that drives him. Also, it's so much work to get that good, that without a passion for and love of the game, it's just too hard. If all professional leagues ended tomorrow and every player on contract right now had to go get a day job, the vast majority would still play, because love of the game will keep us coming back.
---------------------------
There is a difference between World Class and elite. At least half of the players that come through La Masia (Barca's youth setup) make professional grade, so the players that are identified as having the talent and drive by age 12 to work at La Masia are likely to spend the thousands of hours it takes to attain mastery. While there are certainly genetic components to success, those genetic attributes really don't begin separating players until a very high level of skill is refined. In short, the difference between 2000 hours of unfocused training (your typical youth club player) and 10000 hours of refined and directed training (an 18 year old player who has come through a professional academy) is the biggest difference between an American youth/college player and a player in a professional league in Europe. I think you can pretty safely say at age 12 whether a player has the drive, committment, and love for the game to spend the time it takes to reach an elite level. However, the difference between elite, that is, playing for a college scholarship or more, and Ballon D'Or (the FIFA world player of the year) are several orders of magnitude apart.
I think the question of encouraging a kid to try another sport is a totally separate issue. If a kid doesn't have the drive to excel in soccer, I can't imagine they will take up ice hockey or alligator wrestling at age 12, and suddenly develop the passion for, and habits of, excellence. Nor do I really think it matters.
I think we, as Americans, don't do a good enough job encouraging the recreational player. It's some better here in England, with five a side leagues and school football, but probably not much better -- there is still a huge pressure to be the best or get out. If I kid just wants to muck about and have a lark with his friends, maybe play a little high school ball, great. (I have no interest in coaching that, but I support the idea.) Not every kid needs to be Lionel Messi. Not every kid needs to be elite. "Just for fun" is a superb reason to play (and millions of registered youth players in North America who have never even seen a professional game demonstrates the point.)
At the end of the day, I think we should encourage kids to do what they love, which might not be the realm where they are gifted. I had a player a few years back who quit soccer at age 12 to focus on equestrian show jumping. She wasn't a very good rider, didn't have a good pony, and didn't have a particularly good coach (and the family was well-to-do, but not mind meltingly wealthy, so the coaching and pony couldn't be easily changed.) But she loved her pony and loved to ride. As a soccer player, she was a dream: hard-working, a two-footed natural lefty, big, strong, fast, smart, talkative. No doubt just playing club ball through 15 and high school for three years she could have been a decent college player, and with hard work, definitely had the tools to be an impact player at a high level. While, she enjoyed playing, she didn't love it, didn't have a passion for the game, so she quit to focus on what she did love. And I was supportive of her decision, and still get a note from her every year or so. She never even won a jumping competition, but loved every minute with her pony, and every second in the ring.
Sports shouldn't be about what we win, but who we are.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Monday, February 7, 2011
Getting the Details Right
Most every coach grasps the importance of the details in a training session. The difference between passing to someone and passing to someone's left foot can be the difference between scoring a goal and surrending a chance the other way. As the players and teams improve, the details in training become ever more important, and ultimately form the narrow margin between an elite professional and a player in a 5-a-side league.
As we have begun playing after the extended winter break, the importance of the details in coaching preparation have been made more evident to me. Since the first of the year, our first team has played three, won two, and our reserves have now played three, won two and drawn one. In every case (including our terribly unfortunate loss to Rochdale) I believe we, as a coaching staff, we better prepared. Our players had a clear idea of how our squad was organized, the qualities of our players, and the likely organization of the opposition. In the Rochdale match, I think perhaps I didn't emphasize enough the danger their #4 provided and necessity of preventing her from running the ball on the flank. Two of the chances we gave away were due to failure to stop the #4s run early.
The organizational detail extends beyond just team set out. Our players have a good idea where each other will be and that affects the way we play: on the right wing, Kim wants balls wide and behind the fullback to run onto, however in the same position, Hannah wants the ball played to her feet so she can combine with the center forward. On set pieces, each player knows where they need to be. When watching a professional match, if you've ever wondered what the bench coach is doing on the sidelines showing all of the charts to the substitute, most of that is covering set pieces. When the player enters the game, he knows where he will be on attacking corners, the two or three free kick setups a team uses any given day, defending corners, which player he is in the wall, and even the programmed runs to make if a ball hits the wall or is caught be the goalkeeper. Here at Preston, that is one of my duties. I take the substitute to the line and make sure she knows where she is on set pieces and who else, if any, is having their task changed.
The details matter. Not only do the players have a better sense of the match, thus allowing them a little more creative freedom because they know, in broad strokes, what the rest of the team (and likely the opposition) are doing, but knowing that the coaches have the details right gives the player a little more confidence in the entire operation. Our manager, Andy Burgess, had well over three hundred appearances as a professional player. We try to bring as much of the professionalism into the game as we possibly can, from the way we warmup, to the way the changing room is set up, to the charts for the players. If the players have confidence in us, in their teammates, and in the club, they will play with confidence in themselves. All the little details add up, and results come: our Reserves (playing with nine players age 18 or younger) beat the heretofore undefeated league leaders 3-0 on Sunday. Our first team plays in the Lancashire Challenge Cup Final on 11 March. The details matter.
As we have begun playing after the extended winter break, the importance of the details in coaching preparation have been made more evident to me. Since the first of the year, our first team has played three, won two, and our reserves have now played three, won two and drawn one. In every case (including our terribly unfortunate loss to Rochdale) I believe we, as a coaching staff, we better prepared. Our players had a clear idea of how our squad was organized, the qualities of our players, and the likely organization of the opposition. In the Rochdale match, I think perhaps I didn't emphasize enough the danger their #4 provided and necessity of preventing her from running the ball on the flank. Two of the chances we gave away were due to failure to stop the #4s run early.
The organizational detail extends beyond just team set out. Our players have a good idea where each other will be and that affects the way we play: on the right wing, Kim wants balls wide and behind the fullback to run onto, however in the same position, Hannah wants the ball played to her feet so she can combine with the center forward. On set pieces, each player knows where they need to be. When watching a professional match, if you've ever wondered what the bench coach is doing on the sidelines showing all of the charts to the substitute, most of that is covering set pieces. When the player enters the game, he knows where he will be on attacking corners, the two or three free kick setups a team uses any given day, defending corners, which player he is in the wall, and even the programmed runs to make if a ball hits the wall or is caught be the goalkeeper. Here at Preston, that is one of my duties. I take the substitute to the line and make sure she knows where she is on set pieces and who else, if any, is having their task changed.
The details matter. Not only do the players have a better sense of the match, thus allowing them a little more creative freedom because they know, in broad strokes, what the rest of the team (and likely the opposition) are doing, but knowing that the coaches have the details right gives the player a little more confidence in the entire operation. Our manager, Andy Burgess, had well over three hundred appearances as a professional player. We try to bring as much of the professionalism into the game as we possibly can, from the way we warmup, to the way the changing room is set up, to the charts for the players. If the players have confidence in us, in their teammates, and in the club, they will play with confidence in themselves. All the little details add up, and results come: our Reserves (playing with nine players age 18 or younger) beat the heretofore undefeated league leaders 3-0 on Sunday. Our first team plays in the Lancashire Challenge Cup Final on 11 March. The details matter.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
When You're Not at Your Best
Last night, we played our Cup Semi-Final against Curzon Ashton that had been postponed on Sunday. To be honest, we were not at our best -- the midfield was inactive and out of shape defensive and not bright and dynamic in possession. The front line was too narrow, and we weren't able to get effective possession in the final third. However, we won the match, ultimately fairly comfortably, 4-2, and the scoreline is about right as a reflection of the game.
The difference between last night and against Rochdale two weeks ago is that last night we showed a bit more of an edge, a bit more ruthlessness. Perhaps because we weren't quite as sharp, the player knew they had to win their tackles, and finish their chances -- the margins were too slim to get another chance. The tone was set the first time the ball went into a Curzon forward and our center back -- getting her debut as a first team starter -- flattened her. We showed some fight last night, and we needed it when we went 1-0 down just before the half hour mark giving up a goal off a corner. (The second half goal was from a set-piece as well; from open play I believe the back line allowed only three shots all game.) It was then we dropped the hammer, scoring three unanswered before the break. None were pretty goals, all coming from graft, hard work, and cool heads.
Obviously, in a cup-tie, the win is what you need, as anything less and you are out of the competition. However, the manner of certain wins are important for teams, and I think this was a big one for us. Perhaps we haven't quite been tough enough, determined enough, in the early part of the season. Perhaps we weren't fighting as a team, but as individuals. Last night, even though our elegant passing game just wasn't on, we showed a willingness to get dirty and seize the game. It was clear after we drew the match level that there would be only one winner. The goal celebrations were fairly mute. I don't know if anyone on the pitch said it, but the message was clear and we trotted back to the halfline as the ball was being picked up out of the net.
"We'll be back."
The difference between last night and against Rochdale two weeks ago is that last night we showed a bit more of an edge, a bit more ruthlessness. Perhaps because we weren't quite as sharp, the player knew they had to win their tackles, and finish their chances -- the margins were too slim to get another chance. The tone was set the first time the ball went into a Curzon forward and our center back -- getting her debut as a first team starter -- flattened her. We showed some fight last night, and we needed it when we went 1-0 down just before the half hour mark giving up a goal off a corner. (The second half goal was from a set-piece as well; from open play I believe the back line allowed only three shots all game.) It was then we dropped the hammer, scoring three unanswered before the break. None were pretty goals, all coming from graft, hard work, and cool heads.
Obviously, in a cup-tie, the win is what you need, as anything less and you are out of the competition. However, the manner of certain wins are important for teams, and I think this was a big one for us. Perhaps we haven't quite been tough enough, determined enough, in the early part of the season. Perhaps we weren't fighting as a team, but as individuals. Last night, even though our elegant passing game just wasn't on, we showed a willingness to get dirty and seize the game. It was clear after we drew the match level that there would be only one winner. The goal celebrations were fairly mute. I don't know if anyone on the pitch said it, but the message was clear and we trotted back to the halfline as the ball was being picked up out of the net.
"We'll be back."
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Mindset, Natural Talent,and Moral Development
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)