2017 Coaching thread

Thanks so much for your feedback! I'm going to make sure we get together here in the next couple weeks to lay out some plans. She is a very experienced coach and I'm actually excited because I think it will be a great learning opportunity for me and the players. The key is our communication and fortunately we know one another so it's not like total strangers trying to figure this all out.

I really like your ideas about "moments" and how we can analyze scrimmages to have the most consistent and effective impact in real time. One thing I'll be looking to learn is how to remove my own ego from the equation. It should also help avoid any potential pitfalls of becoming comforted by routine.

 

Exactly what I was thinking With an added "phew, glad not to have to worry about that!"

 

@cleansheetbsc Interesting but tough topic--speed of play.

I tried it as my practical exercise at the E license course. Difficult concept. My thinking was that speed of play is about how you put the pieces we teach together. So I see it as an overview of how we play.

As you implied playing "faster" is not about making faster movements, but rather about taking a shorter time to do something effective with the ball. I can't imagine a better context than rondos for teaching speed of play.

 

This was just a guy yelling 'faster' at players as they pass the ball from one point to another, followed with a sprint. Its a great drill for conditioning and getting a touch(es) while at an elevated heart rate.

Now, we may find things here to work on, but this was literally, just yelling 'faster', 'do it faster.' No coaching points, no presentation to the coaches on how this builds out.

Like I said, I will be curious to see how the final product turns out. Maybe he will put it together, but from my view of what I saw this was just poor coaching.

 

Speed of play to make it faster. Means don't think so much after you see something. See something then do something in response to what you saw. Don't think about it just do it. To do it you need skill with the ball to make what you do happen. Also if you make a pass to someone. Put the ball where you think he would put the ball on his first touch. Then your really playing faster.

 

Yes! The way I say it is know what you will do with the ball before you get it.

 

Timely stuff as I am currently seeing a separation of speed of play with my 04 (u13) team.
Some kids are getting faster as they are deep into puberty. Others are just starting to hit a body change and they are sooooo slowwww right now. Some are still little girls and are still fast.
I'm trying to work on the mental aspect of playing faster right now. I'll take any tips you guys have on how to get them thinking about the next move. (Or even the move after that). I'm concious of girls and body image and I'm trying my best to not tell them they need to be faster runners. (But they could use some help here too).

 

Speed of play is about doing the fundamentals well--all of them. It is not about being the fastest runner. It is about playing smarter and more efficiently. Being 2 footed is important.
http://www.vysa.com/docs/coaches/SPEED OF PLAY (1).pdf
http://www.vysa.com/docs/coaches/Speed of Play Part 2a.pdf

It is easier for me to describe slow play. A player doesn't look around and is unaware of what is happening on the field. Poor positioning makes the first touch difficult and restricts vision. Without knowing what to do yet, the player settles the ball at his feet. He looks up while dribbling away from pressure and sees a teammate behind him in the direction he is facing. He looks around, but doesn't see anyone else open. Then he takes an additional touch to place the ball on the inside of his best foot and passes to the first player. But, the pass is inaccurate. The whole chain is repeated with the teammate.

If you don't know what to do with the ball, you don't know how to position yourself and don't know where to control the ball with the first touch. Settling the ball allows pressure to build, and slows everything down to a crawl.

If the player is going to pass to a team mate or shoot at goal, ideally that should not take more than 2-3 touches to strike in any direction. The mobility of the attack--the circulation of the ball--prevents the opponent's from closing down the attack. This is why the "switch" is important. It maintains mobility. If you know basketball, the idea is exactly the same. As John Wooden said, "Be quick but don't hurry."

 

I think rca2 is dead on, particularly on the point about vision. So many young kids are so worried about controlling the ball they don't think beyond that first step. I watch far too many kids on both offense and defense get caught ball-watching, then if the ball suddenly comes their way they have no idea who's around them, how much space they have, or who's making a run. I've toyed with the idea of randomly stopping scrimmages and picking on a random player to ask what they'll do if the ball comes to them, who's open, who's making a run, where there's space to pass, etc. I wonder if they'd get the idea before it drives them crazy...

I do have to admit though that it's a difficult thing to teach if the basic fundamentals aren't there. If the kid can't drop the ball at his feet or slightly redirect it on the move then having good vision and field awareness can come across as being distracted to the unknowing.

Incidentally, we have one player who has fantastic ball skills but either is too enamored with them or has zero field vision. Almost every time he receives a pass he stops, waits for pressure, then attempts to dribble around it. Most of the time he's able to beat the first man, but by stopping like that he allows 2, 3 or more players to also close down his lanes.

In pointy football, the bad player runs before catching the ball (and usually drops it); the good player catches the ball and then makes his move; the great player has already set up the move and catches the ball in stride and at a good angle. I think that applies in its own way to soccer.

 

I'll do a whole/part/whole type practice, we get right into a small sided game unrestricted. (4-7 aside)

Then I make them walk. Full speed passing, shooting, if there are keepers they have to throw.
They hate it for the first 5 minutes. Then I either step in and play for one of them or joystick a team (pass to jimmy and start walking to the far post, jimmy when you get it shoot far post) -

I'm still stunned the defenders don't pick up right away that I'm telling them where the ball is going
but eventually one or two get it and learn they always need to be moving in relation to the ball even when it's not close to them which comes in handy later when we work on defending as a unit.

It seems to help them get that they can't wait for a player to settle the ball before they start moving to be
the next option. With the large discrepancy in ball speed vs. player speed I think it also helps them start
looking for where to go next, snce the lane isn't going to suddenly close down due to a faster than average
defender recovering. Finally I think that slight reduction in fear of getting clattered by a defender closing
down at full speed (no hospital balls when everyone is walking) their touch improves over the course of 2 practices.

The fast kids tend to hate it throughout, since it exposed that much of their game is still based on kick and chase,
or to be generous "exploding away from the defender after making your move" . But then we end with
unrestricted play again.

 

This is a great topic (speed of play) and it permeates all the way up to the national team. As a country, our players don't measure up well against top tier competition largely because of two things - inferior technical ability and much lower soccer IQ. Combine those two and you see how much "slower" we are regardless of how athletic or speedy anyone on the US roster may be.

Developing technical ability is great, but the importance of simultaneously developing vision and decision making cannot be overstated. One of my favorite drills for the youth players is to set up inside a small space, have players grab a partner and a ball and complete give-and-go's with one or two touches. They need to keep their heads up, make accurate passes, use good control, communicate and find space.

 

Learn something new every day! That is a very interesting idea. I have never seen it before. A bit ironic to make players faster by slowing them down.

That session would fit well at the beginning of the season following sessions reviewing fundamentals.

 

FWIW I also see this in other sports. The junior high kids on my daughter's basketball team have to constantly be reminded that they can't see to make a pass if they're dribbling with their heads down. They nearly lost their first round playoff game largely due to throwing away passes because kids were waving their hands like they were open while there was a defender three feet away; if either the intended receiver or passer had been aware they'd know the person was covered. Just an aside so folks don't think this is a soccer-only problem.

(And yes, just once I did let out a "put your hand down you're not open!" ... *ahem* )

 

Forgot to note, when you first switch to walking speed, they will pass at "walking speed" - weak/underhit.
This is usually the first thing I show them when I step in, they have to walk, my passes to them are full speed,
they need to hit the ball to me full power too...

 

Good stuff on speed of play. Love it.
Along similar lines- we usually played a 4-4-2 last year. Either diamond or flat in the middle.
This spring, I've been trying to get them to play a 4-3-3. Problem is, our width really suffers in midfield. As mentioned a few posts above, I have a few girls that need to increase speed to get up and back more quickly to transition.
Do I stick with trying to force them into a system that isn't the best based on current personnel? Or adjust the system to accommodate our strengths/weaknesses while trying to get them to improve?
I do think a 4-2-3-1 or even a 3-5-2 (we played this formation quite a bit 2 seasons ago) is what will allow us to be more successful (i.e. - win) more often.
I'll also add that we have moved up a "level" or 2 and are playing tougher teams.

 

Why is the team suffering in width "in the midfield?" There are many different ways to organize the 433. Since you played 442 last year, I would build your system on that.

Start with using your 442 system for defending in your defensive half.

For defending higher up the field, I would suggest 1 of 2 options. 1) High pressure with a 433 shape. Or 2) Delayed high pressure with a 442 shape. Option 2 means you keep the same defensive system as last year.

The real difference from last year begins with the moment of transition to attack. I don't know how you organized your attack so I am just going to give two examples of what you could do. The way to get the most intuitive shape, is to push a back up so as a 4th midfielder you form a 343, using a diamond midfield. Do not, however, think of the front and back lines as a flat line across the field. Think this instead: 12/121/21. Lots of nice "triangles" encouraging diagonal passing.

Keep the formation relatively compact front to back. Cruyff wanted each player to have a close passing option supporting only 10 yards away. That distance is for male professionals! This will make it easier to transition to defense. If the team's shape gets strung out, the tendency will be to get long and narrow, making it much harder to transition to defense.

A different attacking approach would be to use 3 CMs (you could even do 6,8, 10 the current flavor of the month), pushing the FB's up even with the 6. You get a shape like this on attack: 2323. Again nice "triangles" encouraging diagonal passing. The CM's are surrounded by the FBs and wingers outside and the CBs and CF behind and ahead of them.

On defense defending with a 442 gets width into your defensive shape. On attack the 2323 shape with the CMs inside will naturally tend to keep the FBs and Wingers wide. With the 343 shape, you have to work with the team so that the 3 wide players on each side will watch the wide player in front as to whether they need to spread outside or tuck inside.

The most advantageous shape for any system is for the higher player to be wide and the lower player to be tucked slightly inside. This is because it is easier for the lower player to provide immediate pressure on the ball if the higher player turns it over. Being tucked in, the lower player is directly between the ball and the goal he would be defending.

 

Know where you're going with the ball before received.

Receive with proper foot, usually across the body.

Don't take 2 touches if the job can be done in 1, don't take 3 if it can be done in 2.

To qualify my reply, I have much more to learn than I have to teach. Currently working with a low level select G05 team.

 

"Know where you're going with the ball before received"

Scan the field and know what you want to do with the ball dribble, pass or shoot before the ball it gets to you.

"Receive with proper foot, usually across the body"

Yes, but don't try to give that information to a high level player out loud. Get him alone or they will make fun of you for telling them an obvious thing. Our national team did that to Steve Sampson when he made a correct coaching point about it to a player who did not do that.

Also never ever tell a player he is the captain for life.

"Don't take 2 touches if the job can be done in 1, don't take 3 if it can be done in 2."

Yes, but to make a good one touch pass. You have to get a good pass. If not take two touches. Plus don't always make a one touch in your attacking area because it is congested space. There is nothing better then taking two touches when a defender is hanging on you. To do it takes real skill.

 

Problem is no matter how good your vision is and everything else you can do without the ball still means you need the skill to pull it off. Watch any high level game you see if you can't control the ball by the second touch your team will lose the ball.

 

These are all interesting questions that bear directly on how we think about teaching. In summary I valued effort far above successful execution.

Q.1 But doesn't failed execution mean some sort of failure with technique/positioning/decision making?: The short answer is "no" for a number of reasons. For examples: 1) Even at the senior level, coaches distinguish between forced errors and unforced errors. 2) In development, coaches should challenge players. We want them to be overly ambitious, not to the extent that soccer chaos results, but we want them stretching their limits. 3) In development, coaches cannot teach everything at once. So we teach in a progression. If a coach hasn't taught a scorpion kick technique, why would the coach criticize a player who tries to finish with a scorpion kick in a match and fails? Similarly if the coach hasn't taught positioning yet, why would the coach criticize poor positioning? Perhaps the most typical example is when a coach instructs his players to attempt to dribble out of pressure regardless of the area of the field, which to observers looks like a bad tactical choice. 4) Which leads me to the last point, I don't judge good performance by the result. In matches opponents should make playing as difficult as possible for the other team, so constant perfect execution should not be expected during a match.

Q.2 If they don't execute [successfully] can you say they played well?: This is really the same question. Chaos is different from players having trouble breaking a press or finishing in the final third, but is awesome in the middle third. A team may be doing a lot of things right and be making team tactical mistakes. But when coaching fundamentals, do you care about team tactics? Example: The fundamentals are the same at every level of soccer. What changes is the speed of play. So to a large extent development coaches are preparing players to play faster. When a team is overwhelmed by a better opponent's speed of play, the team is still learning although their play may look chaotic.

Q.3 For example, even shots while toward goal-is that an acceptable standard? To merely hit a 6x8 foot area? I want to point out that we are talking about successful execution in matches, not during an unopposed finishing drill. The standard for match performance is going to be determined by my curriculum. Finishing is a special subject in my view. It is where speed of play matters more than technique or tactics. I am already teaching accuracy and techniques in my passing sessions. So I teach speed of play first in finishing sessions. Initially all I want is quick play. Then I want quick play and striking on frame. Last I want quick play and striking targets within the frame. My finishing expectations even with novices will be based on the individual's ability. I knew their abilities because during finishing sessions I would tailor the service to the player's ability. And then there is the challenge of the situation, some chances are very easy and some are very difficult. This should be a consideration in judging performance.

 

Instead of level 2, I think of the topic as the end of a progression of sessions covering fundamentals.

Typically we are always dealing with proficiency at some level, which we are trying to raise. So with U10s for instance, if we do a review of fundamentals at the start of the season, it could be ended with a session on speed of play. I really like the teaching strategy placing a review at the start of the year. I never heard of a school district that didn't do a review before starting on new material.