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.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
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.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)