Unless you are being sarcastic, I don't understand the question. I have never seen "playmake" used as a verb. And I have never used the noun "playmaker" used outside of a discussion of team tactics.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with teaching passing. Just ask Xavi!! Every session I do with my under 17s is heavily centered around quick passing, posession and then shape work (combo of the two). It is an ambition, for want of a better word, of mine to one day take an under 12 team and coach them until they are under 18. And with that, I can show tem exactly how I want them to play. Which is pretty much a 'pass and move' game. Kick and rush, or "hoofing" is unattractive to watch and offers no improvement for the players.
Everything in this thread pretty much involves coaching kids younger than U10, so it wouldn't stop you from teaching passing with 12yo and older kids.
My mistake! Even still, I reckon passing and passing technique should be the first thing a kid should be taught. On your toes, Passing and talking in my opinion are three of the first things.
I'd say that hitting the ball (ie. what passing is) is the easy part. Receiving, catching, or controlling a rolling, bouncing or flighted ball is the harder part. Passing and moving are useless if you can't control the ball at a high level when it comes to you at a good clip with some spin. But, I agree that sharing the ball, movement, communication are key to any successful teenage or adult team.
Aye but, in my silliness, I would consider ball control a part of the process of learning passing too. A simple 5 yard pass can teach a lot as we know. But to be fair if you run an academy, there's a lot you can fit into a 2 hour day. Passing, control, being on your toes, talking and dribbling can be fitted into one session! So long as it's fun
Semantics, maybe, but pushing the ball to another person is passing and controlling it when passed to you is receiving. The two techniques are related, but very different. The distinction is important, because 1,000s of people can perform the passes that Xavi makes. Very few people can control the ball as well as he can when receiving a pass. And, then, what if you have no one to pass to or nothing to shoot at? What do you do then? Kids need to know dribbling. My hierarchy of order of important techniques go as follows: 1. Dribbling 2. Receiving 3. Ball-striking (push pass, instep drive, chipping, adding texture and bend, etc.)
Ok, I've just nailed the reason why we are differing here! There is no competetive football here in my county until Under 11. So when we coach our 7 year olds, we have time to cover everything before going into a competetive setting! So we should hope that when a kid steps onto a pitch for the first time, he or she knows how to pass, control, dribble etc etc On a side note, I don't agree with competetive football at that age. Matches, yes. Competetive ones, no. Not until uner 13 for me!
That's a very big distinction, and I'm glad you pointed that out! In the States, football becomes competitive as soon as they make leagues at U8. These 6 and 7 year old kids are already being asked to learn specific positions and chastised for holding the ball too long under pressure for fear of turning it over and costing the team a goal and a loss.
That is possibly the saddest thing I have ever read on the internet... What a horrible world we live in!!!
1. Individual ball mastery (encompasses dribbling): Gotta be able to look up and not worry about the ball. At that point the game can start to expand 2. Receiving: what good is passing if the person getting it can't handle it properly then 3. Passing. I'm having this battle now with some of my parents. Why my players at U10 aren't passing yet whereas it's the central feature for other teams we play. They think (we are) a team of ball hogs, a bunch of individual players in a team setting. At the young ages, soccer is played in a team setting but it's about making each player as good as they can be. Passing players at U12 and under are a dime a dozen. I want to create special players who can change the game with the dribble. At every level, in every generation the special ones are players who can break down defenses with their dribble. You can teach passing and teamwork later at U12/U14. If they're never confident that a defender will have a dogged time taking the ball away from them and are comfortable with the ball at their feet. All the passing skills in the world are useless. As a defender, I just pressure you and you'll cough it up or make a bad pass or an "indifferent" pass—a pass that doesn't do anything positive but just maintains pressure. That last part usually triggers the "But Barca..." response. Well when your team is as good as Barca then you've got things figured out. 99% of teams ever are not Barca and their weak/average dribblers are susceptible to pressure.
Actually, 26, one of the U6 teams we played last year had a coach trying to teach the kids all kinds of elaborate passing plays and yelling a lot when they inevitably messed it up. Probably the worst team we played all year. So the competitiveness starts at U6 not U8.
I was trying to give people the benefit of the doubt, but yes, the competitiveness basically starts at birth.
to add something substantive, the coach in this mini league we are involved with really tries to set the table for passing by having kids spread out and run to open space (U8 level .) And he really emphasizes making good passes and runs off of deadballs. He is also really positive with kids who make a good run to space even if the pass doesn't come (which is most of the time.) I like this quite a bit.
My issue with that is that it's the coach imposing himself on the kids at this young age. Where's the exploration? Movements, in a way, are prescribed. These teams look great, but in a way, really weird to me. It's like those really young girls in beauty pageants. They walk, talk, and act like grown ups while wearing make up and gowns. But it's disturbing to me. It doesn't sit right.
I follow you Elessar, but you carry your theory to a fault, at least on this board. I agree the most important thing is what you do with the ball at your feet. But...I also want to see good decisions being made. If my player tries to take on two defenders along the sideline while in the attacking third, great, even if there were better options. I will let him know they had other options available (actually ask them if they knew that something was a better option, or if they saw what I saw). However, taking on three defenders on our side of the field while better options are available (clearing the ball deep is never a better option on my team at U-10) is a poor decision on their part. Again its not an automatic 'you did bad' but was there something else you could have done? Also, to see three passes to switch a field successfully at U-10 does require some decent ball skills.
Yeah, I'm extreme in this regard. But we're not so far apart. Whenever the dribbling breaks down, like you, I explore their options when we have a second to go over it. To use your example, it is fantastic to watch U10s switch the attack, it requires much more of a team thinking together. 3 passes, 2-steps ahead? That IS fantastic.
This is where the issue becomes complex and subjective. * At what age do kids make their own decisions? * At what age do you need to start teaching them safety v. risk? * At what age, can they understand the concept of safety v. risk without it clouding their judgment all over the field? * Is this idea different for boys and girls? Some would say, girls need to be more selfish until a much older age, because their natural inclination (to a fault) is to share. * Are we guiding the kids to discover the right things and explaining the reasons why? Or, are we just telling them to do something they don't yet understand? There are so many flexible conditions in this debate.
As long as I am not standing in the technical area yelling (damnit, as a former goalkeeper its hard), they are making their own choices. If I am properly seated on the bench, the subs will hear my 'proper' breakdown of the situation. We discuss it in practice. We note what the 'safe' play is, but at practice, they are expected to try to work out of a difficult situation (Elessear dribbling theory). Games, its not what is safe or risk, what is smart and what can be done that minimizes the risk. Most U-10 definitely get it. Again, don't kill them when the error is made. "What can be done better next time that situation arises?" Much different. The girls game is slower at the young age to allow them to technically execute the 'smart' play. Boys go 150 mph.
Gawd. Someone tries to give you a compliment about your coaching and you come back with this? My team doesn't think of the game in the future. Learn to take a compliment.
My questions were rhetorical. Of course, you've got an answer for each of them that agrees with your line of thinking. So do I. The point is that we need to ask ourselves all of these questions before we decide, since not all of us are in situations where the answers will be exactly the same.
