Wanted to start a discussion about 1v1s . . . So a "pure" 1v1 drill is one attacker vs one defender attacking a line, goal or gate. Traditionally, this is a staple at every level. I'm at a Coerver-based club and the kids get it in heavy doses starting at the youngest ages. What I see when they get into U10/U11 though is some/a lot get so indoctrinated with 1v1 that their decision making gets stunted. My thinking, and I haven't applied it extensively, is to modify traditional 1v1 drills to include neutral passing options ("helpers" who would play along the wings and give a 1-2 touch pass) or play more 2v1s and 2v2s. In the real game players have to decide whether to dribble or pass, does taking that option off the table for a good part of early development 1v1 drills stunt their development? Could we be developing better decision makers down the road if it's "built in"? The attacker DOESN'T have to use the "helper" but he can if he needs to OR simply use their presence to make a fake pass that freezes the defender, which is more realistic than a "pure" 1v1. Further, "pure" 1v1s teach penetration which is important but once past the defender the decision making process stops—in the real game, it doesn't (unless it's a goal). Now 2v1s or 2v2s. Are they better? PLENTY of opportunities for 1v1s and the threat and option of passing with the value added role of learning how to be a supporting attacker/defender and how to use space instead of just a north/south attack. This one is a traditional 1v1 to lines. This one same as above, but add "helpers (H)" as possible passing options who can 1-2 touch pass back to the passer. Now instead of playing to cross a line (end of decision making), we can give the option to A of playing to C or D or of B playing to E or F. Playing to C,D,E, or F would "release" them to go on the attack and the player who passed to them takes their place.
No question, 1v1 is valuable. And it is used at every level. What it gives you is 1st attacker and 1st defender practice. And adds to the "competitive cauldron" atmosphere. And it is imo the best way to improve 1v1 skills. It is also imo great agility and quickness training--as long as you do it while they are fresh. That makes it an ideal fit for U-Littles. But then you need to follow up with an age-appropriate context for the 1st attacker (and 1st defender) role in a larger group. 2v1 is commonly used for attacking objectives (starting a progression for off the ball movement, aka triangles) and 2v2 also gives you the 2nd defender role. Rather than continue after that with a baby-steps progression to a full side, at this point in the same practice I would probably jump to an unrestricted larger age-appropriate SSG such as 4v4 or 5v5 to put it in a context with 3rd attacker and defender roles. So the "are they better" question is little off target. Consider instead what your training objectives are for the session. Look at your training objectives and modify your training to suit them. Important considerations are how much pressure do you want, which roles do you want to train? After that consider efficiency. What can I add to the exercise to get work on other areas besides the training objective? For example if my objective is first attacker, I can add others (attackers and defenders) to train off the ball support-movement, first touch, striking, as well as defensive skills and tactics. You can also get training value on transistions if you don't restrict movement and choices too much. I like using nuetrals, but prefer to use them instead of uneven sides when I want to give the attacking side a numbers advantage. Or want to practice crossing. In your example, using a nuetral is not going to be gamelike for the nuetral so this is not optimal for teaching the 2nd attacker role. In 2v1, you get 2 players getting 1st and 2nd attacker experience and the defender getting experience in a zone situation dealing with 2 attackers. I think you get more training that way. I would save the 1v1 plus 1 nuetral as an option if the 2v1 is not working well for someone or when you want the defender marking man-to-man. That is my thoughts, but you have much more experience and training than I have--I haven't run a training session in almost 20 years. Just for the record, I used something similar to your 2nd diagram (finishing with a shot) often in the first segment with U10s and U12s.
Valid points. Im not by any stretch saying this is the way to go. Just some thoughts on 1v1 I've been pondering that wanted to throw out there.
Everything starts off the dribble. So they should be encouraged to dribble but taking on their first defender does come into play. Why, because taking on your first defender helps create space for team mates. So I would even encourage our backs to do it as well. Beat your first defender you should have more pass options to pass to. Then look to pass unless your in a position to shoot on goal. I like putting defenders in grids at different positions, and comming from different directions in each grid against a dribbler moving through each grid. You can have a free space grid in between each defenders grid, but no wasting time in the free grid you must move forward. So now the dribbler has a gauntlet type exercise trying to beat different defenders comming at him from different directions and positions in each grid. If he loses the ball in a grid you stop play and show him how to better take on the defender until he can beat that defender. That gives a back confidence in his ability to take on and beat the defender or when not to take on the defender.
On coerver teams their is much more to the game then coerver training. You can tell a "coerver" team two minutes after you start playing them. When I was doing youth teams we never lost to one of these teams. It always shocked their teams parents.
In a 1v1 drill, there is no decision to be made as to whether to pass or dribble because dribbling is the only choice. Therefore, it's not a drill intended to teach anything about decision making. It's intended to put the player in a situation he will sometimes find himself in in a game, i.e., a situation where the only real choice is to dribble and beat your man. This is a vital skill on the game of soccer. Just like in shooting drills we take away other options like passing and dribbling and force the kids to shoot. Other drills, like possession-based drills, are intended to put the kids in a situation where they must choose between passing and dribbling. If you convert all your 1v1 drills into decision making drills, some kids won't choose to dribble and, accordingly, won't learn how to beat a man off the dribble.
As I've mentioned before I'm new to the coaching position but another coach in our league loves the neutral option(s) you bring up. But a lot of that is based on the kids that just aren't comfortable or confident in 1v1s and want an "out". So I don't know if I like that approach alone as I think players need to be able to go 1v1. So maybe a mixed approach where you do 1v1 for a bit and then bring a neutral player into the fold, make them use the neutral player, then after that let them make the choice on whether or not to use the neutral player. Idk just a thought
True, but what I see is that they take on the defender directly ("north-south") when, maybe 50% of the time, there is at least ten yards of open field diagonally. "Taking on" that first defender doesn't have to be so literal either, a 10 yard diagonal dribble to the side of that defender will do more to unbalance a defense than merely getting on the other side of the defender, YET most 1v1 games are designed in long, narrow space. Not saying the long, narrow space isn't relevant but going wide is also a choice that needs to be learned.
It depends what side you are moving to. Move from the center towards the touchline. You are killing your space to play in. Move from the touchline to the center you have more options to pass to both touch lines, pass forward and pass back. You have a better chance to shoot because the goal in in the center of the field and your creating space for others in the space where you left. When I posted about the gauntlet type exercise you can beat a defender moving diagonally depending on where the defender comes from.
That's a very logical progression, actually. I don't know if you've encountered "training progressions" in your coaching education but you go from simple to complex in your drills/activities. In the same "drill", you'd start standard 1v1, next would be a progression to add neutrals—it would force them to use 1v1s and learn then learn how a teammate(s) can make it easier. One core principle we have for players is: I CAN beat you 1v1 or I can use a teammate to beat you. Those guys who run 3four3.com run a similar philosophy (which they ascribe to Barca) that they are constantly looking for 2v1s.
You know if we had a guy that really could beat people. We tried off player movement to isolate our best against what we perceived is their weakest defender close to goal. So we might send our best completely across the field to do that. Would even courage him to take on two guys close to goal and the keeper and try to score. The game is also about matchups. But he still has to know when to pass. Beat two players keeper comes to you. A simple horizontal square pass to another open team mate scores what looked like an easy goal. But that selfish bastard made that happen. Some might call that player a selfish player. Maybe so try to get a really good selfish player close to goal with the ball in a team concept. You can win a lot of games. Especially is you have 3 or 4 of those guys who finish a chance or a half chance.
Nick, I think you have identified the most fundamental basis of team tactics: 1) isolate your best player with the ball in a 1v1 situation in the opponent's half, and 2), force the opponents to switch more defenders to him by letting him take on his markers. On defense you want to do the opposite--always be numbers up in the areas where you want to deny penetration. I hear lots of coaches and players yelling at players for taking on multiple opponents. I am estatic when my player tries to beat 3 defenders and gets tackled by the 3rd defender because that forces the opponents to keep 3 players on him even after next time when he passes to a team mate. I never criticize an attacker for trying to take on multiple opponents in the attacking half the first time--once is always good. You never know the opponent's quality until you test. I wait to see what my player does the next time, before I comment on his tactical choices.
Yes actually! I took the E License Course before the season started just to give me some ideas. I think in principle the buildup philosophy is good, but I don't know how well it is working with my kids. During the session it works, but the problem is when I go session to session and change topics. The material doesn't seem to stick - probably just due to the kids age. Might be more effective to stick to one topic for several sessions in a row but I'd like them to progress in 2 or 3 topics over 3-4 weeks. Been brainstorming a way to try and blend dribbling and passing effectively into sessions because we haven't done a lot of 1v1 work which is what I want to tackle next, but still emphasize correct passing technique and a good first touch. Thinking I'll try a circuit approach for a week or two and see how that turns out. And I may try and incorporate a little of what Nick brought up. I do have one player that is head and shoulders above the rest on the ball and seems to be able to get into dangerous areas.
In my case, progress isn't linear. You don't necessarily see the change at the very next game or next practice. Sometimes you do. But I think there's a "bedding in" period for this concepts and skills (the higher the skill/soccer IQ the shorter the bedding in period). Breaks away from soccer seem to be a fertile time for when concepts crystallize for players. It's probably working, but you're just not going to see it right away. We like to think of development like a straight diagonal line going up from left to right. I think it's more like sharp rise-plateau-sharp rise.
A bread-and-butter 1v1 station we use at academy is 1v1 to two Puggs, set wide apart. They start on the touchline, Player A passes a 5-yarder down the touchline to Player B. Player B sprints with the ball to a cone about 10 yds away equidistant from the two goals. Player A overlaps behind Player B after making the initial pass and then sprints out to defend. Once Player A gets to the cone they can attack either goal but must make at least one move. They cannot shoot from far out but must beat the defender and take it to goal. They get to make more than one decision because if they beat them initially but the defender tracks back quickly, they may decide to use another move/feint and go to the other goal or beat them again at the same goal. You get good attacking, defending, containment (forcing them to their weaker side), decision-making, and anaerobic fitness in one activity.
For teaching fundamental skills, dribbling is the foundation. You don't start teaching novices 1-touch football, so you start with dribbling as the base. In fact you start the youngest kids with individual skills and tactics, a little older you introduce "partners" and then you teach small group tactics. It also means you teach shooting and passing (aka striking) skills in conjuntion with dribbling. Players have to be comfortable enough on the ball to look around them while dribbling in order to be tactically effective. Teaching tactics before then is very inefficient. So we start with dribbling skills first. It is understood that first touch (aka trapping or receiving) is important too. But what we teach is that a player's first touch redirects the ball into an advantageous direction. So dribbling in effect starts with the first touch. It makes the players' speed of play quicker. "First touch" sounds more dynamic and trapping or receiving sounds passive, which it should not be in a game context. Words have subtle connotations. Practice like you want to play. It is also understood that defending skills are a reverse image of attacking skills. The simplest game is 1v1. The player without possession is practicing marking and tackling skills. But also practicing fundamental athletic skills (stopping, starting, turning, etc.) which will improve dribbling ability too. Dribbling is the same basic movements but with a ball.
How do ya'll make/keep dribbling exercises fun for kids (U10)? I tried to teach some moves / turns at my last practice and all they wanted to do was walk around during the warm-up phase. Effort was ok once we moved into the 1v1 phase, but all the build up work was bad in terms of effort - walking around, wanting to sit down, etc. (because they were bored).
What skill level are the kids you coach? Sometimes it's just their make-up. My current groups don't need urging for 1v1 moves because they've been conditioned to think that's the norm of practice. But they are more at "club" level so they (should be) are more motivated. I found that Rec or Travel players feel that drills are more optional and only want to do things they find fun—hence "rec" and optional. What does help is turning it into a game. Divide the team into two groups for a relay race. Set-up 6 "gates" in random orientations. Each player must go through 3 gates and each time enter and do a turn to go back through the same gate before moving onto a different gate. Have a prescribed move at first and make sure you demo it for them. Pull backs, cruyffs, inside/outside cuts are simple ones to use. Another relay race. Divide the team into two groups. Set -up a 8y x 8y square. Each team starts at one corner, dribbles to a corner and does a turn to head to the next cone and so forth. Have each player go twice and see who wins.
Team is rec and for the most part, they just want to scrimmage which is pretty typical from everyone I've talked to. I have found they like to play keep-away and have been able to teach passing fairly easily (in terms of them wanting to participate) with keep-away style games. Just been running into trouble with dribbling when it comes to progressing dribbling beyond technique and onto moves and turns (I've been able to use red light/green light, sharks and minnows, etc. to emphasize proper technique and shielding). I'll use the relays and try to break them into 3-4 teams. My biggest concern is trying to get them as many touches as possible in the warm up. Thanks for the advice!
In my club we calculated that we could get about 1000 touches in ten minutes in a super-fast warm-up. But you have to build up to that. Get in/Get out/Get on with practice. Fast kids may get 100 touches in the time it takes a slower kid to get 60. As long as they're giving their max effort, who cares? What the exact # is. Also try to work it backwards: start by finding some fun 1v1 drills have them play it. Learn some moves and try it out again. Little kids aren't abstract thinkers. They are in the now, so now has no application to later. Find some 1v1 videos and have it stoke their imagination or have some good older kids demonstrate. At the 3:00, 3:30, and 4:00 are some good 1v1 drills This is another good, simple 1v1 set-up
1v1s are great for conditioning. I did the drill in the second video tonight because we're a month away from the start of our season and the playres needed a conditioning session. HOWEVER it sets them up for any SSG or scrimmage afterward to be more "self-centered" than impatient than normal.
I kinda liked that second video but it didn't fully explain the conditions. Is there out of bounds? Does it go until one player knocks over the ball and then you send the next set of players? Or does one player need to get all 3 to finish the round?
You can play with out of bounds. I didn't yesterday. They go until they knock a ball down—hence the conditioning aspect. The loved it though, after each round they'd just collapse to the ground and I'd ask them if they wanted another round and they screamed "Yeess!!" Conditioning IS fun!
So it was a 1v1 to the ball then reset for the next 2 to a ball, correct? Not the first two going through the full set of 3 balls? That would be brutal. Fun, but brutal.