I liked doing a 3v1, 4v2 or pentagonal 5v2 (since I ran 3-2-3-2 this fit our "formation") with the progression to "if the outside make 5 passes the 6th one should release someone to goal/if the inside win the ball its 2v1 past the "base" of the pentagon" just playing to 2 puggs. We'd mix it up with 2v1 with the guy who gave up he ball having to make the recovery run, every nth pass could be a release to goal (so 4th,8th,12th)/defenders have to figure out the pattern, defenders win it's 2v3, etc.... I think there's a disconnect at the u10/12 vs full field with "rondos" and "recycling, resetting". You can probably run your kids ragged on a u10 field especially by having them in rondo mode full time, since teh space is so small. On a full field it seems you really only "rondo" to break into a zone/get to a shooting situation or relieve a numbers down situation. Circulating through the back line - even if they're at midfield - is different, maybe covered in shadow play?
@CoachP365 When I coached U10s, it was an 11v11 format so I had to plan for transfer of the skills and tactics to the larger size. I did that using 11 a side shadow play and by running front 2 lines against back 2 lines in a half field. Typically popup goals set at midfield on each side by the touch line is how the back two lines scored and of course the front 2 lines were playing to a full size goal with keeper. After that I always ended with an unrestricted scrimmage. So I used a classic session format, starting with the individual performing the targeted technique or tactic, progressing to SSG, progressing to multiple lines, and ending in a full scrimmage. The team had no problems adapting the learning to matches. All but one of our opponents played kick and run bunch ball, so the kids had no trouble seeing and playing into the open spaces. Finally toward the end of the season we played a team of older girls who were not coached to play bunch ball, but the girls applied the fundamentals appropriately, playing very well. It made me a big believer in the classic session format and the focus on fundamentals instead of team tactics. The old "teach a man to fish" vs. giving him a fish. I think some coaches then and now spend too much time on team tactics and telling players what to do, instead of teaching the players to solve tactical problems. My pet peeve was coaches telling players to "stand here". Some of the coaches who know that soccer is dynamic, say it without thinking of what they are communicating. I think nothing does as much damage during player development as that simple sentence. I vowed before I ever coached my first session that I would never say "stand here" to a player. And I never did.
here's the 18-pass, side-to-side, probing move that led to the RB Leipzig goal pic.twitter.com/B0AyNch3hY— Henry Bushnell (@HenryBushnell) August 13, 2020
I dunno man, I think the guy with the painbrush hairdo should have unloaded it when he was pressured from 00:02 - 00:04 - looks to be a centerback....
That is a great clip for coaching. It shows a lot of things done right. It is a tribute to playing simple. I particularly liked how the dribbling was effective either finding more space or else forcing the defense to collapse into the center creating more space out wide.
Played a new (to me) possession activity last night. 6v6 half field (1 big goal, 3 PUGGs at midfield) 60-second active intervals/3 minute recovery or more. Objective: be the team with the ball at the end of 60 seconds. Play 3 rounds. High intensity activity where Teams are either possessing to keep it or pressing trying to get the ball back. Short duration forces them to maintain high levels of work. Edit: Progression(s)—3 passes unlocks the goal. Win the ball back from the other team unlocks the goal. Score a goal and the opponent is immediately knocked out.
I like this. Still recall seeing the benefits of shifting to high intensity with longer breaks - go hard and then let's break - stay focused, do it right, and avoid developing bad habits
Exactly. It's a new to me concept. We ask our players to "go all out" in games, but at practice but rarely show them or have them experience what that means. It has to be exposed and trained. Can it be sustained for the whole match? Maybe. Passages of play tend to be <2 mins before there is a stoppage.
The last thing we should want players to do is to stand around for a couple of minutes and then sprint for a couple of minutes. It isn't realistic, it isn't good soccer, and it is completely unnecessary. Most of the time in matches is spent in low intensity movement--walking and jogging. The movements are random and the intensities are random too. (That assumes experienced players playing organized soccer.) Intervals are fine for endurance training, but that is not technical or tactical training. I suspect that you are interested in players playing hard, focused, and trying to win. That has little to do with sprinting. If a player needs to sprint more than a few steps, then that means some player made a mistake.
Whole training session is not set-up like this. This can be squeezed into a 10-minute window and the rest of practice is more traditional. It allows them to push and experience what "all-out" means. Secondly, many of the speed/strength and conditioning trainers I follow recommend doing sprints with full recovery (5 mins). It's NOT soccer applicable in general, but in terms of overall athletic development, you want them to know/feel what their top speed feels like. The athlete may not know that over 10-20 yards, so you have to expose them 40-100y(?). It's important to note that this is NOT a conditioning exercise—speed, power output.
Speed training and technical training is done when fresh. So ususally at the start of combined sessions. If you do sets of sprints, the length of recovery period between sprints determines if the training is endurance training or speed training. Same movements different purposes.
"We are like little fishies, . . . because our minds are linked." -A ten year old when asked what she thought of practice today.
https://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation...lampards-chelsea-a-positional-play-game-model This was a great read on a gloomy, unproductive Thanksgiving Wednesday. His thesis is that Chelsea's biggest problem is breaking down opposing attacks in transition and that properly identifying positional roles will help solve that. He goes deep into Chelsea's personnel options and what their own attacks would look like with the different variations, but he didn't analyze the defensive aspects nearly as much. He stated the basic premise, but he didn't analyze that phase in any detail in all. He's correct that there are a ton of viable options going forward, but what are the most effective options in the defensive transition phase? A lot of this is higher-level analysis than I've ever thought about before so I'm trying to digest it and figure out a way to use some of it with my 19Us this spring. I suspect I will need to be able to really break this down to basics for my boys if we're going to use any of these ideas.
Good analysis from Gary Curneen on Barca defensive play from 10! Years ago. https://www.modernsoccercoach.com/p..._oHxyXYETbcV64xJfxUnYxQ3Xwoggq-nhf2YNW4mi2DxE
Interesting, around 9:32 Gary says "Casillas will have to go long here ... just reducing the options for Real Madrid … so they can’t, or don’t, choose to play out of a press" so he proves my point in my other thread about being careful when potb. Gary seems to agree that there are times when the passing options are too limited and the pressure is too high and to remove the danger you have to go long. But you seem to disagree. Do you think there is anytime to clear the ball or should 100% of the time you should POTB?
You’re dense. You pretend like everything is 1:1. The options drive the decision. His teammates didn’t open up for him, no cover behind him. 75% of your examples of failed playing short is bad execution with plenty of support. All you prove is you should be nowhere coaching kids.
Ramos opens up wide but he's got a trailing defender within 5-10 yards to receive a 25 yard pass. Ramos is also facing the wrong way. If he does get the ball and turn, he's got no one to pass to within 30 yards. Casillas does go long. Then what happens? They lose it with zero connected passes and Barca on the attack 13 seconds after the ball left Casillas' foot.
Yeah, sometimes you win it, sometimes you lose it. But better to lose it 50 yards away from your goal than 5 yards in front of your goal. It's kinda like in football. 4th down. If Pep were coach he would say go for it everytime, because if you punt it you give the other team possession! But it is good game mgt sometime (actually most times) to punt because you put the ball away from your goal. And you put faith in your defense. Sometimes you go for it too if the chances are in your favor or the game is drawing near an end and you have to make something happen. Anyways you seem to think I am anti-possession. No. Of course I think you should do accurate, deliberate passing and not give the other team the ball. Of course you should keep possession. Barca took it to an extreme (they were built for it in many ways). And the world followed (many are not built for it to such a degree). But POTB does not equal possession. Yes I believe in possessing and controlling the ball. That does not mean you have to potb 100% of the time, yet some people actually do believe that and it causes problems. That is what I'm pointing out. An overzealousness for potb that causes problems because it blinds people to proper risk mgt. In general I say yes, push kids to potb. But if they are not capable then I would adjust the parameters and in a game situation I might tell them to clear the ball if they have no options rather than try to force a play that is too much out of their abilities. But in practice potb and fail often and learn.
I'm a fan of Barca. I like potb. But the problem is that everyone thinks they can potb to the degree that Barca can and then they get into trouble. I'm just saying, you have to be aware of your limitations. I think potb was a great and natural progression in the sport. The skill level of players today is higher than in decades past. Higher skill level lends itself naturally to better ball control, better passing and more possession. Probably the main thing I disagree with is in relying so much on the goalkeeper's feet. The empirical evidence shows that is too risky. And frankly it shouldn't be necessary. If the keeper has the ball at his feet for more than 2 seconds then it means his teammates are not moving which means potb is not working (in that moment) which means he should clear the ball and not risk getting dispossessed near his goal. With 10 players to pass to, if none are getting open then they are tired or unfocused, but you can't potb without good movement esp on a high press.
I've seen that article before. Pretty interesting. I admire the coach for trying it. I always wondered if that would work over the long run (if the odds would tilt in your favor)