High Pressure: Organised Chaos

A high pressure defending style is one that many coaches seek to apply to their teams. It makes sense, right? You win the ball back as soon as you lose it, you win the ball much closer to goal, when you do win it, you are surrounded by your teammates so have immediate passing options. There are so many positives to it. Why don't we all do it?

Well, many of us do. And many of us don't actually know what we're doing. An effective high press looks chaotic to the untrained eye. An ineffective high press looks like two players running around in confusion while their teammates disown them by not joining in. I don't want to call it a buzzword. Buzzword is a buzzword. It does seem to be a fashionable trend, and why not? Some of the top coaches and the top teams use it, and they are highly successful. We also want to be successful, so we copy their ideas.

Before deciding whether to press high, you have to look at where you are in terms of playing to learn, or playing to win. Let's look at this handy flowchart to see what decisions come next.

Don't just do it because all the cool kids are doing it. You've got to be true to yourself. Groove to your own tune, homie.

Like many raging debates that have Twitter commentators foaming at the fingers, it really depends on what your objectives are and what you have available. When the time is right, definitely teach it to young players. It's a very important tactic, and one they will probably be asked to do multiple times throughout their careers for different coaches. How and what you teach depends on the age. Going too in depth into the tactical theory will bore and confuse them. Setting them simple challenges like "try not to let the receiver take a second touch" or "position yourself between the receiver and one of his teammates" will begin to create good habits and have players reading the game better without ever having to tell them it's high press you're doing.

Bayern Munich High Press.

Nike Academy.

Athletic Bilbao pressing Barcelona.

Dortmund pressing.

It's one thing to know whether to press high or not, but another thing entirely to know which method of high pressure to use. How Guardiola presses is different to Klopp, who is different to Bielsa, who is different to Tuchel, who is different to any other coach. It may seem nuanced, but it's actually rather detailed. To us mere mortals, we can just about see where a team stakes their line of engagement (the border of press/don't press). How they go about their high press should be something that us coaches are educated upon.

Forget triggers for a moment. These pictures below will show three basic types of high pressure, with how it works, and also some potential weak points.

It's worth noting that the yellow haze around the yellow players is their cover shadow. Imagine if the ball were to cast a light, the shadow is the area that they protect. It kind of distorts physics a little bit when you realise that the further away a player is, the wider, but shorter, their shadow is. The depth (forward or backward movement) is the area that a player can protect an aerial pass. The players nearer to the ball have a better chance of reacting to a flick or a scoop than the players further away have of protecting a long aerial ball. The width (side to side movement) concerns the area where a player can cut out a pass along the ground (or even below head height). Players near the ball may only be able to react quick enough for one step either side of them. If you are five yards from your opponent, and the ball is passed within a yard of your foot, you should be able to cut it out. More than that, and the chances become slimmer. Conversely, a player further away from the ball will have more time to move while the ball is travelling, so will be able to cover ten, maybe twenty yards, depending on distance and speed. Cover shadows should definitely be a factor to be considered when planning your pressing and marking.

How and why each of the three methods outlined above are effective depends on so many factors. Just what is it you're trying to achieve? Winning the ball back high, or winning the ball back quickly is just too vague. Consider specific areas you want to win the ball, and then weigh up your abilities against theirs. From there, you can look at the best ways to coerce the opposition into doing what you want to them do. Do they have an uncomfortable passer? Is there a player that is heavily one-footed? Is there a player with a bad touch? Are they playing a right-footer at left back due to injuries? How does their midfield support? What does their typical build-up play look like?

It's not uncommon for teams to identify a weak link, and position themselves in ways to take advantage of that. If there's someone with a bad touch, deliberately leave them open, and mark all other opponents, so you can press and make use of their awful control. If there's a player that is a terrible passer, allow them to have the ball, and mark all their easy options. They might either try to force the ball, or hit it into high risk areas, both with little accuracy. These, as well as the natural triggers like back to goal, aerial pass, bad touch etc. act as different triggers in different systems.

You may decide, based on what you know about the opposition and your own players, to do a mixture of the three ideas. Man mark some areas, block one or two key passing options, and swarm certain players in certain positions. The intricacies are very detailed and very delicate. And remember that with every complex idea, you are decreasing the chances of being able to do it effectively. It takes a hell of a lot of time and effort to be effective at complex pressure systems. You don't practise until you can do it right, you practise until you can't do it wrong. And what if teams begin to figure out your pressing ideas? Then you need to adapt and tweak it.

This has become incredibly complex before we've even had a chance to look at pressure traps or reverse pressure.

Pressure traps are positioning in certain ways to relinquish specific areas or players, to lull the opposition into a false sense of security, by perhaps playing the easy ball or obvious pass. Then you strike. Like swatting a fly.

Reverse pressure is, while also pressing from in front of the ball carrier, press from behind too. For example, the ball is rolled out to the central defender, who decides to carry the ball forward. The striker, instead of recovering to a goal side position before pressing, will chase the defender from behind. Teammates will join in the press, and will screen passes so that the options for the central defender are limited. Due to the reverse pressure of the striker, the central defender will not be able to turn and recycle, nor will he be able to pause and wait for better options. The panicked decision making that ensues will benefit the pressing team. With reverse pressure, consider what you want players to do when they are taken out of the game with a second or third line pass. Where do they move to next to assist the defence?

This is only the beginning of understanding high pressure defending. It goes much deeper. I hope this little piece goes some way towards explaining the basic ideas of what high pressure is all about, and what it does.

Stay educated.

Six Seconds: All you've got, all you need

View the game like this to make sense of the tactical ideas.

When it comes to completely different footballing philosophies, we can look to the epic Champions League semi final of Inter Milan versus Barcelona in 2010. For Guardiola, the idea is that if you keep the ball, you control the game. For Mourinho, the idea is that if you have the ball, you can make mistakes. These are the absolutes. This demonstrates two sides of the same coin. How could one incredibly successful manager want the ball, and another incredibly successful manager not want the ball?

If we examine the two statements, we'll realise it's more like a spectrum. If you control the ball, you control the game - not exactly true if the opposition plays a very effective high pressure system. Your pressure is how you can manipulate the opponents while out of possession. Since there are very few moments of true possession within a game, the team with the ball can always be manipulated by the team without the ball. True possession is completely uncontested possession. It's when the ball cannot legally be stolen, such as restarts, and the ball being in the keeper's hands. Even then, the ball carrier can still be manipulated through means of denying space and preventing certain passing options.

Conversely, if you do not have the ball, you cannot make mistakes, is kind of true depending upon how you determine mistakes. Sure, you can't pass the ball dangerously across your own goal and give it away to the unmarked opposition centre forward, if you don't have the ball. The ultimate defensive performance, with a low block and eleven men behind the ball, would ideally mean the game finishes 0-0, and neither team would have a shot on target. Any interception is hoofed swiftly up field. All the time the ball is in the air, it cannot be manipulated by the opposition. It's essentially dead or wasted time. When the ball comes down, it can be contested by whoever is around the landing site.

Shakhtar Donestsk coach Miguel Cardoso presenting for the NSCAA.

Think of a very long ball team that relies heavily on set-pieces. The ball will spend several minutes throughout the game in the air, meaning it belongs to neither team. Dead possession. If you rely on set-pieces for goals, any throw, corner, or deep free-kick will require longer to organise your team effectively. It's these moments, where a team has true possession. Rory Delap drying the ball while Stoke arrange themselves in the box is true possession. At that moment, the opposition cannot do anything, but wait for the ball to re-enter play, where it can be contested. Following that comes a series of knock-downs and 50/50 battles. You'd imagine the team more adept at long ball will win more of those than their opponents. Like Stoke v Arsenal. Or Blackburn v Arsenal. Or Bolton v Arsenal. Arsenal would far out-match their opponents in speed, talent, and attacking organisation from open play. You nullify that threat by keeping the ball in the air, utilising moments of true possession, and, a tactic loved by South Americans that have their goalkeepers take free-kicks (and Spanish teams using tactical fouling) if under threat from a counter-attack, you make an innocuous foul. The referee is less likely to award a yellow card to a player if the foul is not reckless and committed very far from goal. You've sent your hulking defence up for the corner, the ball has been cleared, Arsenal now start the counter, one of your strikers trips the player on the ball, free-kick is awarded eighty yards from goal, and the game pauses for around five to ten seconds, enough for the brutes to regain defensive organisation deep in their own half.

Teams hate playing against a well organised high press. They also hate playing against a well organised low press. Again, it happened to Barcelona in 2012 when they lost to Chelsea in the Champions League semi final. Sure, there was a lot of luck involved in that game, as there was for Mourinho's Inter two years earlier. What's frustrating about a low block, or a team that has parked the bus, is that players restrict space in the dangerous central areas. Zone 14 is a war zone. Opponents are not allowed in there. The front players come back into their own half and press only from halfspace to halfspace, meaning that the opposition has to do a full switch in an attempt to tilt the defence. It's easier to recover from a wing to wing switch than an HS to HS switch if you have perhaps two banks of four on the edge of your box, no wider than your box. With eleven players behind the ball denying all inroads centrally, the defending team is almost impossible to break down. Attacking teams rely so much on prodding and probing with their build-up play, but cannot break down the defence due to their numbers, positioning, and denial of space in key areas. What does the defending team do when they win the ball? Launch it. High, far, deep into the opposition's half. They might not even chase it. That means valuable seconds are wasted when the ball is high in the area. More valuable seconds are wasted when the attacking team needs to go back, collect the ball, and begin their build-up play all over again.

Does this mean mistakes can't be made out of possession? Of course not. Goals are scored because of mistakes. Sometimes they are easier to identify. I like to point out to attacking players that always blame the defence how it was actually their poor cross, or selfish dribble, that lead to the turnover, that lead to the counter, that lead to the goal. Or if the opposition right back overlaps the right winger to whip in a cross that's headed into the net. Could the keeper have saved it? Could the central defender have challenged better for the header? Or was the left winger being lazy, and not tracking back, which allowed the opposition right winger to overlap and easily isolate the defending left back in a 2v1, meaning they could hit in that cross perfectly as it was not pressed?

Whichever method of attack or defence a team chooses to use, you must first consider the following factors; do you have the players to perform it effectively? Will it be an effective counter-measure against the opposition? Do you have the level of organisation required? You're playing Arsenal this weekend and reckon that a high press is the way to go. Are your players fit enough and intelligent enough to pull off a high press? Will a high press actually work against Arsenal? Do you have enough training or video sessions to be confident in your collective ability to perform it this weekend without mistakes? Any kind of decision in football managing is a guess. More often than not it's an educated guess, but the future is hard to predict, and as I've discussed before, football is incredibly random. You could get it right for eighty nine minutes, but that one minute you get it wrong is the minute that loses the game.

So where does this six seconds come into it? These are the six seconds following a transition. A team in possession is in their offensive shape, while the team out of possession is in their defensive shape. Offensive shape is dispersed, with low horizontal and vertical compactness. Defensive shape is contracted, with high horizontal and vertical compactness. The defending team wants to become narrow and deep as quick as possible, providing less gaps within the units, and smaller pockets between the units. Therefore, the attacking team, if they could choose, would like to attack against a team that is much more spread out. It's not American football. There are no downs or timeouts. A team does not get to reorganise after every play. It relies so much on intelligence, discipline, and awareness. Spur of the moment decisions that can alter the course of history. If you intercept the ball, right there and then, it that moment, you now become the attacking team, and the defending team is still in their offensive shape. They are at their most vulnerable in terms of structural integrity at that precise moment.

Why don't more teams make use of this? It's because while the team that lost possession is changing from offensive to defensive shape, the team that won possession is changing from defensive to offensive shape.

The important players in the above picture have been highlighted in red. The yellow CM gives the ball away, the blue CB has intercepted and played forward to the Blue CAM. The dashed arrows indicate the direction the players off the ball will now move as the teams switch offensive/defensive shape. The blues are now looking to get on the outside of the yellows, and the yellows are looking to get on the inside of the blues. Two sides of marking; ballside, which is between the opponent and the ball, and goalside, which is between the opponent and the goal. Notice how the yellow CM , upon realising the negative transition, moves to become goalside of the blue CAM? That's to deny his path to goal. On either flank, the yellow wing players look to become ballside of their blue opponents. And thus, the concept of transition is explained.

If you're not on the Coaching Manual, be on the Coaching Manual.

Another good YouTube follow.

Many coaches will know the feeling of "Well we looked good in training." Often true. Take any wave practice, phase of play, function, pattern drill. Most of the time we find a clear beginning and end of the sequence. You set up a team to either attack or defend, and then coach one of them to do their job more effectively, Let's take the example of playing out from the back. The GK has the ball, you tell your CBs to go to the corners of the penalty box, RB+LB to be on the touchlines, and CMs to rotate and receive on the edge of the box. Maybe even tell the GK to put the ball in the middle of the six yard line rather than on a corner. Ask your GK, can you play a short pass to an available player? Can you clip it into the wide areas? Basic shape and patterns are understood. There may be opposition added in to show realistic distances and angles. The opposition may even sit back and not press high (is this realistic?), thus allowing the playing out from the back to be easier. What does the team do when they have it? They try to run it into an end zone beyond the halfway line. Following that, everyone goes back to their start positions, and the process happens again. The opposition may be instructed to try and steal the ball and to score a goal. The ball goes out of play, in the goal, in the end zone, and we start the practice yet again from the GK taking a goal kick.

Playing out from the back would also involve live possession, such as receiving a backpass, saving a shot, or claiming a cross. Then what? You'd try to counter against a retreating team. Offensive/defensive shapes change. You have the realistic chaos of a game going on all around you. Every time something goes wrong in training, we stop, and go back, and do it again. The opposition team can easily feel neglected or non-incentivised. Like when working with the attacking team to score from crosses, the defending team actually need a way to score, rather than just the job of blocking the cross. Cross comes in, defence heads it away. Then what? We stop and go back to the start. In a real game, the knock-down would be contested on the edge of the box. In this moment, players on both sides are scrambling for the ball. There's been a transition, How can we exploit or deny space? 

This is why teams look great in training. They are often doing what the coach is asking and performing very well against conditions set. We're sometimes biased towards ensuring success, or blind towards devaluing the realism of the session. Teams are great at defending in defending exercises, and great at attacking in attacking exercises. What about if the exercise is both? If there's a transitional element to it, suddenly we're in business. It's become realistic. Both teams are motivated to compete due to the incentivisation of being able to score points. You may manipulate the space, the numbers, the quality, the conditions to force certain outcomes, but there needs to be a transitional element and a way of scoring.

Have a look at this simple exercise. Is it incentivised for both teams? Absolutely. Both teams have a way of scoring a point. Is there a transitional element? Absolutely, as two teams are competing for possession of the ball. It's 11v4, so it seems like it's unfair against the 4, but then the 11 are conditioned to just one touch, which kind of levels up the playing field a bit. The pitch isn't huge, which means two things; the 11 can't spread out so far that they can pass it round the 4 without them being able to press. Also, because of the size of it, you could probably shoot from anywhere. This means both teams will have to be quick to press to prevent a first time shot from going over everyone.

If using this session, which topic would you be coaching? For the blues, it could be one touch passing, rotation, combinations. For the oranges, it could be high press, counter-attack. Both sides of the attacking v defending spectrum provide endless possibilities. Another thing that's key is that it allows for switch of play. Too often we set up out sessions in away that don't always allow for large disorganisation of the defence. The blue on the ball is able to play a diagonal pass. That benefits the blues if they are working on support play, combinations etc. and benefits the oranges as they now have to drop, slide, and reorganise their defensive shape to deal with the gained territory of the blues.

In this above drill, at both ends, there is a target player. The teams must pass it into their target to score a point, who then immediately gives it back into the opposition. The blues are in offensive shape, and the oranges are in defensive shape. The team that reacts to that change more effectively is the one that will prevail from the chaos that is about to ensue. I often tell that player, the magic man or the commedin, that they are a CB for one team and a CF for the other team. Relate this to a game, and we see the blue RM trying a forward pass, that is cut out by the orange CB, and then played into the orange RM. It has to be a one touch recycle because it needs to be fast. If the pass is of lower quality due to the quickness, then that presents an opportunity for the blues to press the oranges while they transition from offensive to defensive shape. Both teams can score, both teams experience transition, both teams can switch play, and the area plus conditions force certain outcomes. You then coach what you see.

The above is an example of how we can really apply aforementioned principles to an exercise. It's very specific. You can easily adapt it so many ways. I intend to discuss the concept of teaching games for understanding in a future piece. This game is an absolute favourite of the players that have played it. It's winner stays on, which keeps things fresh as there is always a chance for revenge or redemption, with the dynamics of the opposition and the stakes always changing. Challenge teams to go on a winning streak. Is there a way to score for both teams? Yes. Even the yellows can score, which keeps them even more interested. They know they can get into the game following a goal, so will work very hard to get themselves into situations to score or assist goals. There's a transitional element with the central area being limited to one-touch. That makes the passing sometimes more ballistic as players can't take a controlling or a correction touch. That entices the opposition to press, despite technically being overloaded 8v4. There's always an option to recycle or switch play, and penetrate via diagonals. This creates scenarios where defences are tilted or stretched, and have to reorganised.

Is this a finishing drill? A passing drill? A defending drill? Actually it's everything. Let's say I choose finishing. We're looking at one touch finishes, and there will be plenty of live examples for this to happen, and none of them will be the same. While I step in to coach my players on finishing, all around me they are working on chance creation and chance denial. Every other aspect of the game is happening right in front of us, which makes it realistic to the game of football, but as coach, I only care about the aspect of finishing. We call that the "hidden curriculum."

In practice we talk about constant or variable. Constant means repetition, variable means random. For mastery, we need repetition. For realism, we need random. The basic shooting drill of players lining up to take a shot, one at a time, is constant. The same thing over and over again. Playing a simple 11v11 match is variable. Anything can happen at any time, such is the randomness of the real game. As a coach, you have to provide repetition without losing the realism. That's why exercises like this are so important when it comes to training, as the organisation and the conditions are what manipulate the exercise to provide the repetition.

But what is so important about these six seconds? It takes about that long for a team to get back into a good defensive shape. The attacking team will not wait for their opponents to be strong before beginning their attack. They will go for the jugular when they are at their most vulnerable.

I will try to explain using a 7v7 for simplicity. The yellow CM tries a forward pass to the CF to receive behind the defence. The blue LB steps in and intercepts the ball. As the CF was running behind the blue defence, it will take him a couple of seconds to recover to be goalside. Currently, there is no pressure on the blue CB, who is able to play forward unopposed. I'm definitely oversimplifying a very complex situation with countless possibilities here, but for a moment follow this train of thought. The blue LM is unmarked and has an unobstructed route to goal. The Blue LB plays to his feet, and he is able to drive at goal. That red mess is the passing lane. The yellow RM should try to block that passing lane if possible. If the blue LM is asking for the ball to feet, then the yellow CM can maybe nip across into the passing lane and steal the ball. It's got to be quick, as the blue LB may only need one or two touches. If either the yellow RM or CM can screen that passing lane, they could prevent that forward pass, thus delaying the blues from gaining territory with the first pass following the yellows losing possession.

The other yellows need to recover, including their two defenders. If that first pass goes through quickly to the blue LM, it may be too late for the yellow defenders to recover into positions that can affect the play. Imagine individual stats, like on a FIFA player card. The yellow RM has: Tackling 88, Awareness 82, Speed 91, Acceleration 90, to name but a few. These are impressive stats that would make it seem quite likely that the player would be able to react in time, is fast enough to recover, and strong enough to challenge for the ball. If he just... doesn't do that... then his stats are irrelevant. Some of it can be down to not being able to read the game quick enough, sometimes slow reactions, mental tiredness, and even sometimes, it's simply that players can't be bothered, or that they don't see the value. An effective pressure system, high or low, requires everyone working hard, doing the same thing. If the yellow LM cannot be bothered to recover to a position to prevent the pass, or even prevent the turn, he does not buy his teammates in defence enough time to recover to positions to prevent that blue CF going direct to goal.

Take it one step further. The blue CF receives the ball, is not prevented from turning, and proceeds along the blue dashed line towards the goal. He is pursued by the yellow RB and CM. His space and time is being greatly reduced by the millisecond as he now faces a 1v2. His teammate, the blue CF, has been keeping up with play and is approaching the edge of the box, hoping his teammate can lay a square pass to put him through on goal. He should be certain to score if 1v1 against the keeper. The one player that can catch him is the yellow LB, but he's frustrated that the yellow CM has given the ball away YET AGAIN BLOODY HELL!!! As annoying as it is, his mistake is our mistake, such is the nature of the team sport. He could choose to have a moment to himself before beginning the recovery. He could then identify that the blue LM approaching the goal is being closed down and now faces a 1v2. What's the point of sprinting back to defend when your teammates should be able to handle the situation? Turns out they didn't handle it, and the ball has been laid off to the blue CF on the edge of the box, unmarked. Who should have been there? This guy. The yellow LB that was frustrated at his CM, and thought the other guys could handle the situation. He took a lazy gamble and lost. It wasn't his fault the misplaced pass was sloppy. It wasn't his fault his two moron teammates couldn't tackle the player on his own. But who will we point to for leaving the striker unmarked on the edge of the box? The player, that for whatever reason, was too slow to recover in those moments following the transition.

At the top level, 11v11 game, it's around six seconds, which is around four passes. It's to do with the probability of scoring a goal following transition. The ball is given away, and the team now on the attack has a strong chance of scoring a goal with the first two passes. Pass three and four are still relatively high, but after pass four, the probability of scoring drops, and then starts to rise again after pass seven. Simply put, it takes six seconds for the newly defending team to adapt their shape and organise. Once organised, they become difficult to score against, so after those six seconds, or four passes, the chances of the attacking team scoring drop. Why the probability of scoring goes back up after seven passes is because the team in possession will have switched the play and begun attacking down the other wing. They have tilted the defence, and caused new confusion and disorganisation. We call it changing the point of attack. I would point out that we can refer to it as a synthesised transition.

For some brief analysis, here are the top ten goals from the recent Euro 2016 tournament. Enjoy.

Lukaku: Belgium v Ireland - 2 passes.
Hazard: Belgium v Hungary - 3 passes.
Ronaldo: Portugal v Wales - 2 passes.
Griezmann: France v Iceland - 4* passes.
Eder: Portugal v France - 1 pass.
Ronaldo: Portugal v Hungary - 4* passes.
Hamsik: Slovakia v Russia - 1 pass.
Payet: France v Romania - 4* passes.
Robson-Kanu: Wales v Belgium - 2* passes.
Shaqiri: Switzerland v Poland - 0** passes.

* means that replays and match reports went no further than that pass. It's difficult for me to ascertain with incomplete data the exact number of passes that were made following transition.
** technically this is correct, as the ball to Shaqiri would be categorised as a knock-down, and he won the second ball. There were, however, four passes in the build-up that lead to the cross.

Still, it gives us a good idea of how long it takes to score a goal. Literally seconds. Data shows that in any given game, a goal is no more likely in any given second depending upon the score. What we do know is that it is more likely that goals will come in the last fifteen minutes of each half, but this does not depend on the score. Just because a team is winning 2-0 with ten minutes remaining doesn't mean that it will finish 3-0 or 2-1. When goals occur is completely random, as it's six seconds that can follow a transition at any given moment.

What's also interesting to note is that Hamsik's goal, although from a corner, was actually a short corner. In modern football, corners have no relation to goals. Some teams may be more adept at set-pieces, and so will, as a team, have a higher proportion of their goals coming from corners. These teams will usually have forced many corners throughout that game, aiding to the likelihood that they will eventually score from one of them. Quantity rather than quality. The same with shots too. I often hear people associated with the side that is losing saying "We need to take more shots." Shots don't necessarily mean more goals. Sure, if we remove most of the variables, we can determine which team has better shooters, or which striker is a better shooter but that's not the case. We need to consider; weak foot or strong foot, strength of the shooter, accuracy of the shooter, distance to goal, angle to goal, pressure or no pressure, direction of pressure, congestion in the way, quality of the goalkeeper, positioning of the goalkeeper, and many, many more. "We get to the edge of the box and we just don't shoot!" Perhaps it's not the right time to shoot. It's not more shots, it's quality of scoring chances. If you keep shooting from thirty yards, you may not score once. Ten shots from outside the box, even if they are on target, is not the same as one shot from ten yards out.

Another thing, something I don't like, is how this information is often neglected in replays, highlights, and match reports. I did extensive searches, and all the highlights I could find of the goals noted with * started with the scoring team in possession. We don't know how they won the ball. The match reports are worse. This guy passed to that guy. But where? How? Who gave him the ball? We see one team attacking, and one team defending. What about the transition? We need to know because clearly it is undervalued. It doesn't enter our collective football understanding. The game is all about who controls the transition.

That one time Blackburn looked like Barcelona.

In the above video, Rovers did start out long ball, but they also changed the point of attack a few times, thus disrupting the organisation of Derby's defence. Through intricate play in the central area, they were able to unlock the defence and score. Twenty five passes, with multiple switches of play.

The many times Barcelona looked like Blackburn.

Defenders may be able to defend, but if there is not adequate recovery from those in midfield, or if the attack decides not to press following the transition, a team can be screwed. It's just chaos. Let's not always blame lack of pressure i.e. preventing or delaying the forward pass. Some players are careless with the ball, and that stitches their team right up. Teams aren't prepared to defend, so are caught on the counter, and are in a prolonged state of emergency defending. They are unable to regroup and reorganise, and so have to hope for a foul or a clearance. This leads us to example some preventative measures.

Essentially there are two extremes. All teams, good teams at least, consider their defensive security when attacking. For me, it's leaving three back. If playing with four defenders, I encourage the two full backs to push on and join in with the attack, with one central midfielder holding deep as a shield in front of the two central defenders. Other coaches have different strategies. The traditional English long ball team will play 4-4-2, sit fairly deep, and not leave that structure. The ball will be played direct to the strikers, or even behind the opposition defence. Two banks of four provides ample defensive security, direct passing gets the ball away from your goal and closer to their goal very quickly, the ball is in the air a lot so cannot be contested, and the combative nature of the strategy will mean plenty of set-pieces (also providing dead time). This is defensive security. Plenty of time is wasted, your players are rarely pulled out of position, and they don't give the ball away in their own half. Simple.

Possession teams go about things a bit differently. Their defensive security comes from knowing they have the ability to pass well. They have confidence in their ability to keep the ball in tight areas. They won't give the ball away cheaply, and know that while they have it, the opposition can't score. It's here we see the Barcelona 15 pass move in action. Much like that amazing Rovers goal earlier, they will obviously try and score a goal quicker than that if the opportunity presents itself, but they won't go forcing chances, instead being patient and waiting for the right time to strike. With this fifteen pass move, they are able to move their players around the pitch into more effective positions. Their defensive security comes not only from keeping possession for such a long time, but also this comes with other added benefits. It will keep the opposition camped in their own half, meaning that if they do win it, they will have further to travel to goal. The fifteen pass move, as well as attacking effectiveness, will provide positional defensive security in the form of certain players left in certain positions. And then there is the high press that often comes with possession football. If this team loses the ball, which, although unlikely, will be in the opposition's half, then because they've only been making ten or fifteen yard passes, they'll only have ten or fifteen yards to run when they press, meaning they can win the ball back again quickly after losing it. Amazing.

I like the defensive security of having a defender drop deep, or even a sweeper keeper, being available for recycles. When stuck, turn around and pass to someone that will be completely free and far from pressure. I believe in keeping the ball, but then I would, as I largely work in developmental environments, and believe you can't improve technique without the ball.

Barca pressing to regain possession within six seconds.

That's pretty much this piece done. I maintain as a coach that it is easier to get your defenders to attack better than it is to get your attackers to defend better. Value the transition. Value the off the ball work. Value the eighty nine minutes that you as an individual spend without the ball.


Further reading:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37327939
http://www.gelfmagazine.com/archives/creating_order_from_soccers_chaos.php
http://www.soccerbythenumbers.com/
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/may/24/numbers-game-everything-football-wrong
http://www.soccerstatistically.com/blog/2013/7/15/goal-time-analysis.html
http://blog.annabet.com/soccer-goal-probabilities-poisson-vs-actual-distribution/
http://www.soccermetrics.net/paper-discussions/goal-scoring-probability-over-the-course-of-a-football-match-2
http://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/168411/probability-of-a-team-scoring-a-goal
https://tacticalpedia.com/training/play-principles/negative-transition-2/
http://spielverlagerung.com/tactical-theory/

Winning V Development: Not mutually exclusive

Winning Isn’t Bad: It just shouldn’t be used as a way to measure the development of young players.

There’s a consensus among dads of young boys that play football in England, that winning in football is a taboo. “I don’t agree with all this not winning stuff” is an actual quote one of my parents once said to me. What they believe, wrongly, is that us coaches are not looking to win games of football, as if we are deliberately losing. I like to win. In fact, I am driven by it. We just have to be a bit careful on how we go about it, how we determine what winning is, and what we sacrifice to achieve this win.

It's a surprisingly huge topic, and to me, it seems like people just aren’t understanding each other. Firstly, there’s not two sides Winning v Development. The two are not mutually exclusive, but they do not mean the same thing. It’s more like a spectrum. Where you should place yourself depends on so many variables. 

Often when this debate is had, the two people arguing are usually a lot closer in their opinions than they seem to be. Essentially, they both want to achieve the same long term goal of improving players. The problem is that either they do not disclose the environment in which they are working, or that they are unable to see things from the other’s point of view. An U7 grassroots coach will have very different priorities to an U18 pro coach. These arguments often get stuck on the semantics. The U7 coach will state that all players deserve equal time on the field so that they are all given the opportunity to practise their skills. The U18 coach will say that he will only pick his best players, or give more game time to certain individuals, because that’s how it works when they enter the pro game, or that he focuses on those individuals because they have a chance of making it, while the rest of the team are just there to make up the numbers. Can you see how one could agree with the sentiments expressed by both coaches, yet the sentiments appear to be at odds with each other? Both coaches will be right to do what they do, but should not try to apply their thinking to the circumstances of the other. What works or what is appropriate at one level may not be at the other level.

This is where we will enter the Winning v Development Spectrum. Now remember that the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Rather than trying to argue Blue v Red (opposites) it’s like trying to argue Blue v Soft (different things). Just because something is blue doesn’t mean that it can’t also be soft. Winning or development are priorities. If you could only choose one; would you rather finish the season in first place, or finish the season with all of your players demonstrating significant improvements? If you do win the league, it might be that many of your players improved significantly throughout that journey. If every one of your players improves significantly, it might be that you become good enough to win the league. Would you rather it was blue or soft? You can order a blue one, and it might still be soft, or you could order a soft one that might still be blue. [Not a Brexit reference]

When trying to determine your priorities (not which side you’re on, as the two are not mutually exclusive) first ask these questions;

-          Are the players being paid?

-          What are we looking to achieve?

-          What are their motivations for being here?

If you’re a top European side competing regularly for trophies, your players will be paid excessively, they will be looking to win trophies, and they will be there for the money, success, and stature of the club. That’s why a lot of top, successful managers, such as Mourinho, have such a terrible track record for bringing through youngsters. If an U18 does come good, then they will be put in the squad, but they will not be given a chance to develop. They can develop in the reserves or out on loan somewhere. They have to hit the ground running. If they are not good enough, they won’t play. This is exactly what happens when managers are brought in to save a team from relegation. If there’s a young player in that team, they will be there on merit, not because the manager took the time to allow them some mistakes and bring them gently into the first team. At the top, if you’re not good enough, you’re not picked.

If we take a group of U6 kids playing formally for the first ever time, they will not be paid, they will be looking to learn how to play the game, and their motivations will be purely fun and enjoyment, mainly tied into the psychological and social corner. Some will be better than others. One or two may be involved in other sports, or will play in the park or at home (the ones who, as if by magic, appear “naturally talented”) and will just be a lot better than the ones who are far less active at such a young age. They should all get time on the pitch, and they should even rotate the positions too. No one is a “my son’s a goal scoring centre forward” until they are at least thirteen. When they play other teams, don’t ever judge their performance based on the score line. Youth football is stupid. When you get scores like 12-5 and 18-7, you shouldn’t be looking too much into it. At U6, some kids may have been playing since they could first walk, and some will be kicking a ball for the first time. We refer to this as “football age.” In a game of 5v5 at U6, look at the accumulative football ages of the team. There could potentially be as much as a three-year difference between some players.

I am twenty-seven. There are many other twenty-seven year olds out there. I can speak conversational Spanish. Many can’t speak a word of Spanish. This is a much easier concept to understand as we don’t view a skill like language as a natural ability, but as a skill that is honed and developed over many years. I’ve been learning Spanish for three years now. Another twenty-seven-year-old may have not learnt any at all. That puts me at a three-year advantage. Therefore, you could quite rightly expect me to be able to speak better Spanish than the twenty-seven-year-old that can’t speak Spanish. We compete at a Spanish exam, and I should win.

Football age itself is not an exact science, but more of a rough guideline. Take another twenty-seven-year-old that has also been learning Spanish for three years. Surely we should have similar test results, right? I think you know the answer to this one already. If they had better teachers, more formal learning, and dedicated more hours per week to study than I did, it’s obvious who would win. We both have a Spanish Speaking Age of three years, but in that time, my opponent has practised more and better than I have, and has thus developed further. It’s the same in football. My Spanish speaking opponent would be superior to me, and would crush me in a competition, despite us both having an age of three. In just three years, huge differences in quality of practice can become abundantly apparent. Now if you were to compare myself and my superior opponent to a native Spanish speaker of twenty-seven years old, we’d both be slaughtered by the native speaker. My opponent would be closer to the native speaker than I am, but it would be the difference between 9-0 and 10-0.

Here's where attitude comes in. Imagine if my opponent (twenty seven year old Spanish learner with three years learning), despite being better than me, had placed their worth in winning and comparison to others. They would hate the 9-0 defeat. It could literally destroy them. They may give up and stop learning Spanish. My 10-0 defeat to the native speaker is worse, but imagine if I had been taught to value improvement and perseverance? The 10-0 defeat would show me how far I need to go. Sure, I’d hate the 10-0 defeat, but I’d embrace it. It would quite clearly highlight my areas of weakness. By valuing the improvement, and having the perseverance to achieve my targets, I would get there in the end. I would make significant strides, and in another three years, would be far better than my original opponent that had only valued winning, and had given up after a tantrum following a 9-0 loss. Three years later, with the constant improvements that I will have been making, that 10-0 loss doesn’t hurt any more. That was three years ago. I’m not that same person any more. I’m much better than that now. The scars have healed and I have improved massively.

That’s precisely why we have to see it as a journey, not a destination. Winners don’t just win once. Winners win repeatedly. To win one game at U8 means nothing in the grand scheme of things. It feels great on the day, but it will be one of many insignificant results along the way. If you intend to make it to the top, you will play countless training and competitive games. You will play games at school, at recess, in the park with your friends. Winning just one of them does not make you a winner. The only time winning just once is perhaps acceptable is when a player wins a World Cup or a Champions League. This is the pinnacle of football. Very few are ever able to accomplish this. Those are wins that will stay with them forever. Even then, once isn’t enough. The hunger of these players means that they want to come back and win it next time.

What does winning actually mean? What does it tell us about the game or about the players? I’ll provide some facts about my most recent game as a coach at the time of writing. My team won 1-0. We got three points, so good, right? My team finished third in the league last season, and our opponents finished second bottom (10^th out of 11). My team had 41 points and were +40 GD. Our opponents had 11 and were -28. The two games our teams played last season were both wins to my team, at 6-0 and 3-0. Given that context, our 1-0 win doesn’t seem so impressive now.

Considering my team slaughtered the opposition twice last season, we should have slaughtered them again this season. They only won three games out of eighteen played. Surely they are useless, right? Now some more facts. The opposition had strengthened significantly during the summer. My team is littered with problems. In fact, I am new to this team, with this game being only my second game with them. I don’t know what’s happened, but they are a shadow of their former selves from last season, and it is my job to get them back on track. We’ve had a mass exodus of coaches and players. For this game we had a back four of two midfielders, and our second choice keeper. We also had no subs, with some key players missing, while our opponents had a very strong eleven, and a bench of five. Before the game, we were fifth in the table, and they were fourth, one point above us. The previous meeting for the first game of the season finished 2-2 away from home. Now our 1-0 win actually seems impressive.

See, from something grand like a win, we realise that it tells us very little. Football is a game of intricacies and chance. It just so happens that we got a goal and they didn’t. What I haven’t told you is how, or why. Was it a smash and grab 1-0 against the odds, or did we have 80% possession, twenty shots on target, and yet only managed to score one goal? We won the game, but does that mean that all of my players were brilliant? Does it mean in any way that any of my players were good, and that we fully deserved the win? Was the win down to tactics or individual skill? Was it fortune or perseverance?

The winning goal came in the 85^th minute. The opposition were attacking down their left side. The fresh-legged substitute was running down the wing at our defence. She cut inside onto her right, her stronger foot, as she approached the box. Two players went diving in and bought the fake. She was through. Two more players rushed back to get in her way, as she faked again, and they bought it. She was through on goal, just the keeper to beat, fifteen yards out, certain to score. At that moment, our left back, who had initially been beaten after diving in, had come flying in to the block the shot. She blocked it successfully. Had she stayed on the ground for a second longer in despair, she would not have got up in time to block the shot. Had she not have been a former player of our opponents, she may not have had the determination to get up and attempt a block. Had the striker chosen to shoot to the other side of the keeper, then the block never would have happened.

Luckily for us, the block was a solid one. The ball pinged out off her knee about thirty yards away to our centre midfielder. Like a precision pass. She was not expecting the ball to come to her from that situation, but was in a good enough position to start running at the defence with speed (think Torres v Barcelona). She carried the ball all the way up to the edge of the box, before sliding our striker through on goal, who coolly finished one-on-one against the keeper.

Now you know about the goal, is that enough information to determine whether we deserved to win the game? Were we just lucky? Did we deserve to win it due to the perseverance of our recovering defender? Did we deserve to win it due to the opposition striker making the wrong decision at the key moment? Or did we deserve to win the game because we kept a clean sheet despite all the absences and injuries against a very strong team? You still don’t know our possession stats, interceptions, chances created, shots on target etc. That’s the difference. Those are the parameters one might choose to measure performance, whereas goals are the only parameters available to measure winning.

My view on the day considered many things. These are young players playing in a reserve league. They have ambitions to make it into our first team that play in the third tier of ladies football. It’s a decent stage to be playing at. With all the players and coaches leaving, this side have been greatly under performing, and making many basic mistakes that need eradicating. We have new players and new coaches. Everyone needs time. Even though I know the opposition fairly well, I’m not working with them, so can’t change what they do on the pitch. My sessions and team talks can only affect my team. I was thinking about what we’d been working on in training recently, and our weak areas from previous games. I wanted them to move the ball quicker out of congested central areas, with the right and left back providing better width, to always be available for the switch. I wanted them to recycle the ball better when playing forward was not an option, rather than turning and wasting a pass. These, and a few others, are how I was going to measure the success or failure of the game. Essentially; are they doing the thing that I have asked them to do?

If I had instructed them to win the game, it may or may not have happened, just like if I had instructed them to make certain passing choices. If we had played the exact same 85 minutes, but the striker shot to the other side of the keeper, or our defender had not recovered, or our own striker had missed from close range, meaning we either drew or lost, should that have affected how I viewed my team’s performance? Performance and results are closely linked, but it’s not an absolute. Congratulations we won! Or commiserations we lost! It doesn’t really teach the players much. One goal is such a small event that has such large ramifications, and is often uncontrollable.

An 11v11 ninety-minute game with no substitutes means that each player has a 4.5% stake in the overall result. It could be that one player suddenly pulls off a sublime bit of skill, or makes a horrendous mistake, and that could be the moment that changes the game. In an average game of football, there is usually just two goals scored. We’re looking at 1-0, 1-1, 0-0, 2-0, 2-1, and 2-2 as our most likely score lines. At any time in those ninety minutes, a goal can be scored, by any player, in a whole variety of ways.

Think of it like this. I have been driving for ten years. I’ve driven over 100,000 miles across ten different countries, on three continents. At the moment I’m doing about three or four hundred miles a week. Sometimes late at night when I’m tired. In all those hours of driving, I’ve been involved in one minor collision, which was completely the fault of the other driver (anyone who has seen the buses in Mexico City will understand). Does ten years with a perfect record make me a good driver? It goes some way to suggesting so. Does that mean that I won’t run three kids over tomorrow while looking at my phone? Does it mean I might not spot black ice and go skidding out of control? Of course not. It’s highly unlikely that I will be involved in a crash, just like it’s highly unlikely that in any given moment of football that a goal will be scored. There are 90 minutes, which means 5,400 seconds of play (we’re being crude with numbers here, as the ball does spend considerable amount of time off the field). If there are two goals in the game, that means that there are 5,398 seconds of a match where the ball is not crossing the goal line. If you were told that the game would last exactly 5,400 seconds and precisely two goals were going to be scored, that gives you a 1/2699 chance of accurately predicting the second that the ball would cross the line. That’s a 0.004% (roughly) chance of getting it right.

Sure, we can make it a little more predictable by knowing more goals are scored at certain times in the game, and that certain teams speed up or slow down, some players are more influential and likely to score, and some players are more prone to mistakes. Absolutely, yes, but we shan’t be factoring this in at the moment for risk of over complicating the point.

How do you define success? In Spanish, it could be that the recipient understands my point. Or maybe that’s not good enough, as I want it to be perfect. In driving, it could be that I don’t die on my way home. Or maybe that I get to my destination a little quicker than normal. What determines how I define success? That’s a question that opens a large can of worms, and goes off onto many tangents. The point is that to win or lose is very difficult to predict, and that it is a terrible way of measuring development. When looking at measuring performance, winning or losing is just way too vague.

Is Usain Bolt happy with just winning the gold, or does he want to smash his personal best? What if he smashes his personal best but comes second? What about beating his opponents by a long distance but falling way short of the world record? It’s like when a Premier League team only defeats a lower league team by one or two goals in the cup; what should we expect? They crossed the line first, they won! Is that not good enough? At what point are you happy with the result or performance?

For a team to truly appreciate their wins, they have to know what their wins are. What constitutes as success for a certain team? A team newly promoted into the division will consider avoiding relegation as a success. A team that spent millions on new players and has a history of competing for the title will consider finishing second as a failure. Is a 0-0 draw away at first place a good result or a bad result? The striker might not be pleased as they were unable to score, but the defence would be ecstatic as they would have done their job right. Another thing to worry about is perhaps false league position. At the time of writing, Arsenal have only played one league match away at a top half opponent, meaning their fixtures are going to become more difficult. It’s why you must absolutely define what is something to be celebrated and what is something to be embarrassed by.

For kids, when games can finish with stupid scores, and aggressive coaches and parents that bark orders from the sidelines place large amounts of pressure upon their younglings, it can be very confusing and overwhelming. If a U8 team has three players missing at a birthday party, they could ship ten goals in one game. If the goalkeeper stayed up all night at a sleepover and can’t focus the next day, it could negatively impact their performance. If the striker has had an argument with a family member, they may be distracted, and thus failing to score. Kids football is so random. Can a player be happy with their own performance when their team lost? I’d say yes, but to which extent depends on the level. A U7 that scores five goals while their team loses 8-5 can probably still be very happy with themselves, but at the same time should understand that it is a team game, and we shouldn’t be okay with losing. There are no absolutes. It’s all about perspective. I’ve seen teams get smashed significantly, and yet the keeper on the losing side has been the best player. “Without you son, it could have been double!” is often a legitimate claim.

Why in some locations do they have walkover rules, don’t keep score, don’t keep league tables etc.? Isn’t that teaching our kids to be a bunch of whining pussies? Where there is an argument for teaching six year olds to go for the kill and mentally destroy their opponents, that’s not my angle. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with keeping score and having league tables at a young age. If you don’t want your kids to know the score, you shouldn’t teach them to count. Such measures have been brought in to protect the young players from the pressures of the parents. It’s the typical US soccer mom. The one who doesn’t have a clue about the game, but wishes to be seen in a positive light by all the other parents (because other people’s opinions of us are super important). YEAH JIMMY!!!!! WOOOOOOO!!!! YOU KICK THAT BALL!!!! You know the type. We get them in the UK too, but are usually middle aged men with a lot of pent up resentment who are pushing their kids to go pro.

Let it be known straight away; it is completely irresponsible of a parent to not push their kids at a young age. Hear me out. At the ages of about two or three (younger, actually) kids will start to really develop mental skills and understanding of the world around them, as well as their balance and motor skills. At that age, all they want to do is shove crayons up their nose and defecate in the garden. No kid of two says “When I grow up, I want to be [insert a realistic and pragmatic career option]”. If they even know that they one day will grow up, they literally want to be anything from a chocolate chip cookie to the colour yellow. They won’t know that they are at an age where they need to start developing social, mental, and motor skills. Push them. Push them into something. Swimming, gymnastics, bicycling, something. You will notice the difference by the time they are seven. At that age, when they actually want to join teams and play with their friends, some will already be able to do that. Others will not, and will forever be disadvantaged by not getting that early start. It’s very difficult to recover from that.

Pushing them at the age of three to join a soccertots class and making sure they see out the term is a very different kind of pushing them to what we see on the sidelines of kids football. The latter type of pushing is screaming, berating, and downright aggression that can cause embarrassment. Push them by making them get up in the morning. Push them by making sure they have a good breakfast. Push them by ensuring they shake the hands of their coaches and play the game fairly. That’s when your responsibilities as parents to push them stop. At that point, you sit back and watch the game. Encourage, applaud, console. Leave the instructions, the criticism, and the praise to the coaches. After the game, don’t talk to them about it unless they bring it up. And then, you’re only job is to ask if they had fun, did they learn anything, and to tell them that you love spending time with them.

Sadly, not everyone can be so calm and rational. “I’m sorry, I just get that way around sports.” Well don’t be that way. You’re the one in control of your actions. If you seriously can’t help yourself from becoming red faced and irate at a youth sports event, you should drop them off, and then leave to go to therapy. Seriously. You are a deeply flawed human that is having a massively negative impact upon your child. You are the reason that walkover rules and the ban on publishing results have come into effect.

 “My lad fuckin’ smashed it at the weekend! Slaughtered the other lot 15-0!” This kind of statement is often said by proud dads in pubs and workplaces all across the country. Just like my 1-0 win, it tells you nothing about the game. It tells you nothing about the kid. And playing a game so easy that you win 15-0 benefits nobody. It’s embarrassing. This is why league tables with promotion and relegation are necessary, even at a young age. If you’re bad, and you only ever play great teams, you won’t be able to cope. It needs to be challenging. 15-0 is not a challenge to either side. Likewise, if you’re winning by those score lines every week, you need to play against teams that can actually get the ball off you. The challenge needs to be relevant. Imagine training to run 5k, having never ran such an event before. You’re not that fit. Being able to get your time under thirty minutes seems possible with a bit of practise. Being asked to get it to fifteen minutes on just your first try is near impossible. Kids, just like adults, won’t play impossible games for long. That’s why carnivals and fairgrounds can only dream of the success of the gaming industry. The former are rigged, while the latter raise the bar just a little bit each time.

The walkover rule prevents embarrassment. Should you be embarrassed if you lose? Again, it’s about perspective. If my friends and I formed a team and we played Barcelona, if it was 20-0, we would not find that embarrassing at all. However, if we lost by that score to another pub side, we’d probably never play the game again. Because the game would end at 8-0, it stops the overly keen youth coaches from destroying the confidence of their opponents. What’s good about that? It means kids don’t quit playing. Does it matter if they’re awful? Yes, they could be late developers. They also provide opponents. Imagine if every team Barcelona or Real Madrid thought were bad just quit the league. That would leave them with only three or four teams to play. That would not benefit anyone.

Promote and relegate, even at young ages, to keep the teams playing against teams of their level. I’d suggest even playing four or six month seasons so that it happens sooner. A year is a long time for a child. If they’re in the wrong league, they have to wait twelve months until they can play games against more appropriate opponents. It also keeps things fresh and adds to the competitiveness.

Also, do away with playoffs for the kids. I know they’re fun, but they place too much emphasis on the short term rather than the long term. In life, rewards come from consistency. Consistently do a good job, consistently achieve good grades, consistently play well. A team may be seeded in the playoffs, but as we know that football is a random game, anyone can beat anyone in a one off. Where’s the reward in that? Play cup competitions in addition to the league. Have summer tournaments. Knockout competitions can teach valuable life lessons and are an important part of football, but do not have playoffs in place of a league. Reward the team that has been the best for the longest period of time, not just the team that enters a run of form during the last few weeks, despite being average all season.

The idea that the long haul doesn’t matter is an opinion often expressed (sometimes verbally, often through choices and actions) by players and parents alike. “I only go at about 70% in training because I’m saving my best for the game at the weekend.” Ever heard something like that before? It is the anthem of the mediocre. The war cry of the perpetually average. Remember how you need to give your best at every opportunity? Remember how you need to munch your cornflakes and down your orange juice like a champion? Winning takes time, effort, consistent practise. You don’t just win once. For these people, it is far too late. You get good at what you do in practise. Spend your time talking; you’ll be a good talker. Spend your time walking; you’ll be a good walker. Spend your time pulling out of challenges; you’ll be good at not being able to tackle anyone. You can’t improve your best if you never work at your best. That’s why theatre groups spend months practising. That’s why dress rehearsals are exactly like the real thing. They don’t go over their lines and think that’s enough. “We’ll be alright on the night. I can remember most of it.” They practise until they can’t get it wrong.

What makes football different to performing on stage is that it is completely random, and anyone can affect it at any moment. A band plays the same songs in the same order. They are not competing with anyone else. There’s no band that can take the instruments away from them while they are playing. It’ a well-rehearsed, carbon copy performance. Football has so much randomness. Players need to be able to adapt to all sorts of new scenarios, considering a plethora of live information, using a range of learnt skills and abilities, with decisions being influenced by past successes and failures. The speed of thought has to become instinctive. That does not happen at 70%. Would Muhammad Ali box with a punching bag at 70% and think he was ready for a heavyweight title fight? Would Bradley Wiggins bike around the track at 70% and think he was ready for the Olympics?

Going at 100% all the time almost makes it seem like the developmental aspect is not important. That’s just not true. Practising at 100% actually makes it realistic. If it’s not realistic, players do not develop. Conversely, practising at less than 100% makes players susceptible to picking up bad habits. It leaves players underprepared. It’s not about winning; it’s about trying your best to win. It’s not about winning; it’s about preparing to win.

The complexities of maintaining possession.

This is what gives players that winning mentality. They’re intrinsically motivated. They’re task orientated. They have long term vision, but focus on the minute details of the short term. They do not fear set-backs and failures, yet embrace them, and convert that pain into fuel. It’s hard to create a winning mentality in a world that thrives off of the instant gratification of modern life. If you have good news, you don’t need to wait to see your family and friends, it just goes right on Facebook! “Look everybody! I have a kid/dog/meal/best friend/diploma/pay cheque/excellent selfie/destructive cleavage/nice message/rainbow/” or whatever else it may be that people use to fish for compliments. No longer do we have to wait until we see our extended family to let them know about our new girlfriend, engagement, or vacation. No longer do we have to wait until the next big family gathering to let them know about the wonderful new job or the graduation. We love those moments, but they’re always over too soon. So now, enjoy my holiday photos, spread out over the next few weeks, so you can spend extra special time and attention admiring the selfie I took, then comment with some fake response that conveys jealousy and affection. Just look at any girl’s Instagram account to see what I mean. Girl goes somewhere (doesn’t matter where, it could be a world famous landmark, or it could be the McDonald’s drive-thru), takes a selfie, usually with a forced smile or duck face, always from an angle that is slightly above the forehead, often with some serious cleave on display (there’s a strong inch-to-like correlation), and as a rule, the face has to be at least 30% of the picture. Sometimes as much as 60%.

Do we have a winning mentality or do we have a dopamine addiction? Every like is a shot of dopamine. That’s why we communicate via memes. We have nothing interesting to say, but know some friends we never see will find the meme amusing, and give it a like. Instant gratification via a dopamine shot, and we forget about everything that’s plaguing us. My longest meme benders have been when I’ve been at my most busy. The work is boring and stressful, the deadlines are approaching, there’s too much on my plate, and I now I have a choice between staying up late and getting it finished, or waking up early to get it finished. All of a sudden, I’m on Facebook, hitting share to forward on a Hank Hill meme. I’ve never even used propane. Twenty minutes go by, and some kid from Canada I haven’t seen for three years gives it a like. Yay dopamine. But in that time I would have also shared ten other memes, and a satirical article about how Donald Trump locks himself in a room so that he can write Twitter updates, fireside, dipping a feather into ink. I feel like I’ve changed the world because three friends also read it and gave it a like. High fives all round for sticking it to the establishment.

Long term joy and fulfilment comes from doing your best and feeling valued. To be able to have that opportunity every day, we need to be working in something that we truly believe in. That’s the key difference between a job and a career. Your career defines you. Your job is just something you do for cash. Don’t get stuck in a job. Short term suffering for long term gain. I (and my parents) have spent a lot of time, effort, and money on my education. I may be essentially friendless, lacking social skills, and be devoid of empathy, but I have built myself a platform from which I can build upon and spring forward. No one can ever take away my knowledge, experiences, and qualifications gained from all this.

It's a temptation of many in their early twenties to live for the weekend. They’ll take any job because it gives them money. With a bit of hard work, they start to move quickly in that business. Soon, they’re working good hours, making a fair bit of money. They love going clubbing on Fridays, stay in late Saturday morning, hit the bookies, watch the football, go out to the pub with their mates, play football Sunday morning, then round to their parents on Sunday afternoon for a roast dinner. They are very active socially. They are accepted by the lads, meet plenty of birds, and due to their shagging, drinking, and football, they do accumulate a large amount of banter points by the end of each month. Kudos. But what are they building towards? The job soon becomes dead end. The drinking and late nights soon become boring, frustrating, and take all your cash. Eventually one of those birds latches on and makes herself a missus, and she wants kids and a place to live. What about Sunday morning football and the nights out? Hard to do in your late twenties and early thirties when you have bills, kids, and a wife. The fun quickly dies out. That lifestyle rarely lasts. That’s when people realise they are going through the motions. They’ve not been anywhere and not become anything. That’s when depression hits, and the existential crisis happens.

Who am I? What have I become? What could I have been? You’re certainly not a winner, though it looked like you were having great fun in your early twenties. Is this now it for the rest of your life?

We owe it to our kids to give them the tools to compete, to fight, to improve, to self-reflect, and to stay grounded. We won’t always be there for them. We can’t do everything for them. Push them, challenge them, guide them, support them, extend them, criticise them, love them, and give them a purpose. Or else they’ll turn out useless and miserable, eternally seeking temporary and artificial highs until death.

Do your kids know how to fend for themselves? Do they know how to be happy? What kind of person would they become if you were tragically removed from their life this instant? We need to be honest with ourselves if we wish to avoid the above trap. It’s okay if they are driven or obsessed. Help them find a passion and a sense of purpose, even if it’s not yours, and help them grow into the best that they can be.

Developing players using the four corner model.

What we must never do is to live vicariously through them. It’s their life. As mentioned before, push them into something. Make sure they give it their best go. Many quit because they are not used to being outside the comfort zone. If that’s the case, keep pushing them to try, and help them adjust. If they want to quit for genuine reasons, help them find something else that will help them burn off their energy, develop social skills, learn coping mechanisms, face competition, strive to improve, teach them life skills, learn motor skills etc. And never motivate them through fear and reward. If they truly grow to love what they do, it will be their choice. They will be the ones that have the ownership, and that’s when true enjoyment appears. When I used to go out into my back garden as a kid and practise my shots and free-kicks, it’s because I loved doing that. I wasn’t thinking about being a professional or earning money from kicking a ball. I loved the feeling of seeing that ball rocket into the top corner of the net. From a very young age, that repetitive practice helped me develop a cannon of a right foot. It’s still a cannon now, even if the rest of me is no good. That’s task orientation right there. I was focussed only on putting that ball into the goal. Sometimes driven, lobbed, chipped, curled, swerved, floated, and through the panes of next door’s greenhouse, but it was a constant development of a skill that became useful to me. My parents didn’t need to shout at me to do it. I didn’t need to set reminders on my phone. I just went out there and did it. I loved it.

The biggest indicator for me of which kids will improve the most is by looking at what they do before and after practice. Sometimes, due to the restrictions of area and time, it’s not possible. Out of my boys in Mexico, the ones that got better were the ones who over the eighteen months, showed up early with a ball, and stayed late with a ball. It doesn’t matter if they came to me as the best or the worst player, the ones who did extra got better quicker. If they arrived early by fifteen minutes twice a week, that was half an hour per week. If we trained for forty weeks of the year, that adds up to twenty extra hours of football. Completely free. If they stayed behind for an hour, that makes forty extra hours per year. We’re already looking at sixty hours more than their teammates. That’s a considerable amount. These boys would also play with their older or younger brothers, and their dads. They would make up their own rules, govern their own games, invent their own challenges. I could show them a few things in training, and maybe plant an idea in their head, but that’s not where they learnt to be better players. They did that themselves. They developed a love of the ball. Or better yet, they were allowed to develop a love of the ball.

Other kids weren’t so fortunate. The mums didn’t mind. It was always warm, and they’d stay behind to chat. The kids were in a protected area, having the time of their lives, with only a hint of supervision. Other boys would arrive on time, or late, and would be taken to the car the second training finished. They weren’t allowed the opportunity to bond or to socialise. They didn’t associate positive memories and experiences with the ball. They were not given the opportunity to fall in love with the ball. They couldn’t do any of the skills in training because they never had free play at home or in the park. They were useless in the games because the other players on my team and the opposition were becoming so much better than them. They did not hang out with their friends after training.

One boy improved a hell of a lot in that time. I remember his mum crying when he scored his first goal and all the other boys jumped on him. He was a year younger than the rest. But for eighteen months he had good attendance, showed up early, stayed late, played against older kids, joined in games of headers and volleys, knockout Wembley, 3v3, penalties etc. He started to become a decent player, after being one of the weakest. Being a year younger than the team, his football age was also a year younger (years of experience). He was always swimming in the deep end. Figuratively lifting heavier weights than he should have. It taught him to cope. It will teach him to excel. His parents noticed his improvement. I made sure they knew it was nothing to do with me. He would often arrive early and stay late. It helped that their house was pretty much the other side of the hill to our club, and so was a two-minute drive. Still, we had others in a similar situation that did not use that opportunity.

In the Winning v Development argument, remember that we used to be beaten most weeks, and he was initially considered a weaker player. His win was to score his first goal. His win was constant improvement. His win was to finally be passed to by the better players. His win was to be invited to play by the older kids. His win was making his parents proud. Do you think he was aware of any of that? Absolutely not. He was six. He just loved the ball and loved spending time with his friends. We lost most of our games, and at three attempts only once did we make the playoffs, yet he improved so much as a player. That’s the win I’m looking for.

Champions do extra.

Each one of those wins mentioned above is a little win. Consistent, small, but impactful, like a chain reaction. There are little wins all around us. Every pass, tackle, shot, block, header, interception etc. can all be little wins. Outside of the game, every good sleep, healthy meal, good practice, good rest, extra training, jumpers for goalposts game with your friends, these are all little wins. Think of it as money in the bank. As an investment. Every time you play a game, each little win buys more raffle tickets. The more raffle tickets, the more likely you are to win the game. We all know it’s possible to play well and lose, or to be an outstanding player on a bad team. Still, the game experience is money in the bank. As is every training session, fitness session, game watched, and all the little details from there that affect growth physically, socially, psychologically, and technically. Has watching the analysis on Sky helped the player understand Conte’s formation at Chelsea? Has the strange exercise in training helped the player to understand how to work better with teammates? Has the humiliating loss at the weekend helped the player understand how to self-reflect and not blame others? All little wins. All money in the bank. Explain it to kids like XP points in video games, helping their characters to level up.

In these little wins, we find what are called non-events, which is a neglected part of the game. The best way to explain a non-event is in regards to defending. Players do things all the time that affect the game, that goes largely unnoticed. It is, in many ways, unquantifiable. The striker makes a run to receive the ball from the midfielder, but is tracked and marked by the central defender. This means that the striker does not receive the ball, and instead, the midfielder has to play the ball backwards, and thus does not penetrate the defence. It’s a non-event, as the forward pass never happened. Had the defender not been switched on, he would have failed to mark the striker, who could have received the ball in a dangerous position. That never happened. That’s a thing that we can’t write down. If the defender had made a tackle, block, or interception, then we could notice this and provide a stat. We can’t do that for things like screen, mark, cover, or in the attacking sense, overlaps, checked runs, decoy runs, and all such actions that create space for others or distract the opposition, but do not result in the player themselves actually receiving the ball.

It's why defenders are largely underappreciated. In life, realistically, how many sheep do you need to have sex with to earn the label “sheep shagger”? Just one. You only need to shag one sheep to be known as a sheep shagger. A striker can do very little all game, and out of nowhere, score the winning goal. Defenders need to be organised, disciplined, and attentive all game. Just one mistake can lead to that goal. Think of Man City. Kompany (when he’s not injured) will run, head, intercept, mark, tackle, block, cover, track etc. all game. Sterling at the other end will take one too many touches before getting tackled, underhit a cross, try to take on too many players, will shoot when he should have passed, will be easily brushed off the ball, won’t track back, and will choose the wrong foot. Sterling just needs to get it right once to be the hero. Kompany just needs to get it wrong once to be the villain.

Like non-events, development is unquantifiable. We’re not talking in terms of the NFL Combine. If you measure, weigh, and test a footballer, it tells you very little about them as a footballer. In gridiron football, speed, strength, and arm length gain more importance because those are the only things those players rely on. Only the quarterback makes decisions, while the rest run, catch, or block for the next seven seconds until the game stops. It’s all pre-determined, and pretty much restarts in the same way. There’s less of a random element, and less individuality within the sport. In football, so what if you can bench press a large amount or run 100m quickly? How do you play in a back three? Can you spray passes? Can you anticipate crosses? Can you play as an inverted winger? Can you drop deep and receive on the half turn? It’s decision making. This also goes some way to explaining why we’re behind a lot of sports when it comes to sports science, as the physicality is not the deciding factor in the game, it’s the intelligence. It’s a game that requires the mastery of so many different techniques. Is there any part of it that is measurable?

We try. We do shooting tests, skill tests, juggling tests, turning tests, and a whole range of tests. In a lot of ways, it’s an attempt to look busy. To pretend we know what we’re doing. Yeah, sure, there is a link between these skills and top level performance, but it’s about being able to do it in the heat of a game. It’s why John Farnworth and Sean Garnier aren’t professionals. When isolated, just themselves with the ball, they look as magical as Ronaldinho. They certainly possess a very high level of skill. But it’s not just skill, is it? Ronaldinho could do it in games. Ronaldinho could do it with other players trying to get the ball off him. Ronaldinho could do it on the grand stage. So we do struggle to quantify it.

What about in game stats? They do go some way to helping us understand performance. Individual stats like pass completion, shots on target, successful dribbles, interceptions etc. do help us understand some elements of a performance. It is limited though, and must come with context. If we compare the stats to the previous game, we’re already very unscientific. Different teams, different abilities, different playing styles, different weather, different surface, different time of day, among others. Too many variables have changed from one game to the next. It’s like scoring a hat-trick at home to Swansea in a 5-0 win, and forcing two incredible saves from David DeGea in a 1-1 draw away to Manchester United. The stats would be very different, but surely there’s credibility in both, depending upon what we’re looking for.

With longevity we can gather a larger range of information which can help us examine, scrutinise, and compare situations. For example, Peter Crouch’s England record. He’s scored a lot of goals, but many of them were against inferior teams in qualifiers and friendlies. We have enough evidence to suggest he’s prolific against mediocre opponents, but it’s still just a suggestion. His club record may be better at certain clubs, which could be due to playing with better players, or even just knowing his teammates better. Even with all the stats and comparisons available, we still rely so much on guess work. What do we value as harder to do? What do we define as more important? What’s more challenging? It’s why we cannot scientifically prove Messi or Ronaldo is superior. Ronaldo may have won in two different leagues, but Messi has more league titles when they have played in the same league. Ronaldo may have won an international competition, but Messi has taken Argentina to four finals compared to Portugal’s one. They’ve both broken goal scoring records, became highly capped, and are legends for club and country. So who you favour depends on what you value. For me, Ronaldo is a... A bit like Bono. Bono does such wonderful work for the poor and underprivileged people of the world, but he’s so smug about everything that he turns us off him. Ronaldo poses as if to bask in our appreciation, lifting his shorts up so we can admire his thighs. Amazing player, just comes across as a knob.

Parents value winning with kids because for a lot of them, it’s the only way they know how to measure what is good or bad. We won = good. We lost = bad. That comes without context, and without a greater understanding for the game.

So I ask you, would you rather your kid was part of a team that won all the time, but was a bench player, and clearly one of the weakest in the team, falling yet further behind those getting most of the playing time? They’d still get all the trophies and appreciation (just like sub goalkeepers). Or how about being a decent player in an average team, that plays a lot of games, wins occasionally, loses more often, and is showing great signs of improvement as an individual?

Would you rather they picked up loads of plastic grassroots trophies, or became intelligent, skillful players?

Would you rather they won all the time, or learnt humility, kindness, compassion, and respect?

Now, these are not mutually exclusive. It’s possible to have both or neither. I just want to know where your preference lies. That’s how you ascertain your values. That’s what shapes your child’s development.