This is a useful article if you're considering which style of play best suits your team and in what situation to use it - for instance, should you use a counter-attacking style, which relies on your players reacting to their mistakes, or a playmaker style, which forces your opponents into making mistakes and requires confident players who have learnt the basic skills. Each style has its strengths and weaknesses.
I didn't find your comments helpful and in fact I thought them misleading. It is a counter-attacking strategy whose attack depends on forcing the opponent into mistakes in the mid-field so that space is open in the attacking third to exploit with direct play. A possession strategy (which I think you mean by playmaking) does not depend on an opponent's loss of possession to generate goal scoring opportunies. This is a component of team tactics and all advanced players should be taught how to play both ways. Possession strategies are usually contrasted with direct play strategies. A counterattacking strategy is usually discussed in terms of the line of confrontation and contrasted with a high pressure defense (i.e., box to box pressure). I am not criticizing your coaching. I am sure you are a good coach. I am just criticizing your writing. Sometimes when we write we make logical leaps without realizing it. I do it all the time myself, and thankfully peer-review catches most of it. A lot of teams that use a low pressure (a/k/a delayed high pressure) defense also play directly. But nothing prevents a team from combining low pressure defense creating counter-attacking opportunies with possession play. Possession play is simply a strategy of choosing to maintain possession rather than making a low percentage shot or pass.
It's just more spam from this guy. I have no idea why the mods haven't shut him down yet, he's become a troll, imho.
I think I'm than more than capable of making an intelligent decision on what belongs or doesn't belong on this forum and what does or doesn't constitute spam. If you'd like to offer me some advice on how to do my job, maybe, you could send it over via PM.
Last I checked, opinions are part of the process in forums, hence my "imho". I wasn't trying to tell anyone how to do their job. The guy is a joker and I was just pointing that out. Relax, you're still the almighty mod around here.
Damn, right! I'd also like to point out that I usually edit out spam links and allow the content to stay up. Link or no link, he's talking about coaching and offering up opinions - which, I now hear, are a part of the forum process!
This is straight out of that Team Building book by Rinus Michels. He talks about it in depth and it's pretty interesting. My U10s are probably a playmaking team because they press as soon as they lose the ball. My men's team is more like a counter attacking team because we give ground first, then build. But either one is so rudimentary that you can't really call it either or.
I didn't read his book. Thanks for that tip. My understanding is that he uses "playmaking" to refer to Dutch 1970's style total football. The topic of total football vs. counterattacking football is not a youth development topic. It would be a mistake to try to get U-Little teams to play like the Dutch national team of the 1970s. Developing players who can play total soccer is the objective. The focus should be on training players, not training teams. My understanding is that his book talks about managing professional and national teams, i.e., the 1970's Dutch, and then also talks about age appropriate training. So I doubt that his book advocates managing a U-Littles team like a professional team.
No, it's not a youth development topic. I'm just commenting in general. I wouldn't really say it's just about managing professional sides. It talks a lot about his views on soccer theory and styles of play. Yes, it's done in the context of professional sides but you can apply the ideas all the way down to high school level.
There's a good argument why the debate between PM and CA styles should apply to youth. Kids need to learn the risk-to-return element of the game and the balance between the two philosophies is a big part of that. Unrestricted freedom, i.e. everyone attacks, the PM style lets loose the swarm. Overly cautious play usually means someone is assinged the role of defender, i.e. never crosses midfield or even leaves the penalty area. It's a balance based on what the actual situation is. The idea that kids need to reach a certain age before they can learn this is questionable. That argument is based in a very limited acceptance of psychological models, i.e. the stages of development. There are a lot of models out there that argue against waiting until kids are 'old enough to learn abstract concepts,' see situated learning or constructionism. The trick is in how to go about it and that's a discussion on methodology. Here's a link to a page on Playmaking that is based on Michels Teambuilding. There is also a link on Counterattacking, http://www.bettersoccermorefun.com/dwtext/totalsoc.htm
I disagree on many areas. There is no "debate" on what to teach, when you teach team tactics. And it is generally accepted that teaching pre-teens team tactics is wasting precious training time that should be used on skill development and what is now called group tactics. I also wasn't impressed with the article. I think most US people don't understand the significance of the tight spacing between lines in total soccer. The article for instance thinks total soccer is defined by a high line of confrontation. (The articles focus was on winning tactics for matches not player or even team development.) It is my belief that best way to prepare players to play total soccer is not to teach total soccer team tactics to them as pre-teens. The best way is to use "position-less" SSG and when playing large side matches, rotating the players through the lines. Systems using "role player" positions should be avoided to encourage kids to make more tactical decisions within their lines. The coaches rotating the players through the lines simulates total soccer before the kids are advanced enough to begin making those decisions themselves.
Thanks for setting me straight on this, I appreciate the input. I do have a couple of questions. Can you explain how "It is my belief that best way to prepare players to play total soccer is not to teach total soccer team tactics to them as pre-teens. The best way is to use "position-less" SSG and when playing large side matches, rotating the players through the lines." works in terms of development? How does "position-less" learning transfer to playing in a line which implies a position? That sounds like studying French to learn German. Also, aren't belief systems open to "debate" or am I missing something here? I'm confused on these points and appreciate your point of view. Thanks for the help.
Actually, it sounds like teaching a baby or toddler to make shapes and sounds with their mouth and vocal chords before they try to speak words. Your way seems to be like trying to teach toddlers to pronounce polysyllabic words that they wouldn't understand, and then trying to tell someone that they know how to speak a language. You're welcome.
All systems has some interchange, e.g., a 442 fullback running into a winger position. Total soccer features interchange. That requires a lot of coordination and situational awareness. In position-less SSG the kids have to make decisions about who supplies the width and depth, who is first defender and who provides cover and balance. The SSG get the kids used to thinking in terms of a small unit of players and then the SSG experience translates in large sides to working within a line. The rotation through the lines gets the kids large side experience that mimics what they would get if they were interchanging between lines on their own. Once the kids gain experience interchanging within a line and are comfortable playing in all three lines, then you can start introducing interchange between lines. I would use this progression even if I was teaching total soccer to adults. My point is that the best way to develop players capable of playing total soccer is to train them from an early age with a long term view to the goal of introducing them to total soccer as a team tactic when they are teen-agers. That means that we don't develop pre-teens as future backs, midfielders, and forwards or worse yet future sweepers, keepers, strikers, CAMs and holding midfielders. We need well rounded players.
Thanks for that insight. I was under the impression that Ajax did what you say you shouldn't do. They lock kids into a position as soon as possible and then develop their specialized talents. I think one of their players said that a problem with American soccer is that everyone is a jack of all trades and a master of nothing. He understood well rounded, it's a hard working but limited midfielder. Does that make sense?
Ajax used to play a lot of 9v9 scrimmages where the formation was 3-3-3 and they would rotate players through all the positions at any given time. That pretty much goes against what you're saying.
Thanks for pitching in. My sources of information are pretty good. When Total soccer was born in the early 70's several of the players had never been coached before they were 14. Ajax training methods have evolved over the years, sometimes in the wrong direction. Could you be confusing the form with the content?
At one point, are you going to stop being pedantic and actually back up your point here with some examples and citations: Situated learning was based on off of how ADULTS learn, and citing constructionist theory (where the student plays to create their own model) doesn't even back-up what you have to say about teaching the difference between CA and PM. That would be instructionism (where the teacher teaches the model). So, again, when exactly are you going to stop being pedantic and make some sense?
I thought you geniunely wanted an explanation of my views. If you have further questions about my views, I will be happy to respond, but my views are not based on any professional club's youth program. I can asure everyone that Ajax has never consulted me about how to run their youth program
Your signature is even on topic today. Twenty26, I so wanted that Jimmy Hogan quote for my own signature, but couldn't get it to fit due to the size limitations. Isn't it ironic that Jimmy Hogan is English England exported what it didn't grow at home. And it was the end of English domination of international soccer.
Just waiting for an opportunity. I believe you have a pretty solid background in education and psychology. My take on situated learning is based on Vygotsky, Lave & Wenger generally and Grehaigne, Richard, Griffin - Team Sports and Games and BUnker & Thorp, Teaching Games for Understanding in soccer specifically among others. My understanding, using their perspective is that, in far too brief a point, learning comes before development. As to process theory are you familiar with Luhmann? He gives Piaget and developmental psychologists a headache. If you want to go into these areas I'd be interested in swapping ideas and background. In closing you can access www.tgfu.org for a free pdf file of their book. The former Director of the FA Alan Wade had a lot of input into it. I'm agreeing in principle with what it contains. Finally as to how to introduce, not teach, CA and PM style you can expose kids as young as eight to some of the basic underlying rules while allowing them the freedom to explore SSG's.
It's a funny story, isn't it? There's another anecdote somewhere about him that I shall try to find and send your way via PM.
In a phrase, General Systems Theory. Large picture, complex emergent self organizing behavior. IMO, Godel, Heisenberg and the Second Law of Thermodynamics work in this context.
Maybe, you're phrasing something incorrectly here. You're certainly not going to expose an 8yo to the underlying rules of Thermodynamics, are you? Your last post said: That, to me at least, means you are talking about the underlying rules of counterattacking and playmaking. Please, clarify.