What Yoga Does for the Athlete and for the Squad.
Having just completed my certification as a Yoga Sports Coach with Yoga Sports Science, I get the question, ¨why yoga and football?¨ frequently, and usually in two completely different ways. First (usually from Americans and of course ¨why yoga and soccer?¨) with total incredulity, as they see no relationship between yoga and soccer and think it is totally strange anyone would be linking the two; second (usually from English) with genuine curiosity, as they see no relationship, but know there must be one as footballers such as Giggs and Freidel tout the benefits of yoga as integral to their continued performance.
I have to open with a quick caveat: this are my thoughts and opinions based on my experience. I am a YSS trained coach, but my opinions shouldn´t be construed as a position paper from Yoga Sports Science any more than they should be considered a position paper from the United States Soccer Federation just because I hold a coaching license from them as well. That said, the benefits of a yoga practice are seen across multiple case studies by different YSS coaches. Next week, I will talk a little more about how yoga changes me as a coach, and that is much more unique to my situation.
For performance enhancement, yoga is different from other modalities, as so much of the improvement is subtle, and very difficult to test. However, with elite athletes, the differences in performance between dominating a match and never seeing the pitch are minimal. There is a massive difference between a D3 college player and a journeyman professional. There is very little between a journeyman professional and an international-level player. As you move up the performance ladder, each incremental step in performance is smaller, and also harder to find. Elite athletes are looking for marginal gains, slight edges, and yoga helps find those marginal gains.
As a physical exercise protocol, yoga is not revolutionary, but combines eccentric exercise (well-demonstrated to improve tendinopathies and improve functional mobility), balance (well-demonstrated to reduce rates of joint injury), and flexibility (which shows marginal improvements in soft tissue injury rates as well as performance improvement.) The unique approach yoga provides is not just in combining all three, but the emphasis on mental focus, which is massive in working with the elite athlete.
Elite athletes are, obviously, competitive individuals, and the competitive nature extends to the attitude with their bodies. Footballers, taking one with the other, view exercise as a competition to push their body beyond a previous limit, to ¨win¨ the workout. Yoga turns that on its head – the athlete is invited to inhabit the body and to develop a knowledge of the limitations and capabilities of the body to use it as an ally to win a match.
The marginal performance gains are seen with decrease in rates of injury, including injuries that don´t warrant a drop from the team sheet, and improvement in playing comfort. An athlete with a regular yoga practice is also going to be able to more readily distinguish between an ache and a pain – and adjust training schedules accordingly. Further, Yoga Sport Science data suggests (not published yet, and data set only approaching statistical significance, so suggests not concludes) that athletes with a yoga practice return to training and to competition sooner than those that don´t.
It is a reality of modern sport that any discussion ultimately leads to, or comes from, money. In soccer, at the professional level, one player every other game suffers a lost-time injury, and on average, about three games are lost per each injury. (The actual numbers are 27.7 injuries per 1000 playing hours and 15 days lost per Hawkins et. al., published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine, 1999.) Add to that training ground injuries, and on average a professional club is paying two players to be in the treatment room instead of on the pitch. Just a 10% reduction in soft tissue injury (and the data shows greater reductions than that) means that a club gets four extra player/weeks per year. At Premier League salaries, that is an order of magnitude beyond what retaining a sport-specific yoga instructor on staff year-round will be.
In my case study for YSS, I worked with a goalkeeper. In addition to improvements in match-fatigue, overall health, and recovery times, there was one noticeable performance improvement: his kicking from the ground was more accurate, and marginally longer. This marginal performance improvement dramatically changed the way his squad played. As he was more comfortable kicking from the ground, he frequently took the ball out of the box rather than kicking out of hand. The result was the ball was put into play 10 yards deeper, and with a man advantage, as he would not hit the ball out until one of the opposition forwards stepped towards him. The point being, a marginal improvement in one thing, comfort and improved functional mobility in the goalkeeper´s groin, can significantly impact the play of the team. Yoga is a way of finding and improving those subtle points.
Yoga optimizes existing fitness regimes both by improving balance, mobility, and flexibility, giving the athlete a greater maximum workload, but also by engaging the mind in a different way, so that the athlete self-regulates a workout to get closer to the edge of the performance envelope. Through injury reduction, it makes financial sense for professional clubs at pretty much any level. Finally, for individuals seeking the marginal performance gains that can take an athlete to the next level.
Part two coming soon on what yoga does for me as a coach and as a match analyst.
Tuesday, August 28, 2012
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
Liverpool are doomed (and I hope I´m wrong)
I had an interesting twitter conversation with Dan Leivers of Notts County this past week regarding a comment Alan Hansen made that Liverpool should play percentages and look for longer passes. While I didn´t hear Hansen´s comment, in broad strokes I agree that Liverpool played too short, whereas Dan, in broad strokes, disagreed as playing long leads to a greater chance of conceding possession.
The crux of our disagreement is ultimately about style of play, and thus there is no right or wrong answer. Or perhaps more accurately there are a multiplicity of partially right answers, and the decision of a manager about style is choosing which partially right, which plays to your strengths and gives least exposure to your weaknesses.
After watching Liverpool in pre-season and pretty much everything going Pete Tong at the Hawthornes on Saturday, I think Rodgers has pretty much got everything wrong, and Liverpool are doomed. Admittedly, it is early days; I have not seen Liverpool play in Europe; I am not on the training ground and have limited data at my disposal. However, Liverpool are static in the attack, purposeless in possession, and woefully out of sorts in defense. From my view in the cheap seats, not only has Rodgers failed to improve any of these issues, but his style of play exacerbates every weakness Liverpool have shown.
Firstly, Liverpool´s problem last season was not possession -- it was goals. The two are NOT strongly correlated. Indeed, in a meta study by Roland Loy (originally presented in July, 2011 at the ITK in Bochum, Germany, and later published in German by the BDFL and translated in English for Soccer Journal in the March/April 2012 issue) showed a negative correlation between possession and wins. The same study showed a negative correlation between shots on goal and wins. Liverpool do not need more possession or shots, but rather creativity in the final third to create and finish chances.
Thus far, Liverpool´s 4-3-3 has been dreadfully static with no cutting edge in the final third, even on the rare occasions they do move the ball forward out of midfield. There is no interchange of positions, no runs through the middle, and little link up play. Yes, Suarez was in good position to finish two chances and missed, but even if Suarez was 100% in front of the West Brom net, Liverpool still would have lost 3-2. Two quality chances per match is not enough. Barcelona possess the ball like other, but watching them against Real Sociedad, there was always a menace about them. The four central midfielders were always playing with each other and using each others runs to create space. The two wingers started wider even than Borini and Downing did for Liverpool, but would make full speed runs inside, off the ball, to exploit the space created. Liverpool had none of that. What concerns me even more however is that the U21s played exactly the same way against Wolves: static, station to station football. They possessed well, but Ngoo, Pacheco, and Ibe each had their own third of the pitch and rarely interacted. Flanagan and Smith bombed up the flanks, as Kelly and Johnson did for the senior side on Saturday, but with much the same result -- possession on the flank finished with a desultory cross towards a lone red shirt in the area.
What Liverpool did well last year was defend. In spite of an awful, awful season from Pepe Reina (and thankfully he has looked much better in preseason and against West Brom) Liverpool were joint third for goals conceded in the Premier League last season. Possession is, primarily, a defensive tactic: if you have the ball, the other team cannot score. Liverpool´s possession numbers were fine last year and the defense superb. LFC´s style of possession was fine, and I see no reason to think that increasing possession would increase their league position. To the contrary, Rodgers´ possession oriented style of play has disrupted the Liverpool defense and, to my mind, has gone against some basic truths of the game. Goals conceded from open play almost invariably result from at least two of the following four conditions: 1) failure to pressure the ball, 2) failure to support the pressuring defender, 3) concession of possession in your own half, 4) failure to track runners. The Liverpool fullbacks are now playing as wing backs, leaving Agger and Skrtel now playing 30 yards apart instead of the 10 they were accustomed to last year. The midfield is spread to create possession passes. As a result, when mistakes are made, and there always will be, Liverpool are apt to have any and all of the four goal-conceding conditions happen. They are too spread to pressure; the center backs cannot support each other; the midfield cannot pick up their runners in transition quick enough; and possession is more often surrendered in the Liverpool half because that is where Liverpool now play.
Troublingly, the U21s played exactly the same way. While dominating possession against Wolves, they showed little cutting edge, and late in the game conceded possession in their own half, Coady failed to track back, the ball was not pressured, and a stunning strike sent Wolves back to the midlands with a draw. The match was, I fear, the model for Liverpool 2012-13. Lots of possession and pretty football, no cutting edge, ¨unlucky¨ goal conceded late.
I hope I am wrong. Clearly, Brendan Rodgers has miles more experience in senior first team football than I do. However, in my considered opinion, I see no reason to believe Liverpool can be a dominant force in English football this season, and I see many reasons to think ¨bottom half struggler¨ might be their role this year.
Liverpool weren´t unlucky against West Brom. They were poor. And they better do something to fix it or the season will get very ugly, very fast.
The crux of our disagreement is ultimately about style of play, and thus there is no right or wrong answer. Or perhaps more accurately there are a multiplicity of partially right answers, and the decision of a manager about style is choosing which partially right, which plays to your strengths and gives least exposure to your weaknesses.
After watching Liverpool in pre-season and pretty much everything going Pete Tong at the Hawthornes on Saturday, I think Rodgers has pretty much got everything wrong, and Liverpool are doomed. Admittedly, it is early days; I have not seen Liverpool play in Europe; I am not on the training ground and have limited data at my disposal. However, Liverpool are static in the attack, purposeless in possession, and woefully out of sorts in defense. From my view in the cheap seats, not only has Rodgers failed to improve any of these issues, but his style of play exacerbates every weakness Liverpool have shown.
Firstly, Liverpool´s problem last season was not possession -- it was goals. The two are NOT strongly correlated. Indeed, in a meta study by Roland Loy (originally presented in July, 2011 at the ITK in Bochum, Germany, and later published in German by the BDFL and translated in English for Soccer Journal in the March/April 2012 issue) showed a negative correlation between possession and wins. The same study showed a negative correlation between shots on goal and wins. Liverpool do not need more possession or shots, but rather creativity in the final third to create and finish chances.
Thus far, Liverpool´s 4-3-3 has been dreadfully static with no cutting edge in the final third, even on the rare occasions they do move the ball forward out of midfield. There is no interchange of positions, no runs through the middle, and little link up play. Yes, Suarez was in good position to finish two chances and missed, but even if Suarez was 100% in front of the West Brom net, Liverpool still would have lost 3-2. Two quality chances per match is not enough. Barcelona possess the ball like other, but watching them against Real Sociedad, there was always a menace about them. The four central midfielders were always playing with each other and using each others runs to create space. The two wingers started wider even than Borini and Downing did for Liverpool, but would make full speed runs inside, off the ball, to exploit the space created. Liverpool had none of that. What concerns me even more however is that the U21s played exactly the same way against Wolves: static, station to station football. They possessed well, but Ngoo, Pacheco, and Ibe each had their own third of the pitch and rarely interacted. Flanagan and Smith bombed up the flanks, as Kelly and Johnson did for the senior side on Saturday, but with much the same result -- possession on the flank finished with a desultory cross towards a lone red shirt in the area.
What Liverpool did well last year was defend. In spite of an awful, awful season from Pepe Reina (and thankfully he has looked much better in preseason and against West Brom) Liverpool were joint third for goals conceded in the Premier League last season. Possession is, primarily, a defensive tactic: if you have the ball, the other team cannot score. Liverpool´s possession numbers were fine last year and the defense superb. LFC´s style of possession was fine, and I see no reason to think that increasing possession would increase their league position. To the contrary, Rodgers´ possession oriented style of play has disrupted the Liverpool defense and, to my mind, has gone against some basic truths of the game. Goals conceded from open play almost invariably result from at least two of the following four conditions: 1) failure to pressure the ball, 2) failure to support the pressuring defender, 3) concession of possession in your own half, 4) failure to track runners. The Liverpool fullbacks are now playing as wing backs, leaving Agger and Skrtel now playing 30 yards apart instead of the 10 they were accustomed to last year. The midfield is spread to create possession passes. As a result, when mistakes are made, and there always will be, Liverpool are apt to have any and all of the four goal-conceding conditions happen. They are too spread to pressure; the center backs cannot support each other; the midfield cannot pick up their runners in transition quick enough; and possession is more often surrendered in the Liverpool half because that is where Liverpool now play.
Troublingly, the U21s played exactly the same way. While dominating possession against Wolves, they showed little cutting edge, and late in the game conceded possession in their own half, Coady failed to track back, the ball was not pressured, and a stunning strike sent Wolves back to the midlands with a draw. The match was, I fear, the model for Liverpool 2012-13. Lots of possession and pretty football, no cutting edge, ¨unlucky¨ goal conceded late.
I hope I am wrong. Clearly, Brendan Rodgers has miles more experience in senior first team football than I do. However, in my considered opinion, I see no reason to believe Liverpool can be a dominant force in English football this season, and I see many reasons to think ¨bottom half struggler¨ might be their role this year.
Liverpool weren´t unlucky against West Brom. They were poor. And they better do something to fix it or the season will get very ugly, very fast.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)