Unfortunately, I need to take a break from coaching after the current season. My assistants and parents want to keep the team together so I now have to transition the team to them and mainly transfer coaching how-to to them. Coaching the coaches, is what we've called it internally. You other coaches have experience with this? Particularly our A-license instructors who teach the courses? Or at least how have transitions gone for you? What could've made it better or easier?
The biggest problem is on the new coach. If the new coach has the player's attention/respect it should go smoothly. I coached a group of boys for 4 years and when I could no longer coach them because of college commitments, the new coach had a problem with the boys saying well our old coach (me) didn't do things like that. What I would've done in hindsight is maybe bring in the new coach to take control of a few practices and kind of take a back seat to him towards the end of the season so the players get an idea of how things will be run moving forward.
I like this. Bring the chosen successor in a few times, let him do his thing, endorse it, get out of the way. If one of your current assistants is taking the job, pick a point for them to have fully transitioned into the job (their lesson plans, their initiative). The kids don't need to know the date. As the date passes, you must take very obvious pains to support the new guy while taking big steps away. You don't want to attend the last few practices of this season and you may think of not coaching the last game of the year (while still attending of course). After that, change your phone number and move towns. Or you'll never get away fully!
In my experience, the first thing you need is parent buy-in. If the parents are on board, then everything is essentially administrative, e.g., passing along the institutional knowledge to the new coach and providing a satisfactory transition from you to the new coach. As for coaching the coaches, if you have experienced coaches coming in behind you, my inclination is to get out of the way. New ideas and new ways of doing things can be a very positive experience for the team, and I wouldn't want the incoming coach to feel he/she needs to do things they way I did. Again, make sure the coach has that institutional knowledge (what the team's done, what the team hasn't done, its strengths and weaknesses, how it plays, etc.), and then let the new coach do his/her thing. If the coaches don't have a comfortable level of experience: (1) get them on the field--it's tough to learn standing on the sidelines; (2) talk, talk, and talk--tell the coaches why you do things and why you don't do things; (3) get them cleared and put them on your roster this season, and have them on the sidelines with you, so they see how you coach in games, and explain why you did what you did contemporaneously; (4) make them participants, not just observers, in practice--do activities where you break your players into more than one group, and have the successor(s) supervise one of the groups; during scrimmages, make it "your" team versus the new coach's team; (5) during games and practices, always ask the succesor(s) if he/she has anything to add after you've explained something to your players, and the coach adds something constructive, make sure the players (and parents watching) know that it was a really good idea, e.g., "That's right coach, good point. You guys/gals got that?" (and if the coach's point needs clarification or further explanation or, more likely, a bit of tweaking, rephrase it in a way you are comfortable with, so the new coach gets a bit of an education and the players are told the right thing); (6) recommend/ask the coach to review your favorite books and/or videos, and then make sure you place those in perspective (I've been digging the "Italian Style" DVD's lately, Ball Control and Defending, from the coaches at Empoli, but you don't want to give the new coach the impression that he/she should do an entire practice of dribbling through cones, but rather, that the DVD's give some great ideas for the first part of practice when the emphasis is going to be more technical); (7) encourage them to take a coaching education course; and (8) take them out for a casul dinner, buy them a few beers, and talk, and talk, and talk. Put on a show. Don't lecture, but tell them stories, give them ideas, tell them what you like and what you don't like, explain your philosophy. Last, but not least, once the transition has been made, make sure they know they can use you as a sounding board, but otherwise, leave them to their own devices. Sometimes the best way to learn is to make a mistake and correct it.
I officially started the transition today with an e-mail to my assistants/successors: So I've been trying to figure out how to convey "all this" to you guys. It's easier to explain it by starting with the end product in mind. There's really only two ways you play soccer, you either play a possession style (like Barcelona) or a counter attacking style. I've always liked the possession style, so that's what the girls have been learning. But at the younger ages the skill set needed for both is the same and our girls counter attack very well. Barcelona are the kings of possession but give them an opportunity for a fast break and they'll take it every time. The good thing is that we've built the foundation for the girls already and it's just refining and refinining some more. The whole game of soccer then breaks down into 4 "moments": transition from attacking to defending, other team in possession, transition from defending to attacking, and finally, our own team in possession. 1. When we lose possession, transition from attack to defense: try to win the ball back in 5 seconds 2. When the other team is in possession, we play our PCB. 3. When we gain possession, transition from defending to attacking, we play the endzone game (not exactly but close approximate) 4. When we are in possession, it depends on the area of the field but we're either playing keepaway or endzone game or attacking the goal with 1v1/2v1/or shooting from distance. So that's really all it is from 11 year olds to the pros—it's just performed at a higher skill level as you move up and there's more detail work within each position. Right now they are generalists as opposed to specialists. Within the above moments/phases I just try to teach them relevant skills. If we're talking about transition from attack to defense, I'll cover technical things like closest defender immediately approaching the ball carrier with a curved run but coming under control with a two yard cushion. If it's possession, I'll cover passing or receiving or movement off the ball. So I wrote this and just sat there trying to write more. But really couldn't. Is our game THAT simple? It's not, as I intoned in the 2nd to last paragraph, but that's the barebones basics, right? If you were a coach starting out what other information do you want me to build on going forward?
It never works the way it is supposed to. Our under 16 was one of the best teams in the country. They brough in a new trainer not even a new coach. He coached St. Francis college an A1 division soccer college coach. He should have been doing just skill work. Instead he is moving players around he was not supposed to do that. I was in Italy for a tournament. I get back I did not recognize the team. When I left they played a good game. When I got back they didn't. I had a little pull back then. I discussed the situation with the other coaches on the club. I fired him that day. Don't let parents of the players on the same team team coach that team in any way.
What's the experience level of the individual members of your transition group? Where's your team stand respective to their age and level? Have we fully crossed into the "Developing and Retaining Coaches" thread? You're the A group coach and these are B and C group coaches. I ask because, if your first email to them is starting with the above, I'm really wanting to quote myself from that other thread. Some people, while nice and well meaning, don't have the requisite DEEP knowledge of the sport to actually teach it. And so they shouldn't! At least in the case of the other thread, he's a club with resources and access to a pool of well qualified trainers. You're just a guy, coaching a non-aligned (club) team, but you've actually kept most of your group together long enough to have a decent squad. Right? Is there a head coach in the group? Capable of preparing and implementing practice plans? Based on his 'own' observations of their matches and training? Now, as in today? Because if there isn't, you're never getting away. You'll be stuck doing their thinking (the heavy lifting) for them forever.
That was a great, concise statement of a coaching vision. The game's theory is really simple: score more goals than your opponent. Complexity comes in the execution. As to counterattacking vs. possession style, I don't think a development coach needs to value one over the other because we need to develop players that can play both styles. Your vision gives them something to steer by.
Well meaning but probably think know more than they do. Their kids are on the team. Wow. what a tough question to answer. Compared to their peers, I'd say they are above average in skills proficiency and understanding what you actually have to do during a match. They're (as a group) below average in terms of athleticism (speed, strength coordination), commitment, or aggression. Sure but I'm not coaching next season so I need to hand it over to them, imperfect as it may be. Or else the kids lose out. I don't need to be completely out of the picture, I'm a phone call/e-mail away, I just can't physically commit the hours this coming spring.
You never really leave even if you can't coach them any more. A team and the players could be like your children you still love them even if your not around them. Like when they grow up and are on their own.
Here's my situation. I'm the new coach! My U-14 girls team had a bit of a break up. Our captain turned 15 and she came to the other coach and I and asked if we thought she should try out for the state cup team a town over and we gave her our blessings and best wishes. After try-outs she was made one of their starting mid-fielders. Imagine our pride. She has come back and thanked us for everything we've taught her and appreciated how hard we were sometimes, but she now knows why. We then had a few girls who wanted to go to the same club and try out for their U-12 state cup team, and they all made it too. We then had a few that were starting high school and found swimming, volleyball, soccer at that level to be too time consuming and left. We were then left with 6 girls. We contacted the neighboing towns club, and they agreed to take them. Upon arrival to the new club my fellow coach was informed that there was no U-14 coach, and did he/we want the job. He luckily has more time than I this season, he agreed to take the job, and has me there every chance I can get. We quickly found out why the previous team was so bad and has never won a single game. They have had little to no training, and absolutely hate to run. Most of these girls have been playing at this club for several years, but we found out that the clubs philosophy is to do a little training and then scrimmage most of practice. It initially was like sitting back knowing a train wreck was about to occur and not knowing what to do about it. Quickly we told them we appreciate their way, but we were going in a different direction. The DOC handed us the keys and said o.k.. These girls now run, dribble, pass, are getting the basics of tactics, and within a short time we have begun to turn this team around. We won our first game quite easily, and the girls are ecstatic. They never knew what it felt like to win. Coaching can be so much fun, aggravating and at times tedious, but then there are moments that lift your heart and remind you why you do it. I'd like to hear from coaches who were the new coach at one time also, and the experiences they had as well no matter how long back it may be.
The "four moments" are key, but I disagree with the above. There are more ways to play than just possession or counterattack. For example, you can play a direct style without everything necessarily being a counterattack--in fact, counterattack implies a defensive tactic (sit in, low line of confrontation) as well as an offensive one. An attack that relies heavily on flank play and crosses may not have to be direct, but doesn't fit neatly into a possession style either. And except for how it relates to counterattacking, there's a whole spectrum of defensive tactics (press or not, where to draw the line of confrontation and line of restraint). Those defensive tactics may also affect your offensive tactics, and vice versa. The simplicity may help at younger ages (I don't see anywhere how old your team is), but as they get older--say, U12-U13-- that simplicity will start to do them a disservice--it's leaving too many things out.
(I agree that he oversimplified, but I still understood what he was saying.) I was thinking about what impact it would have on analysis of team tactics if we evaluated styles based on their use of the four moments. For example a style that exploits the "transition to attack" versus "in possession" moments. Those two have obvious correlations, but how would you catergorize classic total soccer? My initial thought is that it is based on transitions (both "to attack" and "to defense"). Just a thought
thanks, Benji. It's U12 probably why that's what we've been covering. Now how do you move this framework forward for use with coaches who don't have a similar background or experience. You probably can't, but what's the next best thing? What would you add that would take this through U12 and beyond.
In my view player development has to come first over team development. Translated--I mean players need to learn tactical alternatives for the team, like they have already learned tactical choices for the individual and small group, including players chosing tactical alternatives to fit circumstances. An obvious example is a ball-winner's decision on what to do with the ball. It will dictate the team's play in the near term. If the coach dictates a style of play, the players may learn to execute that style of play but they won't learn to make (team) tactical decisions that way. Obviously you have to approach intermediate level players differently than advanced players. In my view the best approach would be to plan out the (team) tactical decisions that you want the players free to make. You keep the situation relatively simple at first by limiting the (team tactical) decisions that the players have to make. Taking this approach also illustrates why you cannot keep youth players in the same positions and expect them to learn how to play. Regardless of the subject, in my view a coach should try through coaching techniques to establish a floor for the players (based on a realistic assessment of the players' abilities), not a ceiling. A ceiling might make things simpler, but would also prevent superior, creative play by dumbing down the situation and choices allowed. Coaching creative players is not about asking multiple choice questions. Don't force them to chose between supplied tactical solicitions. Give examples and leave the door open for creative solutions.
rca, I think we're getting more at "How do you help less experience coaches help the team progress?" and not as much "How do you coach the players?" First, the new coaches still need to be committed to lots of technical skill work. That doesn't change for several years yet (and really never stops, though it slows down if they reach a very high level). That will continue improving the players more than any tactics or systems. As they get older, details matter more: e.g. for passing--weight of the pass, playing it to the proper foot, shaping/curving it if needed, slotted vs driven vs lofted. Lots more to do there, receiving, finishing, defending, etc. Tactically, maybe I'd start to focus more on functional play. What is the role of each player on the field, and how do they accomplish it? You can still rotate players through positions, but players are starting to settle on favorite/comfortable spots based on their skill, physical attributes and disposition. You can run practices around, say, the role of a central midfielder, or outside backs, or strikers. Teach them the difference between a position (where you stand on the pitch) and a function (what your responsibilities are). That might be a good way to frame it. Again, if the coaches are less experienced, I'm not sure how they can help the girls advance farther than a more experienced coach, but you know that.
If a club wants to elevate the effectiveness of its coaches, it should get a senior coach involved supervising the other coaches. This could be direct oversight, formal training, mentoring or providing written directions such as detailed practice plans--or a combination. Manage the coaches just like in any other job. If you have a group of peers, then you can do peer reviews. Coach the coaches.