A few quick notes:
1) Law 9, Ball in and out of play. It´s really pretty easy. Whole ball, whole line. Would the FA mind actually having their officials read it? Stuart Attwell telling Arteta to move the corner kick, when the ball was clearly over the arc is an absolute disgrace. Seriously, is Sian Massey the only official in England that has actually read the Law? It even comes with pictures if you don´t understand one-syllable words.
2) Arsenal and Swansea are evenly matched, and Mertesacker and Arteta are the best Arsenal players by some margin. Arsenal was destined for a relegation fight without the 31 August panic buys.
3) You cannot lose focus for even a moment in the Premiership, even against a mediocre team. Vorm´s moment of madness and Rangel´s lack of concentration may be the loss of points that send Swansea back to the Championship in eight months time.
4) Walcott is crap.
5) Walcott is really, really crap. And he doesn´t understand that it´s not the officials' fault when he dribbles with his head down and is tackled. If he was a better finisher, he could be a threat in the Championship. As it is, he is a League Two left winger, provided you have a good left back behind him for defensive cover. Walcott to Crawley is actually a pretty good match, though Crawley´s ambitions are greater than Walcott´s play.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
What We Will Learn from the Prem this Weekend
This is always a tough two weeks for me -- I´m so happy football is back, and then the wretched International break comes. It throws me off: I don´t sleep well (maybe nothing football related, but it is consistent) and I´m grouchy parsing out the reruns of matches off the DVR until I´m reduced to watching Champions League play-in matches from Eastern Europe recorded in late July. (Though decent stuff from Zwykvk FC in their 1-3 away win over Dynamo Grvblbrdr played on a community sheep pasture outside of Brno.) I seriously wish I could watch more non-league football here in the states, but all I get are my video clips for analysis. We´ve got to work on at least getting streaming video from the Blue Square.
ANY. HOO.
Big week in the Prem, and here are four questions we may well be able to answer on Monday morning:
1) Does David DeGea have future in English football?
It´s no secret he´s crap on long range shots -- in Liga, the word was shoot on sight, and DeGea surrendered more long range goals than anyone last year. As shown in the first three matches, he´s crap on shots on the ground. DeGea doesn´t so much dive as fall like a tree. Today, it appears Lindegaard will start at Bolton allegedly because of Bolton´s aerial threat. Huh, wait -- he can´t handle the high ball either? If Lindegaard has a good match, that could be it for DeGea. Ferguson suffered through three seasons of Barthez the Clown before dropping him. (To be fair, Barthez was quite good his first season with ManU; it was 2001 when he lost the plot.) Don´t expect Ferguson to give the young Spaniard the same leeway.
2) Are Liverpool title contenders?
Smart money is no, not this year, but while we won´t necessarily get a yes this weekend, we could have a no. If Liverpool cannot beat Stoke, there will be not be a title chase. Full stop. Before the Reds can seriously consider their first Premiership trophy, they must stop bleeding points to the likes of Stoke and Sunderland.
3) Is ´arry in trouble?
Spurs fans are generally in a good humor due to the crash and burn of their North London neighbors. Truth is, though, Tottenham have been pretty woeful in their two matches thus far. If McCarthy´s (rather good) Wolves squad hand Tottenham their third defeat on the trot (and with a sub-fit Van der Vaart and Wolves showing a resiliant backline I think it´s likely) then no amount of Arsenal woe will hide the fact that it´s not too rosy at White Hart Lane either.
With no early kickoff, 1000am (or three in the afternoon, UK time) can´t come soon enough.
Enjoy.
ANY. HOO.
Big week in the Prem, and here are four questions we may well be able to answer on Monday morning:
1) Does David DeGea have future in English football?
It´s no secret he´s crap on long range shots -- in Liga, the word was shoot on sight, and DeGea surrendered more long range goals than anyone last year. As shown in the first three matches, he´s crap on shots on the ground. DeGea doesn´t so much dive as fall like a tree. Today, it appears Lindegaard will start at Bolton allegedly because of Bolton´s aerial threat. Huh, wait -- he can´t handle the high ball either? If Lindegaard has a good match, that could be it for DeGea. Ferguson suffered through three seasons of Barthez the Clown before dropping him. (To be fair, Barthez was quite good his first season with ManU; it was 2001 when he lost the plot.) Don´t expect Ferguson to give the young Spaniard the same leeway.
2) Are Liverpool title contenders?
Smart money is no, not this year, but while we won´t necessarily get a yes this weekend, we could have a no. If Liverpool cannot beat Stoke, there will be not be a title chase. Full stop. Before the Reds can seriously consider their first Premiership trophy, they must stop bleeding points to the likes of Stoke and Sunderland.
3) Is ´arry in trouble?
Spurs fans are generally in a good humor due to the crash and burn of their North London neighbors. Truth is, though, Tottenham have been pretty woeful in their two matches thus far. If McCarthy´s (rather good) Wolves squad hand Tottenham their third defeat on the trot (and with a sub-fit Van der Vaart and Wolves showing a resiliant backline I think it´s likely) then no amount of Arsenal woe will hide the fact that it´s not too rosy at White Hart Lane either.
With no early kickoff, 1000am (or three in the afternoon, UK time) can´t come soon enough.
Enjoy.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Notes on Liverpool
Busy month getting ready for the season, but starting with good news from Halifax, with Corby winning 1-3 and laying down a marker for the Blue Square North season. More on that (maybe) later.
But for the moment, a few notes from Liverpool. In the first half, they looked like a great red machine, but in their success, the seeds of their undoing are seen. Some items that must be addressed for Liverpool to make a title push:
1) Reina is weak moving left to right.
Brilliant goal from Larsson, no doubt, but watch in slow motion -- Reina is in excellent position covering the angle on the left, but when the ball moves to his right, he reacts late, steps too close to his line, and doesn´t set his feet properly. Had he gotten in front of his post, shortening the angle, maybe he gets a hand to it. Maybe not -- but that fundamental weakness in Reina´s game will be exposed for 6-8 goals this season.
2) Flanagan is a project, not a completed project.
At times the boy looked excellent, especially in the first half. He is a good 1v1 defender, comfortable on the ball, and has a good speed of play, getting the ball into the midfield and supporting. However, his touch can be erratic, and he doesn´t defend his back stick strong. Larsson pulled away from him on the goal, and frankly, Flanagan didn´t know where he was. Liverpool have options at right back, and Flanagan may be the future, but he isn´t the present.
3) Liverpool cannot settle for winning.
They do not have the killer instinct to put a game away. It should have been 3-0 at halftime, but Liverpool did not have the killer instinct to put the game away. A moment of brilliance from Larsson, and the draw was done. Liverpool never looked like they thought they could win.
4) Liverpool might not be fit.
They were flat in the second half. Maybe fitness? (I´m looking at you Stewart Downing) Or just lack of belief?
5) Liverpool paid over the odds for Jordan Henderson.
To be honest, Jonjo Shelvey is a much better player: quicker, better anticipation, better range of passing, better defender. I´m sure Dalglish and Comolli have seen something I haven´t, but Henderson is a very average Championship midfielder, not a £20m game changer.
6) Charlie Adam might be missing cog.
The loss of Xabi Alonso was huge for the The Reds. Charlie Adam has a huge range of passing, good positional sense, and seems to play better when the team plays better around him. In the second half he was a little out of the game, but was in the center of everything that Liverpool did well in the first.
It should be an interesting season. For Liverpool another 70 point struggle is possible, but if they can learn to beat the Sunderlands, Villas, and Newcastles, they could be the dark horse for 85+ and be in the conversation with ManU and Chelsea at the sharp end of the table.
But for the moment, a few notes from Liverpool. In the first half, they looked like a great red machine, but in their success, the seeds of their undoing are seen. Some items that must be addressed for Liverpool to make a title push:
1) Reina is weak moving left to right.
Brilliant goal from Larsson, no doubt, but watch in slow motion -- Reina is in excellent position covering the angle on the left, but when the ball moves to his right, he reacts late, steps too close to his line, and doesn´t set his feet properly. Had he gotten in front of his post, shortening the angle, maybe he gets a hand to it. Maybe not -- but that fundamental weakness in Reina´s game will be exposed for 6-8 goals this season.
2) Flanagan is a project, not a completed project.
At times the boy looked excellent, especially in the first half. He is a good 1v1 defender, comfortable on the ball, and has a good speed of play, getting the ball into the midfield and supporting. However, his touch can be erratic, and he doesn´t defend his back stick strong. Larsson pulled away from him on the goal, and frankly, Flanagan didn´t know where he was. Liverpool have options at right back, and Flanagan may be the future, but he isn´t the present.
3) Liverpool cannot settle for winning.
They do not have the killer instinct to put a game away. It should have been 3-0 at halftime, but Liverpool did not have the killer instinct to put the game away. A moment of brilliance from Larsson, and the draw was done. Liverpool never looked like they thought they could win.
4) Liverpool might not be fit.
They were flat in the second half. Maybe fitness? (I´m looking at you Stewart Downing) Or just lack of belief?
5) Liverpool paid over the odds for Jordan Henderson.
To be honest, Jonjo Shelvey is a much better player: quicker, better anticipation, better range of passing, better defender. I´m sure Dalglish and Comolli have seen something I haven´t, but Henderson is a very average Championship midfielder, not a £20m game changer.
6) Charlie Adam might be missing cog.
The loss of Xabi Alonso was huge for the The Reds. Charlie Adam has a huge range of passing, good positional sense, and seems to play better when the team plays better around him. In the second half he was a little out of the game, but was in the center of everything that Liverpool did well in the first.
It should be an interesting season. For Liverpool another 70 point struggle is possible, but if they can learn to beat the Sunderlands, Villas, and Newcastles, they could be the dark horse for 85+ and be in the conversation with ManU and Chelsea at the sharp end of the table.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
On the US Women´s Team
It´s tough for me to get into a regular summer schedule. I am working overnight to supplement my coaching income as I don´t have a regular first-team senior gig at the moment. I keep wanting to take days off, but there really aren´t any in football, even in July. The English club for whom I am doing consulting, analysis, and scouting, Corby Town, has begun preseason; the U17 World Cup just finished; the Copa America comes to its conclusion this week; and, of course, the Women´s World Cup final is this afternoon.
The US should win today: they have been too lucky up to this point not to. To be sure, I admire lucky teams. When backed to the wall, the Americans have played with heart, skill, and passion, and have absolutely refused to accept defeat. They have taken advantage of the torrid officiating (not biased, as shown by baffling decision to allow Brazil to retake their penalty, but just really bad, as shown by Aliane´s card, the failure to eject Carli Lloyd for her blatant handball.) Pia Sundhage has been brilliant in her man management and shows a deep understanding of the game that Bob Bradley cannot even dream of, and has used her substitutes bench to change the tempo and flavor of a match.
However, even the success of the Women´s Team shows us the shortcomings of the American game, and while we will likely celebrate a victory today in Frankfurt, we must also be prepared for massive, and hugely painful, changes if the women are to remain at the top of the game, and the men are to do something more than fall into mediocre obscurity. Watching the US v. France, the Americans were faster, stronger, and at almost every position, more technically gifted. However, they could not maintain possession and attacks were predictable and defendable. Where the French were elegant and deceptive in movement with and without the ball, placing demands on American brains as well as legs, the US attack had the subtlety of a battering ram. The ball, was knocked wide, the team moved forward with numbers, and then a diagonal was played to try and find Abby Wambach´s head. While the French were outrun, they were never outplayed and certainly never out-thought. If Laura Georges had as good a match as she had against England, and the French had a second center back to compliment her, the Americans likely wouldn´t have gotten out of jail.
Against Brazil, the Americans faced a stupifyingly easy defensive system to break down, and yet failed to do so. We bemoan the lack of an ¨American style¨ but there it was for all to see: hey-diddle-diddle-right-up-the-middle. We play kick and chase and hope our individual skill and collective physical conditioning will hold the day. Today, this tournament, it will, but the gap in physical dominance has passed. If the same tournament is replayed next month with the same teams, the Americans might well go out at the quarter final. The wins, while admirable, are not convincing arguments that we have it right, and the seeds of our undoing are showing in the details.
So how have we arrived at the cavalry charge style of football, and how do we develop the kind of collective match intelligence and field awareness the French showed, the creativity of the Brazilians, and the collective organization and communication the Japanese will show this afternoon? It´s really the college style of play -- athletic, muscular, and well, uncreative. Ask any college coach in the Big East, SEC, or other major conference what they look for in a player, and size, speed, and athleticism are going to be in their top five qualities. We play with effectively open substitutions (to the point that now the NCAA allows a blood substitute and head injury substitute to avoid the horror of playing with 10 for a moment) and in a shortened season so the game rewards the team that can run. Simply put, coaches don´t demand elegant play because they don´t know how because the game has never taught the coaches. If your job depends on wins, and route one is the proven effective way, you take route one. So that´s what we have.
The way forward is simple, and will create civil war in US Soccer -- the NCAA must use the Laws of the Game. Substitutions must come into line with the world standard. Our players will learn to play with tempo and guile, and our coaches will learn to manage a game. It will mean players deep on college rosters won´t see the playing time they currently do, so talent will begin to spread to other programs. Skill, and not sheer athleticism, will begin to come to the fore. In the college game, a team that maintains possession is at a disadvantage trying to break down opposition -- as players tire, the opposition can replace them, and in the second half, even re-enter their starters after a five minute break, coaching, and observation. For a team that maintains possession, large scale substitution is undesirable as it breaks the tempo that partnerships establish in the course of a match.
The NCAA, I can tell you by experience, is loathe to make changes, and is quite fond of its exceptionalism. The US Soccer Federation and the National Soccer Coaches Association of America need to fight for the game -- for better or worse, college soccer is here to stay, and our national game will reflect the characteristics of NCAA play. If we continue to reward power and speed over creativity and guile, and the NCAA rules certainly do, today´s match against Japan will be our high water mark. The rest of the world will pass us by.
The US should win today: they have been too lucky up to this point not to. To be sure, I admire lucky teams. When backed to the wall, the Americans have played with heart, skill, and passion, and have absolutely refused to accept defeat. They have taken advantage of the torrid officiating (not biased, as shown by baffling decision to allow Brazil to retake their penalty, but just really bad, as shown by Aliane´s card, the failure to eject Carli Lloyd for her blatant handball.) Pia Sundhage has been brilliant in her man management and shows a deep understanding of the game that Bob Bradley cannot even dream of, and has used her substitutes bench to change the tempo and flavor of a match.
However, even the success of the Women´s Team shows us the shortcomings of the American game, and while we will likely celebrate a victory today in Frankfurt, we must also be prepared for massive, and hugely painful, changes if the women are to remain at the top of the game, and the men are to do something more than fall into mediocre obscurity. Watching the US v. France, the Americans were faster, stronger, and at almost every position, more technically gifted. However, they could not maintain possession and attacks were predictable and defendable. Where the French were elegant and deceptive in movement with and without the ball, placing demands on American brains as well as legs, the US attack had the subtlety of a battering ram. The ball, was knocked wide, the team moved forward with numbers, and then a diagonal was played to try and find Abby Wambach´s head. While the French were outrun, they were never outplayed and certainly never out-thought. If Laura Georges had as good a match as she had against England, and the French had a second center back to compliment her, the Americans likely wouldn´t have gotten out of jail.
Against Brazil, the Americans faced a stupifyingly easy defensive system to break down, and yet failed to do so. We bemoan the lack of an ¨American style¨ but there it was for all to see: hey-diddle-diddle-right-up-the-middle. We play kick and chase and hope our individual skill and collective physical conditioning will hold the day. Today, this tournament, it will, but the gap in physical dominance has passed. If the same tournament is replayed next month with the same teams, the Americans might well go out at the quarter final. The wins, while admirable, are not convincing arguments that we have it right, and the seeds of our undoing are showing in the details.
So how have we arrived at the cavalry charge style of football, and how do we develop the kind of collective match intelligence and field awareness the French showed, the creativity of the Brazilians, and the collective organization and communication the Japanese will show this afternoon? It´s really the college style of play -- athletic, muscular, and well, uncreative. Ask any college coach in the Big East, SEC, or other major conference what they look for in a player, and size, speed, and athleticism are going to be in their top five qualities. We play with effectively open substitutions (to the point that now the NCAA allows a blood substitute and head injury substitute to avoid the horror of playing with 10 for a moment) and in a shortened season so the game rewards the team that can run. Simply put, coaches don´t demand elegant play because they don´t know how because the game has never taught the coaches. If your job depends on wins, and route one is the proven effective way, you take route one. So that´s what we have.
The way forward is simple, and will create civil war in US Soccer -- the NCAA must use the Laws of the Game. Substitutions must come into line with the world standard. Our players will learn to play with tempo and guile, and our coaches will learn to manage a game. It will mean players deep on college rosters won´t see the playing time they currently do, so talent will begin to spread to other programs. Skill, and not sheer athleticism, will begin to come to the fore. In the college game, a team that maintains possession is at a disadvantage trying to break down opposition -- as players tire, the opposition can replace them, and in the second half, even re-enter their starters after a five minute break, coaching, and observation. For a team that maintains possession, large scale substitution is undesirable as it breaks the tempo that partnerships establish in the course of a match.
The NCAA, I can tell you by experience, is loathe to make changes, and is quite fond of its exceptionalism. The US Soccer Federation and the National Soccer Coaches Association of America need to fight for the game -- for better or worse, college soccer is here to stay, and our national game will reflect the characteristics of NCAA play. If we continue to reward power and speed over creativity and guile, and the NCAA rules certainly do, today´s match against Japan will be our high water mark. The rest of the world will pass us by.
Friday, July 8, 2011
Thoughts on Bradley
Much has been written of late about Bob Bradley the current US Men´s National Team Coach, especially with the generally poor performance of the USMNT since the World Cup. Losses in friendlies to Spain (0-4) and Paraguay (0-1) were followed by a desultory Gold Cup campaign including a loss in the group stage to Panama (1-2) and eeking out a win against minnows Guadaloupe (1-0) before being dismantled in the final by Mexico, 2-4, in a match where the US had a lead of 2-0 with a quarter of the match played.
To be fair, my thoughts are based on my perceptions ¨from the cheap seats¨ and my suppositions may be incorrect. However, I will try and be as clear as possible about the assumptions I make, so as to validate my conclusions in the case my assumptions are, in fact, correct.
First, I truly believe it was a huge mistake to offer a four year extension to Bradley´s contract after the World Cup, and an even bigger mistake for Bradley to accept. That is not a reflection of past performance: the US was credible in the World Cup, getting out of group and going out with a noble defeat to Ghana, and was brilliant in the Confederations Cup in 2009, scoring a famous victory against Spain and outplaying Brazil for 45 minutes before the Brazilians put their best performance in for years (or since) to come back and win the final.
Bradley staying on for a second World Cup cycle is madness -- anything less than a final appearance will appear to be a step backward for him, and by reflection, the US program. A WC final appearance is beyond our capabilities, thus the contract never should have been tendered, and Bradley committed professional suicide by accepting. Perhaps he didn´t want to return to MLS, but after the 2014 World Cup, or his sacking, he will lucky to get a part-time job in the NPSL. Had Bradley and the USMNT parted ways, a new coach could have come in, talked about the great work of Bradley as his predecessor, and moved the program forward. Everyone would have looked brilliant and all of the pressure would be on the new coach. As it stands, the squad looks stale, and Bradley out of ideas.
Which brings us to the Mexico match. First, to be fair, the Mexicans are superb, probably the best Mexico side in my memory. They are solid in the back, creative in the middle, and lethal up top. De la Torre has the squad playing a flowing, dynamic style we are more accustomed to seeing from Brazil than from Mexico. After the wreckage left behind by Ericksson, it took the FMF a couple of tries, but they have found the man for the job in ¨El Chepo.¨
I have not gone back and watched the match again, nor done a detailed analysis. I think my impressions watching the match as an involved spectator are, however, telling. Watching the match live, I felt like the Americans were wholly unprepared for the match. Curiously enough, the Mexicans had exactly the same starting XI, and broadly the same game plan they had shown against Honduras. It wasn´t as though de la Torres changed seven players and completely re-organized the squad. I saw no evidence they came out to play Mexico at all. Rather, they appeared to be a skilled team facing an opponent about whom they knew nothing. That, I think, is the most damning thing one can say about a manager: the squad wasn´t ready.
To whit: the American organization was nonsensical. Far too much space was allowed between the lines with Jones and Michael Bradley playing in traditional central roles of a 4-4-1-1, allowing space which Barrera, Guardado, and most especially Dos Santos eagerly exploited. The Americans looks as though they expected the wide forwards to play as English wingers would in the 60s: carry the ball to the by-line and hump it into the box for big lad wearing the #9 shirt to put a head on it or the clever chap in the #10 shirt to pick up the rebound. The Mexicans however, were much cleverer than that, Guardado and Barrera seamlessly exchanging positions with Dos Santos and rarely attempting to make the byline, but rather get the ball into dangerous areas early. Cherundolo was the only American defender who looked like he might have an answer to the Mexican movement of and off the ball.
Thus we come to our second baffling decision by Bradley, the substitution of Cherundolo at the eleventh minute. He was injured, but it was clear from his reaction to the substitute´s board that he felt he could continue. Could he? I don´t know. And neither did Bradley. Bradley had the best medical staff the USSF could muster on the sidelines and he did not avail himself of their services. Rather than pull Cherundolo for an evaluation and play with ten for a couple of minutes, Bradley made the classic amateur (and NCAA coach with an open-substitution rule) mistake of pulling the player. It betrays a lack of understanding of the game to play with ten, a lack of trust in the medical staff to make a quick determination, a lack of trust in the players to play down, and critically a lack of preparation. Any manager at senior level will train the squad to play with ten. With an injury or ejection, the squad adjusts into a predetermined organization and pattern of play and adjusts as needed. Bradley´s quick substitution leads me to believe that preparation, fundamental to anyone working at senior level, simply wasn´t done.
Next is the substitution itself. Anyone who saw the match knows Bornstein was woeful. Sometimes a player is dreadful (unless the player is Kenny Dalglish or Roberto Baggio) and there is nothing the manager can do about it. Fair enough. However, Lichaj, moved from one side to the other in the switch, is a telling case. He looked completely lost, as if he had no idea what his fundamental task was or his primary marking responsibility on the right and Guardado had the freedom of the park. It appeared to me as if Lichaj had no idea that it was a possibility he might change position. If that supposition is correct, that is a double failure: first, each player should broadly understand every other role on the pitch, and secondly, the manager should have a series of Plan Bs available and communicated to the players before the match begins.
However, the Americans, much against the run of play, went up 2-0. Bradley´s response was, well, watch the Mexicans score. With a 2-0 lead, especially when you have been dominated in the center of the park, a response is needed. As the US were playing without a true forward, a plethora of options were available to either press the Mexicans high, denying Castro and Torrado time on the ball, or to back in and choke the space between Hernandez and the backing trio of Barrera, Dos Santos, and Guardado. Instead, no adjustments were made, and the Mexican class shone through, and less than half an hour after the US went up 2-0, Mexico gained the lead.
In the final twenty minutes, I couldn´t tell you what system or organization the US were playing, and I am trained to be able to do so. I am sure I could spend a little time with the film and give you some meaningful diagrams, but the impression was a squad without any ideas and a manager grasping at straws. The Agudelo for Bedoya substitution changed nothing but play Agudelo out of position and thus generate more passing opportunities to Guardado due to Agudelo´s naïveté in defense, and the Klejstan for Adu substitution wasn´t noticeable at all, as Klejstan was just as anonymous for the last ten minutes as Adu had been for the fifteen minutes prior. Although to be fair, Adu was probably the best player in a US shirt for much of the first hour.
So -- where do we stand? If my suppositions are correct: that the squad was not adequately briefed, that there was no plan B, that no preparation was made to play a man down, and from observation: Cherundolo was substituted without a hands on evaluation by medical staff and no meaningful adjustments were made to the changing situation, then I have to say, Bradley must go.
No doubt Bob Bradley has been a loyal and valuable servant to US Soccer. However, a change must be made and a manager with tangible senior (and preferably non-MLS) experience must be brought in. To continue with Bradley is a disservice to the game, to our country, and to the legacy of Bob Bradley, already past high-water mark and receding fast.
To be fair, my thoughts are based on my perceptions ¨from the cheap seats¨ and my suppositions may be incorrect. However, I will try and be as clear as possible about the assumptions I make, so as to validate my conclusions in the case my assumptions are, in fact, correct.
First, I truly believe it was a huge mistake to offer a four year extension to Bradley´s contract after the World Cup, and an even bigger mistake for Bradley to accept. That is not a reflection of past performance: the US was credible in the World Cup, getting out of group and going out with a noble defeat to Ghana, and was brilliant in the Confederations Cup in 2009, scoring a famous victory against Spain and outplaying Brazil for 45 minutes before the Brazilians put their best performance in for years (or since) to come back and win the final.
Bradley staying on for a second World Cup cycle is madness -- anything less than a final appearance will appear to be a step backward for him, and by reflection, the US program. A WC final appearance is beyond our capabilities, thus the contract never should have been tendered, and Bradley committed professional suicide by accepting. Perhaps he didn´t want to return to MLS, but after the 2014 World Cup, or his sacking, he will lucky to get a part-time job in the NPSL. Had Bradley and the USMNT parted ways, a new coach could have come in, talked about the great work of Bradley as his predecessor, and moved the program forward. Everyone would have looked brilliant and all of the pressure would be on the new coach. As it stands, the squad looks stale, and Bradley out of ideas.
Which brings us to the Mexico match. First, to be fair, the Mexicans are superb, probably the best Mexico side in my memory. They are solid in the back, creative in the middle, and lethal up top. De la Torre has the squad playing a flowing, dynamic style we are more accustomed to seeing from Brazil than from Mexico. After the wreckage left behind by Ericksson, it took the FMF a couple of tries, but they have found the man for the job in ¨El Chepo.¨
I have not gone back and watched the match again, nor done a detailed analysis. I think my impressions watching the match as an involved spectator are, however, telling. Watching the match live, I felt like the Americans were wholly unprepared for the match. Curiously enough, the Mexicans had exactly the same starting XI, and broadly the same game plan they had shown against Honduras. It wasn´t as though de la Torres changed seven players and completely re-organized the squad. I saw no evidence they came out to play Mexico at all. Rather, they appeared to be a skilled team facing an opponent about whom they knew nothing. That, I think, is the most damning thing one can say about a manager: the squad wasn´t ready.
To whit: the American organization was nonsensical. Far too much space was allowed between the lines with Jones and Michael Bradley playing in traditional central roles of a 4-4-1-1, allowing space which Barrera, Guardado, and most especially Dos Santos eagerly exploited. The Americans looks as though they expected the wide forwards to play as English wingers would in the 60s: carry the ball to the by-line and hump it into the box for big lad wearing the #9 shirt to put a head on it or the clever chap in the #10 shirt to pick up the rebound. The Mexicans however, were much cleverer than that, Guardado and Barrera seamlessly exchanging positions with Dos Santos and rarely attempting to make the byline, but rather get the ball into dangerous areas early. Cherundolo was the only American defender who looked like he might have an answer to the Mexican movement of and off the ball.
Thus we come to our second baffling decision by Bradley, the substitution of Cherundolo at the eleventh minute. He was injured, but it was clear from his reaction to the substitute´s board that he felt he could continue. Could he? I don´t know. And neither did Bradley. Bradley had the best medical staff the USSF could muster on the sidelines and he did not avail himself of their services. Rather than pull Cherundolo for an evaluation and play with ten for a couple of minutes, Bradley made the classic amateur (and NCAA coach with an open-substitution rule) mistake of pulling the player. It betrays a lack of understanding of the game to play with ten, a lack of trust in the medical staff to make a quick determination, a lack of trust in the players to play down, and critically a lack of preparation. Any manager at senior level will train the squad to play with ten. With an injury or ejection, the squad adjusts into a predetermined organization and pattern of play and adjusts as needed. Bradley´s quick substitution leads me to believe that preparation, fundamental to anyone working at senior level, simply wasn´t done.
Next is the substitution itself. Anyone who saw the match knows Bornstein was woeful. Sometimes a player is dreadful (unless the player is Kenny Dalglish or Roberto Baggio) and there is nothing the manager can do about it. Fair enough. However, Lichaj, moved from one side to the other in the switch, is a telling case. He looked completely lost, as if he had no idea what his fundamental task was or his primary marking responsibility on the right and Guardado had the freedom of the park. It appeared to me as if Lichaj had no idea that it was a possibility he might change position. If that supposition is correct, that is a double failure: first, each player should broadly understand every other role on the pitch, and secondly, the manager should have a series of Plan Bs available and communicated to the players before the match begins.
However, the Americans, much against the run of play, went up 2-0. Bradley´s response was, well, watch the Mexicans score. With a 2-0 lead, especially when you have been dominated in the center of the park, a response is needed. As the US were playing without a true forward, a plethora of options were available to either press the Mexicans high, denying Castro and Torrado time on the ball, or to back in and choke the space between Hernandez and the backing trio of Barrera, Dos Santos, and Guardado. Instead, no adjustments were made, and the Mexican class shone through, and less than half an hour after the US went up 2-0, Mexico gained the lead.
In the final twenty minutes, I couldn´t tell you what system or organization the US were playing, and I am trained to be able to do so. I am sure I could spend a little time with the film and give you some meaningful diagrams, but the impression was a squad without any ideas and a manager grasping at straws. The Agudelo for Bedoya substitution changed nothing but play Agudelo out of position and thus generate more passing opportunities to Guardado due to Agudelo´s naïveté in defense, and the Klejstan for Adu substitution wasn´t noticeable at all, as Klejstan was just as anonymous for the last ten minutes as Adu had been for the fifteen minutes prior. Although to be fair, Adu was probably the best player in a US shirt for much of the first hour.
So -- where do we stand? If my suppositions are correct: that the squad was not adequately briefed, that there was no plan B, that no preparation was made to play a man down, and from observation: Cherundolo was substituted without a hands on evaluation by medical staff and no meaningful adjustments were made to the changing situation, then I have to say, Bradley must go.
No doubt Bob Bradley has been a loyal and valuable servant to US Soccer. However, a change must be made and a manager with tangible senior (and preferably non-MLS) experience must be brought in. To continue with Bradley is a disservice to the game, to our country, and to the legacy of Bob Bradley, already past high-water mark and receding fast.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Specifics
The last three weeks have been a source of monumental frustration for me (in part leading to little sleep and little desire to write when I have been caught up on sleep) in the ¨silly season¨ of tryouts. Many of the failures of American soccer have been painfully evident, primarily that the people making footballing decisions (parents with little or no experience in the game) are also the least qualified to make decisions. The coaching fraternity, who should be educating parents, instead pander to their biases (competition and winning) in an effort to get the best team. Development models rarely enter into the equation -- clubs and teams use an exploitative model to reach for short-term results.
Structurally, a sea-change needs to occur to improve the conditions of the game and solve many of the problems. Leadership needs to come from the Federation and not just the new Technical Document from Claudio Reyna´s study group, authored by Dr. Javier Perez (although it is certainly a good start). Directives must be issued by fiat from those within the game and structural change enforced. Certainly, there will be dissent (and mistakes) but a show of hands is no way to make expert decisions. The experts, those that understand child psychology, skill acquisition, the technical, psychological, and emotional demands of the game, need to be making the decisions and the Federation enforce those decisions. Having experts is useless if they are ignored.
However, structural issues are not my concern today. Ryan Knapp, Digital Manager at the NSCAA, and one of the ownership partners at NPSL club FC Buffalo said, ¨Getting a little tired of American soccer problems blamed on 'player development.' Let´s start getting specific.¨ Fair play: as a coach, I cannot change the structure of American soccer, though I can be a part of that change. However, I can do very specific things within my club, my team, my training sessions to improve player development. Here then, are my solutions in July, 2011. I am sure some are off-base or inefficient, and I am confident that in July, 2012 my ideas will change. Thus my first point:
1) Make a stand. Find YOUR specifics, YOUR philosophy, and go with it. You can (and should) change your mind, always be willing and ready to modify and adapt, but you must start somewhere. It is far too easy to do nothing, to accept the status quo, because as a coach I can´t change the world, or I´m not 100% sure that everything I want to do will work. Just because we lack wings to fly does not excuse us from the obligation to get up and walk. It WON´T all work. John Hackworth, now of the Philadelphia Union, is the best coach, best manager, I have ever seen. He is clear and passionate on his ideas and implementation for youth development, and as deep a thinker about the game as anyone in this country, and likely the world. But I can promise you Hack makes mistakes every day. I know his approach changes every year. Always seek perfection, but if even the best in the game comes short of perfect, don´t demand it of yourself before you begin. This all segués into:
2) Never stop learning. If you expect your players to be constantly improving, you must demand the same of yourself. If going along and ¨phoning it in¨ is acceptable to you, you do not deserve the privilege of working in youth sports.
3) Create a curriculum. Decide what you want to teach, and work with your club to establish a club-wide curriculum. Youth coaches are paid more in the US than probably anywhere in the world, and yet less is demanded of us. A club should have a clear development program from U6 to U19. Ask the coaches of younger age groups what you should expect your players to know. Tell coaches of the older age groups what you have taught.
A few thoughts:
U9 and under -- mastery of the ball. Teach the kids basic moves, encourage them to use them in game situations, and at U8/U9 begin working on first touch, always focusing on proper body shape. Remember at this age the neural feedback mechanisms for correct foot positions are not necessarily on-line, but the awareness of which foot, knees bent, basic shape, and mobility of hips are. Use lots and lots of 1v1 -> 3v3 to encourage touches on the ball and praise kids for trying the moves you are teaching in technical warmup.
U9 to U11 -- application of technique in larger settings. By the end of the U9 year, players should be able to control the ball, and begin to understand how to use the ball to control the game: when to pass, when to dribble, when to shoot. The basic principles of play can be introduced as the players have developed the spatial awareness to have some sense of shape, and the technical ability to move the ball without struggle. Lots of 4v4, and expect the players to begin to understand the tasks of each of the players in a 4v4 -- the sweeper providing support and distribution in possession, marking the striker and cover for the midfield in defense; the midfielders combining with the forward and creating space in the attack, tracking back in defense; the forward finding space and turning or bouncing the ball to a midfielder (and when each is appropriate) in the attack, making play predictable in defense by limiting options.
U11 to U13 -- Depening understanding of the principles of play and introduce functional tasks in the game environment. At this age, the players should have a fair understanding of what the game looks like, and you should be introducing the functional roles in 7- to 11-a-side. Introduce phase play and basic functional work, but keep everything grounded in the principles of play. Every player should have a basic understanding of every role on the park. Pigeon holing players too early, even if you correctly pick their ¨natural¨ position, will result in uncreative players with limited understanding of what goes on around them. At this age, do not be afraid to not have every player working every minute of a training session. The tempo of every exercise should be high, but that may well mean players need breaks, so rotate players in. If engaged in 5v5, demand the 6 players resting pay attention. Don´t expect them to watch intently for half an hour, but during a five minute physical rest, the brain can stay active.
U13 to U15 refining basic tasks, and beginning to introduce situational play -- how the roles of a given position change depending on formation, organization, and game situation. Begin to teach tempo of a match, and how to use possession as a defensive tactic.
U15 to U17 learning how to win games -- applying the technical skill, tactical insight, and collective understanding of function to outscore the opponent as they begin the competitive phase. All training should be at match pace and full effort and attention should be demanded of the players. Players should be fully aware of their responsibility for their own improvement and the responsibility to the others on the team to provide a challenging training environment.
4) Establish meaningful goals -- not number of wins, as that isn´t meaningful in youth soccer. (If I play a TOPSoccer team two years younger, I should win without ever surrendering possession; if I play the national pool team in an age group older, I shouldn´t ever touch the ball after kickoff. Neither result is meaningful.) Rather, what you expect of yourself and your players for the session, the week, the season, the year. What will you improve and how will you know it? (And that may be, especially at the older ages, something that is measured against a known opponent and reflected in a very objective way, even a scoreline.)
5) Have a session plan written down every day. Don´t just wing it -- make each session meaningful and related to your curriculum, your goals, your observation of past matches, your anticipation of upcoming matches. What do your players need to learn TODAY? Write it down.
6) Take notes, and evaluate your players and yourself. Even if it´s just 15 minutes, write something down after each training session. What worked? What didn´t? Did you get all of your coaching points in? Where did you deviate from the session plan? Who surprised you?
And finally, getting back around to a larger philosophical notion: never settle. Our ideal should always be perfection, but we always have to accept we will never quite reach it. Don´t settle for less though -- demand more: of yourself, of your club, of your players. If you don´t strive for more, the status quo is all you will ever get. The game and most especially the kids, deserve better.
For more information and ideas on curriculum see U.S. Soccer Curriculum by Dr. Javier Perez, at: http://resources.ussoccer.com/n7v8b8j3/cds/downloads/Full%20U.S.%20Soccer%20Coaching%20Curriculum.pdf ; Soccer Awareness by Wayne Harrison, Reedswain, 2010 ; Coaching Soccer by Bert VanLingen, Reedswain, 1997 (especially for the roles in 4v4 and use of the game to teach the principles of play in a technically pressured and competitive, yet fun environment.)
Structurally, a sea-change needs to occur to improve the conditions of the game and solve many of the problems. Leadership needs to come from the Federation and not just the new Technical Document from Claudio Reyna´s study group, authored by Dr. Javier Perez (although it is certainly a good start). Directives must be issued by fiat from those within the game and structural change enforced. Certainly, there will be dissent (and mistakes) but a show of hands is no way to make expert decisions. The experts, those that understand child psychology, skill acquisition, the technical, psychological, and emotional demands of the game, need to be making the decisions and the Federation enforce those decisions. Having experts is useless if they are ignored.
However, structural issues are not my concern today. Ryan Knapp, Digital Manager at the NSCAA, and one of the ownership partners at NPSL club FC Buffalo said, ¨Getting a little tired of American soccer problems blamed on 'player development.' Let´s start getting specific.¨ Fair play: as a coach, I cannot change the structure of American soccer, though I can be a part of that change. However, I can do very specific things within my club, my team, my training sessions to improve player development. Here then, are my solutions in July, 2011. I am sure some are off-base or inefficient, and I am confident that in July, 2012 my ideas will change. Thus my first point:
1) Make a stand. Find YOUR specifics, YOUR philosophy, and go with it. You can (and should) change your mind, always be willing and ready to modify and adapt, but you must start somewhere. It is far too easy to do nothing, to accept the status quo, because as a coach I can´t change the world, or I´m not 100% sure that everything I want to do will work. Just because we lack wings to fly does not excuse us from the obligation to get up and walk. It WON´T all work. John Hackworth, now of the Philadelphia Union, is the best coach, best manager, I have ever seen. He is clear and passionate on his ideas and implementation for youth development, and as deep a thinker about the game as anyone in this country, and likely the world. But I can promise you Hack makes mistakes every day. I know his approach changes every year. Always seek perfection, but if even the best in the game comes short of perfect, don´t demand it of yourself before you begin. This all segués into:
2) Never stop learning. If you expect your players to be constantly improving, you must demand the same of yourself. If going along and ¨phoning it in¨ is acceptable to you, you do not deserve the privilege of working in youth sports.
3) Create a curriculum. Decide what you want to teach, and work with your club to establish a club-wide curriculum. Youth coaches are paid more in the US than probably anywhere in the world, and yet less is demanded of us. A club should have a clear development program from U6 to U19. Ask the coaches of younger age groups what you should expect your players to know. Tell coaches of the older age groups what you have taught.
A few thoughts:
U9 and under -- mastery of the ball. Teach the kids basic moves, encourage them to use them in game situations, and at U8/U9 begin working on first touch, always focusing on proper body shape. Remember at this age the neural feedback mechanisms for correct foot positions are not necessarily on-line, but the awareness of which foot, knees bent, basic shape, and mobility of hips are. Use lots and lots of 1v1 -> 3v3 to encourage touches on the ball and praise kids for trying the moves you are teaching in technical warmup.
U9 to U11 -- application of technique in larger settings. By the end of the U9 year, players should be able to control the ball, and begin to understand how to use the ball to control the game: when to pass, when to dribble, when to shoot. The basic principles of play can be introduced as the players have developed the spatial awareness to have some sense of shape, and the technical ability to move the ball without struggle. Lots of 4v4, and expect the players to begin to understand the tasks of each of the players in a 4v4 -- the sweeper providing support and distribution in possession, marking the striker and cover for the midfield in defense; the midfielders combining with the forward and creating space in the attack, tracking back in defense; the forward finding space and turning or bouncing the ball to a midfielder (and when each is appropriate) in the attack, making play predictable in defense by limiting options.
U11 to U13 -- Depening understanding of the principles of play and introduce functional tasks in the game environment. At this age, the players should have a fair understanding of what the game looks like, and you should be introducing the functional roles in 7- to 11-a-side. Introduce phase play and basic functional work, but keep everything grounded in the principles of play. Every player should have a basic understanding of every role on the park. Pigeon holing players too early, even if you correctly pick their ¨natural¨ position, will result in uncreative players with limited understanding of what goes on around them. At this age, do not be afraid to not have every player working every minute of a training session. The tempo of every exercise should be high, but that may well mean players need breaks, so rotate players in. If engaged in 5v5, demand the 6 players resting pay attention. Don´t expect them to watch intently for half an hour, but during a five minute physical rest, the brain can stay active.
U13 to U15 refining basic tasks, and beginning to introduce situational play -- how the roles of a given position change depending on formation, organization, and game situation. Begin to teach tempo of a match, and how to use possession as a defensive tactic.
U15 to U17 learning how to win games -- applying the technical skill, tactical insight, and collective understanding of function to outscore the opponent as they begin the competitive phase. All training should be at match pace and full effort and attention should be demanded of the players. Players should be fully aware of their responsibility for their own improvement and the responsibility to the others on the team to provide a challenging training environment.
4) Establish meaningful goals -- not number of wins, as that isn´t meaningful in youth soccer. (If I play a TOPSoccer team two years younger, I should win without ever surrendering possession; if I play the national pool team in an age group older, I shouldn´t ever touch the ball after kickoff. Neither result is meaningful.) Rather, what you expect of yourself and your players for the session, the week, the season, the year. What will you improve and how will you know it? (And that may be, especially at the older ages, something that is measured against a known opponent and reflected in a very objective way, even a scoreline.)
5) Have a session plan written down every day. Don´t just wing it -- make each session meaningful and related to your curriculum, your goals, your observation of past matches, your anticipation of upcoming matches. What do your players need to learn TODAY? Write it down.
6) Take notes, and evaluate your players and yourself. Even if it´s just 15 minutes, write something down after each training session. What worked? What didn´t? Did you get all of your coaching points in? Where did you deviate from the session plan? Who surprised you?
And finally, getting back around to a larger philosophical notion: never settle. Our ideal should always be perfection, but we always have to accept we will never quite reach it. Don´t settle for less though -- demand more: of yourself, of your club, of your players. If you don´t strive for more, the status quo is all you will ever get. The game and most especially the kids, deserve better.
For more information and ideas on curriculum see U.S. Soccer Curriculum by Dr. Javier Perez, at: http://resources.ussoccer.com/n7v8b8j3/cds/downloads/Full%20U.S.%20Soccer%20Coaching%20Curriculum.pdf ; Soccer Awareness by Wayne Harrison, Reedswain, 2010 ; Coaching Soccer by Bert VanLingen, Reedswain, 1997 (especially for the roles in 4v4 and use of the game to teach the principles of play in a technically pressured and competitive, yet fun environment.)
Monday, June 13, 2011
ODP
I just returned from New Jersey from the Region I Olympic Development Program Tournament. I was pleased (and to be honest, pleasantly surprised) at the progress and play shown by our boys (PA West, 1998). However, I have to say, watching and ODP tournament, it is easily seen why, in spite of our massive participation numbers, we fail to develop players to the highest levels.
While individual skill was shown, watching 1997 and 1998 players, the level of understanding of the shape of the game -- that is, basic application of principles of play, was fair at best. The understanding of width was generally limited to the weakside wide midfielder going high and wide. As central midfielders were rarely mobile off the ball, nor did they look two passes in advance, even that rudimentary width was never exploited. Instead, the most common method of buildup was one pass into the midfield, and then a ball launched over the top or into the corner. Although many players possessed the skill to possess and penetrate, the default setting of most squads appeared to rely on big balls, and the athleticism of the forwards to catch up.
I always tell my players I cannot make them better -- I can only give them the tools to improve, but they are responsible for their own game. Watching the ODP tournament, theoretically the second tier of our player development in the US (the first being the players in the Developmental Academy system) and comparing them to the tactical understanding of same age players in England, I wonder if we, as a coaching fraternity, are giving those kids the tools. We have little time with the ODP squads (due to weather, I believe we had a grand total of five outdoor training sessions in PAWest) and I´m not sure we are really making a positive impact.
That said, I have to say I was pleased with the performance and improvement of our lads. After the first day, we tasked them to think of something they did well, and something they could improve upon for the second day. I could tell in the way they approached the game on Sunday morning, they certainly did. We played with intelligence and a bit of a cutting edge.
I don´t have any Earth-shattering insights on our next step of improvement, either the 1998 PAWest boys squad or the Olympic Development Program as a whole. However, I will be thinking about the details of what I can do to be a little better, give the lads a few more tools, a little better learning environment next year. If I´m not improving, I don´t deserve to work in youth soccer.
While individual skill was shown, watching 1997 and 1998 players, the level of understanding of the shape of the game -- that is, basic application of principles of play, was fair at best. The understanding of width was generally limited to the weakside wide midfielder going high and wide. As central midfielders were rarely mobile off the ball, nor did they look two passes in advance, even that rudimentary width was never exploited. Instead, the most common method of buildup was one pass into the midfield, and then a ball launched over the top or into the corner. Although many players possessed the skill to possess and penetrate, the default setting of most squads appeared to rely on big balls, and the athleticism of the forwards to catch up.
I always tell my players I cannot make them better -- I can only give them the tools to improve, but they are responsible for their own game. Watching the ODP tournament, theoretically the second tier of our player development in the US (the first being the players in the Developmental Academy system) and comparing them to the tactical understanding of same age players in England, I wonder if we, as a coaching fraternity, are giving those kids the tools. We have little time with the ODP squads (due to weather, I believe we had a grand total of five outdoor training sessions in PAWest) and I´m not sure we are really making a positive impact.
That said, I have to say I was pleased with the performance and improvement of our lads. After the first day, we tasked them to think of something they did well, and something they could improve upon for the second day. I could tell in the way they approached the game on Sunday morning, they certainly did. We played with intelligence and a bit of a cutting edge.
I don´t have any Earth-shattering insights on our next step of improvement, either the 1998 PAWest boys squad or the Olympic Development Program as a whole. However, I will be thinking about the details of what I can do to be a little better, give the lads a few more tools, a little better learning environment next year. If I´m not improving, I don´t deserve to work in youth soccer.
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
There Are No Days Off
As excited as I was about yesterday, I am drained and tired today. Andy Burgess has stepped down as manager a Preston North End WFC. It´s not surprising, as we had talked about the time commitment of working at both Corby and PNEWFC this season, but more importantly the investment of heart and soul. Coaching at two clubs is like living two lives, having two hearts. It´s not just time and focus. A football man lives and breathes the game, and Andy is a true football man.
I had a tough session last night and a disagreeable conversation about player development that I don´t care to go into at the moment. I would really like a day off today. Of course, I have no training commitments tonight, only a few administrative and research items that can be put off, but there really aren´t any days off in soccer. I don´t know if other sports are like this, but it consumes you and you live with football in every minute. Sometimes it´s a little much.
But I am tired -- Mondays are always tough -- and six or seven hours of sleep will do me some good.
Then it will be up, a cup of coffee, and digging in to research on patterns of play or perhaps construction of tryout sessions and evaluation criteria. You don´t get a day off, but even Bill Shankley or Alex Ferguson had to sleep sometime.
I had a tough session last night and a disagreeable conversation about player development that I don´t care to go into at the moment. I would really like a day off today. Of course, I have no training commitments tonight, only a few administrative and research items that can be put off, but there really aren´t any days off in soccer. I don´t know if other sports are like this, but it consumes you and you live with football in every minute. Sometimes it´s a little much.
But I am tired -- Mondays are always tough -- and six or seven hours of sleep will do me some good.
Then it will be up, a cup of coffee, and digging in to research on patterns of play or perhaps construction of tryout sessions and evaluation criteria. You don´t get a day off, but even Bill Shankley or Alex Ferguson had to sleep sometime.
Monday, June 6, 2011
Monday Morning, Mind Spinning
I´ve worked as a temp on an overnight shift at a furniture warehouse since I´ve returned from England to keep some semblance of cash flow. Monday is tough because I usually get home about 700am (a little earlier this morning -- work is slow) and have to be up before 300pm to get ready for ODP and make the drive across town. It´s tough to get to sleep, because I usually have a head full of ideas on Monday, thinking through the sessions for the week and getting excited about working with the players.
Today is especially tough, but I´ve got to drink a glass of juice and go to bed. We will be working on set pieces with the ODP boys tonight, and I will introduce them to briefing charts so the substitutes can see exactly what their tasks are so when there is a set-piece there is no confusion about who takes what role. I´ll also be talking with the Gaffer, Andy Burgess, this afternoon. We are going to talk about the upcoming season with PNE, working with Corby Town (Andy is player/coach at Corby this season), and a couple of ideas for business projects that we have. And then there is the managerial vacancy at Torquay to talk about, and Andy and family have a new dog.
To add to all of that, Century starts academy evaluations and team tryouts next week. As I have in the past tryouts, I will be using a couple of exercises from the FA Soccer Star Challenge Program to generate objective assessment numbers for the evaluations. Beyond that, though, I need to plan out the tryouts and give an outline to the evaluators of what qualities I want them to consider in their evaluations.
Right now I don´t want to sleep -- all of these things on the agenda, and I want to jump in. But I can´t do it all at once -- no one can. So it´s to bed for a few hours of rest and hard at it this afternoon.
Today is especially tough, but I´ve got to drink a glass of juice and go to bed. We will be working on set pieces with the ODP boys tonight, and I will introduce them to briefing charts so the substitutes can see exactly what their tasks are so when there is a set-piece there is no confusion about who takes what role. I´ll also be talking with the Gaffer, Andy Burgess, this afternoon. We are going to talk about the upcoming season with PNE, working with Corby Town (Andy is player/coach at Corby this season), and a couple of ideas for business projects that we have. And then there is the managerial vacancy at Torquay to talk about, and Andy and family have a new dog.
To add to all of that, Century starts academy evaluations and team tryouts next week. As I have in the past tryouts, I will be using a couple of exercises from the FA Soccer Star Challenge Program to generate objective assessment numbers for the evaluations. Beyond that, though, I need to plan out the tryouts and give an outline to the evaluators of what qualities I want them to consider in their evaluations.
Right now I don´t want to sleep -- all of these things on the agenda, and I want to jump in. But I can´t do it all at once -- no one can. So it´s to bed for a few hours of rest and hard at it this afternoon.
Friday, June 3, 2011
Player Development Models as a Moral Issue
Unfortunately, while American coaches espouse a formative player development model: respecting the individual and encouraging creative engagement with the game, most clubs and most associations still employ a exploitative model: recruiting players to produce strong teams to win the most competitions at every age. To be sure, there are counter-examples, and our coaching curricula, best practices, and pedagogical research all point to the formative model. However, there are strong cultural forces supporting the exploitative model, such as the push in educational policy towards standardized testing, as exemplified in the No Child Left Behind Act, nearly universally hated among educators, as it pushes them to train kids to take tests, rather than educate them. Of course, not least of the obstacles facing best practices for development of players is the belief of many (probably a minority, but vocal and significant minority) that the best thing for their child is to be on a winning team, and increasingly this means winning more, winning earlier.
In Western Pennsylvania, the win earlier, win more culture has produced the phenomenon of cup tryouts for U9 players, and formation of teams at that age. (This is counter to what is happening to much of American soccer with the example of Georgia´s academy program now meaning teams and leagues are not formed until U13, though organized, state scheduled friendlies begin at U9.) I´m not convinced there is a good metric to measure a seven year old in May and accurately judge how well the child will play as an eight year old the following June, but even if there is, those metrics are not always applied when selecting teams.
I spoke last week with a father of a very talented eight year old who was just cut from a U10 tryout, though she was offered a non-roster spot. He said he knows he is biased, but his daughter was clearly one of the four or five best at the tryout, but the club was trying to keep a group of kids together from one community, for fear of breaking up a carpool. His child was at a disadvantage being a July birthday, competing against kids 10 and 11 months older, which at that age is a huge difference: over 10% of their lives to date. He wants his daughter to improve and resented being told she isn´t good enough. His concern was that she would see that roadblock and, well, take her ball and go home: just quit the game and go somewhere else she is appreciated. He was relieved she is still wanting to train, and is interested in moving on to another club rather than another sport.
The club with which I work, Century United, is not going to form fixed roster teams at U9 and U10, but rather register player pools, and form ad hoc game rosters. I know that doesn´t seem revolutionary to everyone reading outside of the US, but here a player is registered to a team, not a club, thus there is no roster selection after the tryouts – you select your 16 or 18 for the year in June. When the academy director was describing what we will be doing, one of the fathers, who is also a coach, laughed and said, ¨Sounds great, but there is no way you´ll do it because you have to market to the Pittsburgh mentality of win all, win now.¨
I thought about what he said for a bit, and I disagree -- as coaches we should be marketing our expertise, and frankly, we should know better than the average parent. It would be hubris to think we care more (and I would hope that parents care more about their kids than we do) but we should know more about development and sport. It´s what we are paid to do. Parents are paying good money and should reasonably expect us to do our best for their kids. If we aren´t because we are trying to conform to a marketing model in lieu of the child´s best interest, our values are skewed.
The player certainly has a fundamental right to be treated with respect by the adults in their life. If we, as coaches, believe it is in the best interest of the child to have an open roster pool that recognizes the varying rates of development through a season year of each individual, but we instead choose a different path so we can market to a perceived wider audience, we are choosing money over the welfare of the children placed in our care. And that is just wrong. Full stop.
There are certainly legitimate differences of opinion about best practices for player development, but we need to recognize these discussions, disagreements, and decisions, are not mere marketing exercises. It´s much more important than that.
Player development, appropriate competition, depth of training, are all moral issues, not marketing.
For further discussion of academy training models, see the Spring, 2011 issue of Insight magazine for an article ¨An 'Elite' Academy: A Discussion¨ by José Portoles, former Academy Director at Valencia CF.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
I Want More
A couple of months ago, I was living in Preston, England and coaching for Preston North End Women´s Football Club in the Northern Premier League. About a week before I was to return to the States, I was walking home from Preston to Bamber Bridge, about two and a half miles of walking path built on a disused tram-way. It was about one in the morning on a clear cold night and I paused to watch the train on the tracks about a mile west of me, cross the River Ribble and slow into Preston Station, making one its last stops before Scotland.
I felt the damp cold on me, thought about the good fortune of working with a great manager, a talented squad, and to be surrounded by people who love and respect me. I said out loud, ¨If this is my high water mark, I can live with that.¨
But now as I write this at my desk, hearing the train pull into the Greensburg, Pennsylvania station on its first stop of the morning on its daily journey to New York, I want more. I want to take what I´ve learned coaching first team, senior football, in one of the top women´s league in the world, and apply those lessons to help make the youth players I work with better. I want to achieve more, put a player on a national team again, make it to the professional level, win more.
So this blog is about applying the lessons from the top of the game to a youth setting. This spring, I´ve worked with three different soccer centers in four locations, with players from U8 to U14. This summer, we will try and assemble a U14 girls team to compete at the Classic/Cup level and see what we can accomplish. I am still on the books as Development Consultant at Preston North End WFC, and we will look to overcome the technical issues for me to contribute video analysis to the squad. And finally, I am working to establish a relationship with Corby Town FC with match and video analysis, and try to help them push on from Conference North to the Blue Square Premier.
Now that I have had a taste of the game coached, managed, played, done properly, I want more. I have a lot more to give, and I think there is much more for me to acheive.
I felt the damp cold on me, thought about the good fortune of working with a great manager, a talented squad, and to be surrounded by people who love and respect me. I said out loud, ¨If this is my high water mark, I can live with that.¨
But now as I write this at my desk, hearing the train pull into the Greensburg, Pennsylvania station on its first stop of the morning on its daily journey to New York, I want more. I want to take what I´ve learned coaching first team, senior football, in one of the top women´s league in the world, and apply those lessons to help make the youth players I work with better. I want to achieve more, put a player on a national team again, make it to the professional level, win more.
So this blog is about applying the lessons from the top of the game to a youth setting. This spring, I´ve worked with three different soccer centers in four locations, with players from U8 to U14. This summer, we will try and assemble a U14 girls team to compete at the Classic/Cup level and see what we can accomplish. I am still on the books as Development Consultant at Preston North End WFC, and we will look to overcome the technical issues for me to contribute video analysis to the squad. And finally, I am working to establish a relationship with Corby Town FC with match and video analysis, and try to help them push on from Conference North to the Blue Square Premier.
Now that I have had a taste of the game coached, managed, played, done properly, I want more. I have a lot more to give, and I think there is much more for me to acheive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)