Rondo Is Life

Great coaching convention talks on rondos.

Greg Ramos 2013 Variations of Barcelona Rondo
Greg Ramos 2014 Rondo Training Progressions

There's a lot of disdain towards rondos that exist out there. Much of it seems unjustified. Anything that is so popular and widespread is always going to draw criticism, but how much of it is vindicated? I believe much of it comes from people judging it on just one factor, and then running with it. Confirmation bias works on both sides, yet I will try to disassemble the irrational hatred towards it.

Within US Soccer education, there are many reports coming out from course candidates that are saying their assessors and mentors are describing rondos as "bullshit" and any coach using one on the course will fail. It seems that is not the view shared throughout the entire federation, yet there is a large element of it. "Rondo" the noun is Spanish for "round." In music, it means "a musical composition, commonly of a lively, cheerful character, in which the first strain occurs after each of the other strains." The word "rondo" and "rondeau" are used frequently within classical music, to signify a return, or a repetition, like something keeps going around, and back to the start. In English, the musical term "round" means a perpetual canon (canon perpetuus), in which three voices sing the same melody in the unison, but beginning at different times, so that the different parts of the melody coincide, while fitting together harmoniously.

That's rather poetic, when viewed from that perspective, and considered against the US' description of "bullshit." What makes football different to other sports is that we can go around in circles, spiralling over the field, attempting to create an opening. It's a low scoring game, that runs for forty-five minutes at a time with minimal interruption. The tempo of the game changes, and it can look like a dance to an unheard melody. We have to see the game on a deeper level, to be able to strip it down to its simplest form, to be able to start again on the right track.

Why are rondos viewed as a waste of time? The basic rondo is a 4v1 or a 5v2. The passers largely stay in place, only moving a matter of inches. It's often played one touch, sometimes two depending on some of the important variables, such as time, space, and quality. There's no shooting, no running, and no changing of angles, thus the translation to the real game and the bigger picture is minimal. Is that really the case? To me, that depends on how you view the game, which is really where we need to start.

Football is an invasion game, which means we defend one area, and attack another. To do that, requires the creation and exploitation of space. The ball is the necessary component to achieving points, via scoring goals. Counter intuitively, it's not the goal that teams seek to protect, but the space in front of the goal. In rugby and gridiron, games that utilise end zones, the ball is often carried into the end zone, whereas in football, it's shot into a goal. The difference being that it is more of an effective strategy to prevent the shot from being taken, rather than trying to block the shot. A good way of making sure the opposition can't score, is to not let them have the ball in dangerous areas. Pressure is the best playmaker, because if we win the ball high, it means we only have around thirty yards to go to goal. Likewise, losing the ball thirty yards from goal, means we are susceptible to conceding goals. Therefore, lose possession where it is dangerous. One option is to get rid of the ball when under pressure or in dangerous areas. The other option is to keep the ball while in dangerous areas.

Getting rid of the ball immediately tips the balance the other way, but in order to be effective, the team needs to have players forward that are capable of winning it back in the other team's half. More numbers makes that more effective, but the risk and reward involved causes many to not send large numbers forward, meaning that it works about one in sixty times. Keep kicking the ball forward, and eventually, it might end up being with one of your teammates in a dangerous position. The other idea, keeping the ball, even when under pressure in your defensive third, invites the press. It requires a high amount of quality to get right. And the risk is high, because losing the ball in front of your goal can be fatal. We pass the ball to move the opposition, so that wherever the ball is, the defending team positions themselves to defend from there. By inviting a high press, and playing through it, gives us plenty of space to attack with, be it a horizontal switch, a pass behind the defence, or a ball into a midfielder in space, who is able to drive at a retreating opposition. Essentially, the team has kept the ball, drawn the opposition in, kept the ball in tight areas, created high and low pressure areas, and found away to avoid having the ball stolen, while being able to penetrate and exploit the now available space.

What do rondos have to do with this? Everything.

In 2013, Xavi Hernandez achieved something rare in a Champions League match against PSG. The Barcelona midfielder completed 96 out of 96 passes. Paris could not take the ball off him. At that time, only ten other players had achieved 100% pass completion in a CL game. After Xavi was Javier Zanetti at 74. Third to eleventh sees a range of 54 to 43. Not many players play perfect passing games, and Xavi was around double the average. Quite incredible, really. This wouldn't necessarily be celebrated or noticed by Americans, who would say, and with a fair amount of value, that the number of passes tells us very little. It could easily be in his own half, and under no pressure. Sure, but that's not the case, as 68% of Xavi's passes were in the Paris half of the field. In that same game, the rest of the Barcelona starters ranged from 23 to 85 passes attempted, and 13 to 73 completed passes.

"I see the space and I pass. That's what I do." - Xavi Hernandez.

Xavi didn't learn to identify space and select passing options by competing unopposed passing drills, and running around cones. He did it from rondos, and from plenty of small sided, possession based games. To give you a clear idea of a footballer's breakdown, and why rondos make so much sense as a practice tool, here are some more stats:

Players cover between 9-12km per 90 minutes.
Only around 800m is sprinted at full speed.
Ground is covered at usually lower intensity speeds.
The ball is only carried by each individual of a distance of 200m.
Each player has the ball for, on average, less than sixty seconds each.
Defenders average 60 touches.
Midfielders average 70 touches.
Forwards average 50 touches.
Usually around 12 shots per game.

Taking more shots is often the American answer, but it's not the real answer. They love to recite Wayne Gretzky's "You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" thinking that "putting the ball on frame" enough times is what is required to outscore the opposition. You're far more likely to score from ten yards than you are from thirty, but it's very hard to get the ball ten yards from the opponent's goal compared to just thirty. The closer a team gets, the more desperate and meaningful the defending. The answer is not to shoot more from outside the box, but to get better at taking the ball into their box.

As an example, one of the most famous games in recent history, World Cup 2014 Semi Final, Brazil 1 - 7 Germany. Which team do you think took more shots?

It was Brazil, the losing team who scored that one consolation goal in the 90th minute, when already losing 7-0, that had the most shots. Brazil even got more shots on target than Germany. How can that be?

Here's a summary of Brazil's shots versus Germany.
Blue - On target but saved.
Red - Off target.
Grey - Blocked
Yellow - Goal.

And now for Germany's shots from the same game.

Brazil were shooting from a wide variety of angles and distances, whereas the majority of Germany's shots were from between the posts, of a distance between ten and twenty yards. What's the message here? It's not the frequency of shots being taken, but the likelihood of those shots going in. It's not quantity, but quality. If you had an opportunity to win £1,000,000, and all you had to do was hit the crossbar, would you prefer two shots from the penalty spot, or ten shots from the halfway line? If a person of average attractiveness were to successfully find a date, would they be better off mingling in a group of catwalk models, or going to a local hangout to meet singles? It doesn't matter how many phone numbers you ask for, if they don't find you attractive. Number of shots total doesn't matter, likelihood of scoring those shots does.

How do we get more shots in the box? You're probably going to think that my answer is possession, since this is an article about rondos. That's not the case. The possession was pretty even, at 51% to 49% in Brazil's favour. It's the old adage that "it's what you do with it that counts." Another example from dating; it's not the size of the bait but the motion in the ocean. Again, I believe the reader would expect me to hype up the importance of a possession game, since this is about rondos, but that's not true. It's not only the ability to keep the ball that rondos teach, but the decision making involved to be able to know when to play up or back, retain or penetrate, fake left or go left.

Everything you think you know is wrong. Americans love to measure stuff. In baseball, there is a stat for everything, and due to the limited outcomes and repeated process of pitcher v batter, the smaller number of variables means that the ratios and percentages known and recorded by stats, may actually have some profound prediction qualities. If you know a batter's hit percentage, or RBI, you have a better idea of what to expect, than if you know of a striker's goals per game ratio. More variables, more influencers, more choice, more random element in football than in baseball, so stats carry less weight.

Objectively, we can all spot a tall, strong, fast player. It's plain to see. With the average American not knowing what they are looking at, they don't know which of the attributes of a soccer player are most important. They don't know the game, so can't really assess a player's decision making. Speed is obvious, so it must be a good thing. People have a tendency to place importance in weight in areas that they understand, and disregard that which falls outside of their understanding. Therefore, because a parent cannot objectively understand, judge, or measure a player's passing choices, technique, or movement, they can't assess it, and so don't try to. But boy, that speed! They would take Theo Walcott over Xavi. They would take Peter Crouch over Iniesta. They would take Akinfenwa over Modric. Messi only gets credit within the US because he has the trophies to back it up. Not that the other three mentioned don't have the trophies to back it up, just that they're not really known players to the average American.

In other sports, measurable physical attributes like acceleration, height, arm span etc. tend to mean so much, which is why they view the game this way. I would have thought Moneyball would have had more of a dent in that way of thinking than it has done, showing that what you think is important, isn't always important. Like Einstein said; "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted." We like evidence, but even when Xavi achieved his perfect game of 96/96 completed passes, his team still drew 1-1. Xavi didn't even get the assist for Barcelona's goal, so what's the point in knowing what his 96 passes did?

This next image can perhaps shed a little more light.

This represents the passing map for the first thirty minutes of Brazil 1 - 7 Germany. After thirty, Germany were winning 5-0. Brazil attempted more passes, and made more successful passes than Germany. Brazil achieved 84% pass completion, and Germany 74%. Surely this evidence suggests that making passes is bad, right? If you don't have the ball, you can't make mistakes. Get rid of it, and let the other team do something stupid with it. I'd ask that you have a look at the direction and location of the blue arrows. Most of Brazil's passes were sideways in their own half. The key is here: Zone 14. That's the area just outside the box, where goals are created. In Zone 14, Germany have more attempted passes, more successful passes, and more forward passes than Brazil.

How can that be? Zone 14 is usually frantic and congested, full of opponents desperately trying to thwart the attack. This will be an area of high pressure with limited time and space. Can we think of any good training methods that are effective at teaching players how to make quick decisions with limited time and space?

It's not the amount of shots, it's not the physical attributes, and it's not even the amount of possession. It's the passing choices that make the difference. Teams need the technical qualities of being able to execute a variety of passes with pinpoint accuracy, while also having the technical ability to control, trap, manipulate, receive a variety of passes, from all angles, while under pressure.

No matter how many times I watch these Barcelona videos, I still find it hypnotic and astounding. Americans don't know that this is what the game can look like. This is the pinnacle of technical ability and execution.

For comparison, here are the top five goals of college soccer in the US. Number two is horrendously bad, and number one is at a stadium I have been to for a team I have seen train and play.

And then look at the goals from Barcelona's academy. College Soccer is viewed by too many as the place to be if you want to make it in the game. For everyone else, it would be Barcelona's La Masia, or Ajax' De Toekomst. The college goals had some individual brilliance, sure, but the Barcelona goals were of a far higher quality in terms of technical execution. College goals capitalised on opposition mistakes, whereas Barca goals involved more creation. There were also a couple team moves that made it to the Barca goals, rather than all individual goals.

Again, you'll see that the Barcelona goals weren't all about pass and move, but when they did have to pass it, it was brilliant. That's not a natural instinct, that's not due to being a superior physical specimen. It definitely wasn't because they took more shots. It's decision making and superior technical ability. Technique and decision making comes from hours and hours of high level practice. The teams that do that, do a lot of rondos and possession games.

How do rondos affect decision making? In rondos, participants must be aware of the most minute details.

Within this basic 4v1, there are three passing choices for the player with the ball. That player has to consider where the defender is, the angles available, the type of pass required to transfer the ball, and then where to go next to support. The yellow defender is showing one side, which becomes the easy pass, the blue option. The blue option is the easiest pass to make, but should the pass be to the receiver's right foot or left foot? To the right foot means the most likely next pass goes to the teammate on the far side. To the left foot means the pass returns to the original passer. The purple pass has a degree of risk to it, which means it would have to be disguised. Perhaps a fake and a reverse pass. Such a disguise would shift the pressing yellow defender ever so slightly to their left, opening up more of an avenue for the purple option to be successful. Due to the positioning and angle of the purple option, the ball will be going to their right foot, making a one touch pass to the far side quite difficult, although not impossible. The best option for the purple receiver is to play back in the direction the ball came from, to the original passer. That passing lane will be closed down by the defender, which means that the original passer now needs to move to give the purple option a viable return pass option.

A lot of people would want to play the red pass, because it's the through pass, it's up, it's across, it's down field (see how three directions have been used to explain the same pass? That's why standardised terminology is important). The red pass is the most likely to be blocked or intercepted. If we want it to be successful, how do we do it? Not only pinpoint accuracy, but magician levels of disguise. If it was me, I'd go for a fake pass right, and a knee high scoop. Get the defender to commit their weight in their left foot by buying my fake, and then flick it over their left knee, with the ball landing at the left foot of the teammate across. Others may choose a similar fake but with a nutmeg. The ball going to the left foot of the red option means their most likely pass is to the blue option player.

On a recent grassroots course I attended with the state soccer association, I was chatting to a Spanish coach from Madrid, who had played at a high level, including Oxford United. We were watching the sessions in front of us, when a coach stopped to make a point about passing. "Why are you not receiving the ball?" Asked the coach. We were expecting the answer to be something to do with support angles, body shape to receive, or even that the ball carrier does not have his head up. "Because you're not calling for it!" the coach finished. Myself and the Spanish coach looked at each other.

We then went into it on the sidelines for ten minutes, while the session continued. Two foreigners talking about American's lack of understanding of support networks and decision making is why they can't adequately coach the game. Just because you ask for it, doesn't mean you're going to get it, nor that you deserve to get it. This is not a restaurant. I tell my players that there are three types of communication. They get the first two, vocally and visually (talking and pointing) with ease. The third one eludes them, as they circle back through other methods that are derivative of the first two. Clapping? That's the same as talking. Waving? That's the same as body shape. They're stumped. I then pipe up. "If I pass the ball to you like this, what is the pass telling you to do?". Answers usually include to turn, to take a touch, to come to, to run into space etc. "Right. And if you have the ball, and I make a run like this, how do you think I want the ball?" and they explain the type of pass they would play to connect with my run. The third type of communication is the movement. It's the transfer of information via the pass or the run. The ball carries a message, and the run is an advertisement. It helps to talk, it helps to point, but nothing beats playing the pass as it should be played.

To us foreigners, the messages are obvious and for all to see. Like in the rondo example, if I know which foot my teammate is about to receive the ball with, I should then know where to go to offer my support for the next pass. It's a game of collecting and deciphering information. Americans don't know how to take in the information, and even if they did, they wouldn't know what it means. Hence why they value, speed, size, and strength. They don't understand choice and decision making.

Now we go into a 5v2 rondo. With two defenders, we have the opportunity to penetrate. Remember that we pass to move the opposition, so we pass the ball around, until we have created a gap between the defenders, and then we play through them. Get them out the way, then penetrate. This is also where standardised terminology comes into play. Before that, I would like you to look at the red at the top of the box. That possible pass is screened by the nearest yellow defender. What would you have that player do? Should they move to find a new angle? Many here in the US would suggest so. I think in Europe, the coach would ask the player to stay there. Why? Because that red player has occupied the yellow defender. It's like sacrificing one chess piece so that another can strike at a far more valuable opposition piece. By staying there and occupying that yellow defender, the gap for the penetrating pass is open.

The three passing options have colours assigned to them.
Blue - First line pass - The easy sideways pass that doesn't go forward.
Purple - Second line pass - The pass down the side that can take us forward, but does not penetrate.
Red - Third line pass - The forward pass that penetrates.

Not every pass has to be an assist. Not every ball needs to be a Hollywood ball. You can be the player who passes to the player who passes to the player who passes to the player who passes to the player who passes to the player who assists the goalscorer. Your team still receives a point. You are still beating your opposition. Rondos often require a loss of ego, which is prominent within American youth soccer.

In these small exercises, players are assessing so much information, in regards to support angles, defender positioning, and the subtle cues that effect the execution. Constant involvement requires the "what next?" movement and ideas that are not seen in the US. The large number of repetitions mean that over a long period of time, this kind of exercise is really going to draw upon these skills.

To make an exercise useful, it needs the three Rs; repetition, realism, and relevance. Do they get enough repetitions go gain mastery? Is it game realistic? Is it relevant to their developmental stage? Rondos get a big fat yes in each. In a 5v2 rondo for ten minutes, how many touches of the ball is a player likely to get? Have a look at this video to gain an idea.

The thing is though, many think that this is plain and boring. It can be. Which is why there are so many variations. Rondos are like pizza, or cake. There's a basic structure which is a key component of all, but how you dress it is down to you and your needs. Here's twenty different rondos for you.

These rondos work on many different physical, social, psychological, and technical aspects. Like any exercise, the coach manipulates the constraints to enable or restrict certain outcomes. What is it you want to achieve or experience? Change the variables to make that happen.

Here's a video I made showing teams use a variety of rondos, and then applying that within a game. This shows that there is a transference to the match. You get good at what you practice. Practice passing, moving, and making decisions in tight spaces while under pressure, and that is what you will get good at. By making quick decisions, adjusting your body, and manipulating the ball in tight spaces, think of how good players can become in larger spaces.

Todd Beane, American coach in Barcelona, and son-in-law of the great Johan Cruyff, says that rondos are just the tip of the iceberg.

Here's Portugal versus Spain from the recent World Cup match. Spain keep the ball for two minutes and finish with a shot. Obviously looks nothing like rondos.

Here's them doing a rondo. As you can see, zero transfer.

Here's another example from Brazil.

As you can see, I'm completely wrong. Rondos are pointless, don't come out in the game, have no transference, no relevance, and should never be seen in youth football ever again. Brazil, Spain, Germany are no match for the USA when it comes to international titles, domestic quality, and the conveyor belt of talent produced. Kick and run is the future, pick players based on height, and hustle, hustle, hustle.

And here's my video that proves it.