This is from the first 15 minutes. 1, 2, and 3!: David Epstein, "There is a desire to validate everything by data, and it's backward. It's making something important because we can measure it. It's not measuring something because it is important. Where I think it ends up putting coaches into pigeonholes where everything they do has to be measureable.... I think the [football] combine measurements are stupid. They don't measure creativity at all." 4: David Epstein again, "The key to learning skills is setting up an environment where someone learns implicitly, the same way that we learn language, that you create an environment that forces them to learn without articulating exactly what they are learning." (Training success all comes down to designing the exercises to do the coaching for you and adjusting the exercises until you see the desired movements in those particular players. His statement assumes that training is in context rather than in isolation. If you are old school, this is the training concept of specificity.) 5: David Epstein again, Learning a skill is a process of self discovery. Players who love training, love not just the game but love that process of self discovery. 6: Gretzky's Dad comment, kids learn by playing. If you give kids too much structure and too many restrictions, they may win youth matches that way, but it retards development. My version--you want to give the young kids a simple system of play that provides organization but allows them the freedom to solve problems. I never in my life told a player to "stand here" and never told them that they had to stay in their "position." Really. The purpose of a system of play at any level should be to make it easier for the players to combine together, not to restrict their play. By definition the system of play should be tailored for the specific players. I like to say that a team should play as if the 11 players shared the same brain. That is the objective of a system of play. My contribution: Most commentators talk about "creativity" as a component of play. I have always thought of it as "intelligence" as in the sense of "problem solving". In my view the entire match is problem solving at an extremely high rate. How much a player is involved in problem solving determines how effective the player is in contributing to the team's success. If a player is only playing "one way" then half the time the player is "switched off" mentally and ineffective in terms of contributing to team success. If a player is only engaged in problem solving when he has the ball, than that player is hugely ineffective in comparison. He isn't helping the team at all. Consider my mentally switched off comment with Cruyff's comment that "football is a game played with your brain."
I've read so many of these books. What was that one? Is that the hot bed one? edit: that was myelination and deep practice?
From my experience, the good 1v1 "artists" need a certain level of burst. But that could come after puberty, so can't neglect or discourage it a younger ages. Secondly, it's still valuable as it is ball mastery training. Thirdly, it puts you in 1v1 defending scenarios-also valuable. Fourthly, I think you pointed out that dribbling past people isn't the only way to "win" duels.
You are in good company. Anson Dorrance pushes 343 for youth development because when both teams play a lineal 343 it maximizes the 1v1 matchups and there is no numbers-up defending. Biggest bang for the buck, development-wise.
I've been pondering the possible figurative meaning of your comment all day. You're going to need to be more transparent. haha.
It's hard to go against Anson, but I don't know if he's my collegiate kindred spirit. There's room for many styles of play in women's college soccer but I prefer UCLA/Stanford ball to UNC's "power game". But that's justa preference—it's highly effective.
@elessar78 Anson's reason for pushing 343 for youth development is unrelated to what he does at UNC, although for older kids--high school--he pushes the competitive cauldron which is exactly what he uses at UNC. It is about training though, not their "power game". My take on Anson's 343 system is that he is taking advantage of the inability of most women to change fields with long diagonal balls. At the same time while attacking, he is minimizing that same limitation by keeping his 3 forwards near each other. The same system should work with U14 boys as well, but once you get to U16 the early bloomers change the circumstances.
good segue... yesterday, we played against probably the best team at switching the ball I've played against and it was a travel team (not a P2P club team). They played a very anson-y 3-2-3, which put our back 3 in 1v1 situations. It was a nice cat-and-mouse match that we lost 1-0. They adjusted to our high pressure by switching play—we shift our whole team over to make the space compact. They did the switches in two passes. I was actually very pleased in how we recovered when they switched the ball. If I was going to be critique their play—the 3-2-3 put them in a good position to team press our back 4 with their front 5. But they hadn't worked on that part of their game and we played out of the back very well against them.
This question is quite easy. Step one: Get rid off all I pad´s, cellphone´s, computer´s and television´s and of course all Mac D´s. Easy life makes your young ones such a players who have bad self-esteem without toughness. Creativity comes when you are not controlling your kids too much. Step two: Next give those children no more entertainment than rag´s and rope to make ball to play with. Some of them might hang them self, but those who are still live... u´r getting somewhere. That was what I saw in Ghana, except no one hang himself. People were happy and one big family. ..And that soccer field, o boy, that was choppy ! and sand field. If kids passion and dream is to come a star and get better life whit your skills to your family and you´r self.. Only getaway from that deprivation, then we are talking. How to get in that point without civil war or some other chaos? But hey, you have already all you need ! Your society is so divided.. So, it all comes to your ghettos.. go there and recruit players ! Build better soccer fields there and send some armored coaches there ! Sorry to be so sarcastic, but there is some point in my letters or maybe two points. -Sami
I’m too lazy to backread this entire thread but here’s what I tell my teams (U15, U13, and U10). I expect them to take and win every 1v1 challenge, offense or defense unless their teammate has an absolute sitter. Obviously it changes a bit depending on defensive, middle, offensive third; but creativity is woefully lacking in a lot of older players because they are told very early to not be “selfish.” I expect my players to win every 1v1 battle in their defensive third and for them to seek and win 1v1s in the middle and offensive thirds. At some points, I’ll even tell them to take 1v2 opportunities in the offensive third. Our most common phrase is “moves and megs.” [emoji23] I can teach a high school kid tactics pretty quickly, it is far more difficult to teach them aggressiveness, confidence, and advanced technique. Just my opinion.
That sounds to be the complete opposite approach compared to a lot of posters here. But I don't hate it. Kinda dig it. Not sure about proactively seeking out 1v1s, but I don't think they should shy away from them. In the offensive 3rd though I think there is a lot of leeway to experiment and try stuff.
@NewDadaCoach A major part of senior level game plans is creating and exploiting advantageous 1v1 matchups in the attacking third. In development, you can't improve 1v1 play without doing it. As for 1v2, my definition of a good forward is someone that can regularly take on and beat 2 defenders. Can't get good at it without doing it.
Honest question - does it count as possession ball when one player keeps possession for 80 yards and scores? Congrats to Sonny on winning the Puskas award! I think it is rare goals like this that football fans love to see.
There is no universally accepted definition of "possession" style play, but this is my best answer to your question. "Positional play" best describes "possession" style play. It is based on combination passing and seeks advantageous "positions" in two senses. 1) In the sense of each individual player's position and 2) in the sense of the team's position. It uses advantageous positions to dominate play. It is highly unlikely that one player advancing 80 yards with the ball and scoring reflects positional play. Although I haven't ruled out the possibility, I cannot imagine how that solo run could reflect positional play. It would have to be a situation where all the teammates made supporting movements which created the space enabling the run and scoring chance. I have seen plenty of examples of teammates making wonderful runs clearing space and creating chances, but I cannot recall it ever being done successively on the same play, much less the number of times that would be required to clear an 80 yard path. In the clip you showed, a teammate made a diagonal clearing run while still in the defending third, which although created very important space, I wouldn't call it by itself making this run positional play.
I like positional play. But I also think kids should not be discouraged from dribbling and 1v1 play (or 1v2 etc), unless they get to say 15+ and winning is important and the kid is just flat out losing the ball often. It seems that maybe 80-90% of soccer should be positional play, but you also have leave open room for those magical moments that you can't exactly teach or plan for. Improvisation is part of the game too.
Son had an interesting up bringing. His dad is a former pro, who was very strict about his training. Reports say Son did not play organized team Soccer until age 14. His dad also did not teach him shooting until age 14. This isnt to say he didnt learn on his own, just pointing out his dad's educational priorities. Dad would also punish him and his brother with HOURS of juggling as well as corporal punishment (dad admits this). Surprising that he seems so well adjusted.
Positional plu is about gaining territory via superiority: either numerical 2v1 or qualitative 1v1. In his goal, Son isn't engaged by a goal-side defender until Midfield. He faces one more tackle on his way to goal. Hes just taking uncontested territory. (Penetration) Positional play takes a back seat to Principles of Play.
Yeah it is interesting. I have Korean relatives and it sounds about right in how they approach things. I'm glad too that he's well adjusted; he seems to really love the sport. In other areas like academics Korean kids have a ton of pressure and sadly suicide rates are high.
positional play. I asked a player why he didn't run up to the ball that was more or less in front of the goal and kick it in while the goalie was on the other side. "my coach told me to stay on the right side of the field." yes, for some folks, staying in position is more important than the actual objective of the game, scoring more goals than your opponent.
The misunderstanding of positional play. It's important the "right side" be covered. It's not important that the kid that starts from the kickoff on the right side always stay on the right side. I'm sure if you asked the coach he would tell you "of course he should have attacked the ball and scored, argh!!!" But then if you ask "what do yo do in training to teach them to interchange positions" most likely the answer will be "uhhhh..." It's crazy that in a country that plays with so many extraneous field markings - pitch inside a pitch, or especially american football lines - people don't use that to teach how to organize/move as a team. You wnt a compact unit, tell them 2 lines is 20 yards, from cb to striker don't have more than 3 lines between them. Ball is ouside the hashmarks on the other side of the field, wide players come in to at least their own hash marks if not closer. If you see the kid that wsa outside the hashmarks has come inside, and you are the closest, move outside the hashmark to cover the area he left. It's not even model rocket science....
Many times people think that they communicate one thing, but in reality something entirely different is being communicated. When I first started coaching I decided that I would never, never tell a player to "stand here". I also avoided absolute statements like the plague. It is the most common form of miscommunication that I saw by coaches. Yeah you can tell an experienced player that and they will apply their own years of experience to determine what the coach meant. But not a 9 year old who has very likely been told something different by every coach he ever had.
“Hold your position” isn’t playing positionally. “Maintaining the shape” is the objective, because having a teammate “there” allows a team to be able to make the play that is needed. I learned from another coach the “rubber band” concept. This is your starting position, leave it (stretch the rubber band if needed), then snap back into place when the play/movement is done. You really can’t look at Man City/Barca under Peo and say their dribblers are constrained by positional play.
Agreed. I want to elaborate on what you said. Once in the danger area with the ball, the objective for the first attacker is finishing. Supporting players worry about maintaining shape. The coaches actual problem was that he didn't develop his players decision making. He was controlling their movements for them instead of allowing them to learn to play by trial and error. Coaches do that when they are more concerned about winning meaningless youth matches than developing players.