I am wondering if there is some guideline for when it is best to teach the various moves. I have only coached U6 and if I coach this year it will be U8 (my kid's team). I know that is young for moves. Last year the only "move" we practiced was the pull back. Let's take some of the more common moves: pull back (aka drag back) step over scissors feint cruyff turn roulette (aka maradona) la croqueta chop (ie the Ronaldo chop where he cuts it behind his leg) V pull (aka pull back V, or just V) rollover (not exactly a "move" per se) Can you tell me in which age group you would slot them: U6 U8 U10 U12 U14 U16 Thanks
I've taught skills for around a decade apart from general coaching, here's what I've found. Starting at age 6, most can handle to start learning moves. It won't be perfect for a while but you're just introducing it to them. Show it to them, demonstrate with another coach—make it look fancy and exciting. What this does is capture their imagination—most coaches I've seen show how to do it, but not why they do it. Or what the finished product should look like. It's not obvious to a kid who probably isn't watched a ton of soccer. they'll pick up moves like the pull back more easily than a scissors but that's not important—you're wiring them to learn. (most important point not to miss To me, the "move" actually isn't that important. You have to teach them to continue with it after the move and accelerate and step across the defender. A lot of new players do a move, pause to see if it worked, then start to dash away. NOPE! I tell them to COMMIT to the move. Even if they fail, they'll have data points on how to make adjustments. Other things more important than the "move" -start move early, too often they're with reach of a defender's leg and just crash -make your cut after the move a wider V -deep knee bend-helps you explode away (not sure why, but American players play so upright) Drill and Kill vs play based Used to work for an outfit that espoused hundreds of reps and I'm torn on this one. It was effective, developed a lot of really good 1v1 players, but at what cost? It's not really how a 6YO or older would choose to play and learn. Parents who pay for training HATE seeing games-based learning. They have an idea that learning skills only happens in adult-looking drills: cones, lines, repeat 100x. Find a balance. The drill way does work, but you have to help kids fall in love with the game. Plus, the drill way isn't too brain intensive.
Why aren't you thinking about basic dribbling skills and general athletic skills? How about turns, stops, and acceleration. Ball manipulation is the key skill along with general athletic skills. Have to have both. Dribbling is 50% technical skill and 50% athletic skill. For instance inside and outside cuts or 180s? Basic techniques like running, jumping, striking and turning. If they don't have basic athletic skills without the ball, it is optimistic to expect them to develop excellent dribbling skills. There has to be a wealth of information on line about this in physical education and child development. And I don't suggest drills. Just give positive feedback on their technique and decisions during games. Coaching tools are constant, subject matter progresses throughout development.
Combining the previous 2 replies - teach them change of speed and direction first, without a ball if that's the level of kid you have. Tag, chase, etc. Then, when they start with moves - simple things, the shoulder drop, matthews, etc - they already have the framework for changing speed/direction so should be able to explode away from the move, vs the "upgright kid" referenced above who does the move then waits to see if it worked, then tries to move away....
A lot of sage advice here. I can tell you have a lot of experience. I'm not sure what "drill and kill" is. Is that doing reps until they are exhausted? And for play-based, do you stop play everytime you see a "teachable moment"? I like the balanced approach. I think some reps are good to build muscle memory and really fix specific situations. Then play to see if they can apply it and to have fun.
I should have clarified. I certainly believe in always building fundamentals. That is the foundation. But then, in addition, you have the moves, which as a kid gets older will increasingly be useful and necessary if they are going to play at a higher level. But, as I am working on stuff with my 6 year old, I am seeing that he picks up on certain moves more naturally than others. I suspect this varies kid to kid, but I think it partly has something to do with age in the sense that kids' body/foot sizes/and brain and muscle nerves change and that impacts how attainable certain moves are. I will give an ex: I have introduced nearly every move to my kid in some way. I'll demonstrate it or break it down for him and ask him to try it. Some of the moves he just doesn't have the muscle co-ordination to pull off, which I'm sure is an age thing. But sometimes he'll do things that surprise me. One day he just started doing the chop (what I'm calling chop is where you dink it behind one leg using inside part of other foot). It kinda came out of nowhere. If I drill down into why this is... it really is an easy move that uses easy body movements; basically you hop from one foot to the other. That's all it is, if you really break it down. And hopping is like one of the first things kids learn to do. So, it seems that kids will be able to pick up on certain moves more than others; so start with those and as they get older introduce moves that require more coordination or complex movement. I know I am over-analyzing it, but I can't help it. I find it peculiar why he's able to do some moves and not others. And I want to optimize our practice/training time and not waste time on things that he just won't pick up, or that won't be useful for now (for the peculiarities of U-little soccer - small field, small goal, etc).
Drill and kill is just making them do hundreds of reps of the same thing. That's called "blocked practice" (pull back 100 times in a row) and research has found that its not as effective as Randomized practice (pull back, scissors, stepover, cruyff) in getting players to absorb the material LONG TERM. Blocked practice has a nice short term effect, but they've found it isn't sustained over time. Randomized learning, is harder at first they'll look confused and not as smooth but that's actually the learning taking place. Famous German soccer coach, Horst Wein, said the optimal number of reps is around 7.
You're touching on another favorite path of mine these days: Soccer Starts at Home. Tom Byer, he's probably one of the top teachers of, to put it narrowly and inaccurately, 1v1 skills and he wrote a book by that name. Young kids learn through play and experimentation. They LOVE to imitate. So keep with it! We've taught hundreds of kids the whole deck of known moves over the years and what I've seen is that, maybe all but 4, gravitate to their 1 or 2 favorite moves. Don't know why yet.
I'll echo the thought that teaching them to use all of the different parts of BOTH feet is more important than teaching specific moves at the earliest stages. It's disappointing how many 10U kids I see in our program who struggle to use anything other than the toe of their dominant foot.
Exposing kids to lots of "moves" is good, but most players rely on about 3 favorite "moves". In addition, the moves that a flank player needs are different than the moves someone in the center needs. Specialization should come after the fundamental stage. So intitally, there are no "good" or "bad" moves.
Very informative. I wonder though how many moves should be practiced at a time. Like if you do 7 reps of 10 different moves, it would seem to me that that's too many moves; their muscle memory will be spread too thin, so to speak. Like maybe it's good to do the randomized practice over the course of a year and focusing on only 4 or so moves (in addition to fundamentals and stuff)?
Moves are broken down into: change of direction, attacking moves, stops and starts—you can break them down into those 3 families. Start with a few easy moves in each family to learn and rehearse, maybe 10 minutes at most. Then play 1v1 where they can try out the moves. For example, in change of direction you can do pull back, inside cut, outside cut—demo and have them try. All 3 to demo and try may take 8 minutes. Quick water and then go into 1v1. Let them try out their new "toys". It's not so much about spreading it too thin, try to fit in an appropriate amount of learning where they are still engaged and their mood is good. Too much/too long is drill and KILL (their enthusiasm, motivation). The underlying concept of why randomized practice is "sticky" is the struggle—when you're struggling to recall how to do something you're actually learning. So there's a time component—the longer in between the lesson the harder it is to recall. There's also the complexity component. You want to add in a teaching tool called "Check for Understanding" (Lemov)—your games and scrimmages you have to be observing closely if the players are doing the things you've been trying to convey to them. And these lessons, may be from the week prior or 3 weeks prior. Keep track of what you teach and see if they are executing independent of any reminders. This is in lieu of micromanaging the game. It's your feedback loop whether or not your coaching has been effective. Sometimes gratifying, OFTEN humbling. In my head, there's about a dozen "level 1" moves. you can teach 'em all in 3 practices and a lot of the more complex moves are built off that. For example: a maradona= step on + pull back, elastico and matthews move is based on an inside/outside cut Everything else, they can learn on their own. And they should. It's a fallacy that we need to teach 'em everything.
True. Even if you look at the pros they all have their 1 or 2 go-to moves. Messi - feint, la croqueta Ronaldo - chop, scissors Ronaldinho - elastico Zidane - roulette
I would recommend checkin out this article on "How Speed and Technical skills of young players affect their chances to become a Pro". It is a scientifically proved study review that shows how speed and technical skills at a young age predict the players success in future. Hope you find it intresting. Cheers.
Technical skills can be performed at an early age. Some players will be able to do the trickier skills much younger than other players, who can catch up. Rather than going through a list of skills sequentially, I find allowing players to experiment with the ball allows them to personalise the skills so they can make it their own. Then they are more likely to enjoy performing the skill well. E.g. you could have every player with a ball each, dribbling around and changing direction. Then ask them to randomly turn but in a different way and gradually find the best way for them. You can introduce a few alternatives for them to choose from, but allow them to change the skill to find their best way of doing it. If they enjoy the process, there's more chance they'll practice it at home. It's also not important that they learn a new skill within the session. The can instead just experiment, so the more they personalize the move, the easier they'll find to combine the moves and translate it into a match.
Kim Melnick: I think we agree on this. The metaphor I like to use is that coaches should teach players the vocabulary of dribbling and let the players use the vocabulary to write the poetry. A lot of coaches over the last 50 years have used this approach whether they call it Coerver ball mastery or by some other name.