Deconstructing the Thought Process of Game Changing Decisions

According to Marcelo Bielsa, there are five reasons that a team wins a game of football. Guardiola shoves in one more. The five are within the control of the team, yet we know there are some things outside of our control in football. Luck is not some kind of mystical force that punishes those with bad karma. Luck in football is to benefit from an incident that is outside of your control. Steven Gerrard slipping against Chelsea was bad luck. Chelsea did nothing to force that, and there was no way that anyone could have foreseen or predicted such an incident. But it happened, and it changed the game.

As football is a low scoring game, each goal has huge ramifications. A goal can come at any second. There are no rules or absolutes to predict football. Even the trends and the correlations can only tell us about the past, and not the future. The difference in goals scored between two teams is often only one, yet it means a huge amount. Two teams can have almost identical performances, yet gain half a yard on one opportunity, which is enough to score the winning goal in a game where the two teams were otherwise inseparable.

It could even be that by performance metrics that the losing team far outplays the winning team. In 2012, Barcelona were far better than Chelsea in the Champions League semi-final, yet Chelsea outperformed Barca in the one category that counts; goals. We know this happens a lot in football, yet that game was the extreme.

Entertain the idea for a while that football, in some alternate universe, rewards teams differently. In our current universe, the tiniest difference in performance can be rewarded richly or punished brutally. How about, in this alternate universe, the points earned from a game reflect the goals scored? A draw is worth one point, as it is in our current universe. In the alternate universe, the points for a win are directly related to the goal margin. A team that wins 1-0 gains one point. A team that wins 4-0 gains four points. A team that wins 4-3 gains one point. The losing team gets nothing. As most wins are decided by just one goal, the league would look a lot more even.

The team that wins the league is obviously far better than the team that finishes bottom. Yet the difference between the two is often exaggerated by the way the points system works (unless it’s Sunderland). Don’t misunderstand me; I’m not belittling, disliking, or wishing to change the points system in football. I think it’s fine. As a coach, I am merely pointing out that the difference between winning and losing in football comes down to the inch, and then the difference in rewards for this inch is a chasm between the winning team and the losing team.

How do we win football games? Us English will tell you that it is guts, determination, sweat, perseverance, and everything else that we associate with the lovable loser. It’s true that there are times that your desire will get you over the line, but it doesn’t make you a better player. A pub team could play Bayern Munich, and be so psyched up for the game. They’re at a big stadium, with all the fans, and it is the best day of their lives. The Bayern players would see it is an inconvenience, and would likely not try very hard. The difference in motivation levels could be huge, but it pales in comparison to the difference in quality. Bayern would destroy the pub team, even if the pub team were fighting for their lives. The English passion we believe we have is a myth. Other countries are equally as passionate as we think we are. The difference is we don’t actively encourage diving, and somehow through cognitive dissonance, makes us think we’re tougher than the Spanish or Argentinians.

Anyway.

Let’s quantify these. Some are fairly simple and largely self-explanatory. Some may overlap a little.

1.      Tactically – I often refer football tactics to the game of rock, paper, scissors, merely for the ideals of simplicity. You got rock, they had scissors. You win. Easy. Football is far more nuanced than this in reality, and tactics are not the be all and end all of games, but simply a framework for the team’s performance routine. One coach could outsmart the opponent, and the game is won.

Even this is nuanced. Good or bad tactics may not be enough to win the game by itself. A team could have an inhibiting tactical setup, and still find themselves winners, due to the technical quality of their players. A team may be superior tactically, yet will need to be superior physically to make it effective. Allardyce teams are traditionally long ball, challenging aerially. They try to shape the game to their parameters. To be effective at this game, the team needs to be tall and strong. Height and strength are not the only important physical factors in football, but if you are to play long ball, then they become vital. It’s necessary to have dominance in these areas if you are to be successful by the parameters of the game you insist on playing.

2.      Technically – I talked earlier about Bayern v the pub team. Rarely will we find such genuine discrepancy between two teams. Often it happens in cups that are played between different divisions, yet the teams are not as far apart as the aforementioned extremes. The team with the better players should win, unless the tactics are used in such a way that nullifies their threat. Or even having a player that is technically excellent, who can suddenly make the difference at any moment.

I will use the example of Thierry Henry for the Red Bulls. Accumulatively, 11v11, Red Bulls would be only slightly better than their opponent. Randomly pick a 1v1, 2v2, or 3v3, and include Thierry Henry, whichever side he is on will be stacked. Speaking in terms of FIFA ratings for video games, the average MLS player would be between 60/100 and 70/100. Henry, even when older, was still above 80/100. In a 1v1 versus the defender, Henry is more likely to win. In a 3v3, although being just one sixth of the personnel, his superior quality would make the difference. Not every time, but enough times. It only needs to work once to win the game, and with technically superior players, they are more likely to make that once count.

3.      Physically – A team that dies after eighty minutes is giving their opponents a ten-minute advantage. Can we score more goals in eighty, than you can in ninety? Or, for the last half an hour, we’re only going to play at 70% capacity, because we lack stamina. It’s amazing how many teams do that to themselves, by not being able to go the distance.

We’re not just concerned with stamina though, as that is one facet. We should also consider the physical attributes and how they relate to the technical and tactical attributes. Are your players tall and strong, but lacking with their feet? Play the game in the air. Are your players small but technical? Keep the ball on the ground and master possession. Managers like Pulis, Hughes, and Allardyce recognise that their players are huge brutes, and so use that physical advantage.

4.      Mentally – We have to give some credit and responsibility to the players. They may be able to figure it out on the pitch. They may come up with a solution to a small problem or frequently occurring play. An intelligent player may have sussed out the runs or positioning of an opponent, and thus taken a different strategy to exploit that side of their game.

The mental side of the game is more about mental strength in this regard. Confidence, self-efficacy, motivation, toughness, arousal etc. We frequently see teams panic and blow their chances, often an underdog who was never been to the top before, or we see big teams that underestimate their opponents, take their eye off the ball, and are punished by smaller teams. The latter happens each year in the FA Cup. And we should also factor in responses to in game occurrences. How do you deal with being 2-0 up or down? An unjust sending off? An own goal? Missed penalty? Goalkeeping error? Elbow in the face that goes unpunished? You can’t change what happened, and it takes a lot of strength for players to not mentally crumble, or to go crazy and start looking to fight everyone. Keep your cool and remain focussed.

5.      Preparation – This factor concerns different aspects from above. A terrible warm-up means a team is not prepared physically. Not scouting the opposition means you are underprepared tactically and can be caught out. Teams and individuals have to give themselves the best chance from the start. Fail to prepare, prepare to fail. Many players underestimate that, and are stuck in second gear until the opposition are a goal or two ahead (Mexico at the Confederations Cup).

6.      Luck – As mentioned before, luck is benefiting from something that is outside of your control. A bad call, a slip, a deflection etc. No description necessary, only this video.

How did Chelsea come out of this game alive?

Barcelona outperformed Chelsea in by every metric. Chelsea had ten players, and Messi missed a penalty. The Torres goal at the end came from him being in the right place, after missing a tackle, and strutting off in a huff. A clearance then happened to land at his feet, while he was completely isolated. If it happened in a movie, we’d walk out for it being too absurd to believe.

Let us now examine the thought process that is behind substitutions. This isn’t one of those early round cup games where the coach plays the kids, and is quite happy with being eliminated to avoid fixture congestion, and so at 1-0 down may replace the better players with the less experienced. No. This is 1-0 down on 70 minutes in a game that you desperately need to win.

What needs to be considered? We’ll work backwards.

• ·         Luck is not a strategy. You’re just as likely to benefit from luck without making a change. You can’t influence the officials or the likelihood of Slippy G. You can make a change of some kind that would otherwise have your players in the opposition’s area more often, meaning that if the referee were to give a penalty for no reason, it would likely be for you. Still, it’s unpredictable, and outside our sphere of influence.
• 
  
• ·        We cannot prepare at this point. There are no timeouts. The best we have is live instructions. Some coaches take a substitution to bring a couple payers over and give information, pass around notes, or tell the sub to pass the message on. Very difficult to prepare at this point, unless we know it could go to extra time, but we’d still need a goal to happen first.
• 
  
• ·         How determined or resilient are your players? At this point in, there’s no opportunity for Al Pacino type speeches. Bringing on an influential player may have an impact. At 1-0 down, I can imagine players like Roy Keane and Alan Shearer coming off the bench being able to give players a mental boost. It may squeeze an extra 10% out of each individual. Unless there’s an injury that they are recovering from, these players rarely start from the bench.
• 
  
• ·         Will the players be able to compete? Can they dig in? Do they have anything left in the tank? Barring some miracle juice, there’s nothing more the coach can do for the players physically at that stage. If the players are tiring, or the opposition is tiring, there can be tactical changes that mask or exploit that. A substitution could work positively if, for example, the opposition left back is exhausted, but won’t be coming off. Bring on a fresh right winger, and go at the left back with speed. Or conversely, subs are made for injury or fatigue, to avoid a negative rather than create a positive.
• 
  
• ·         Are there any improvements that can be made? Is someone having a bad game? Do you need a different type of player in such a position? Perhaps you have identified that the opposition can’t defend crosses, and need to bring on a striker that is able to win headers.
• 
  
• ·         If making such a sub, consider what you will gain and what you will lose from that change. In the above example, the striker may be better at winning headers, but not so good at the high press, thus allowing the opposition to play out from the back better. If the opposition can build their attacks, they become more of a threat. They would also have more possession, meaning you may get less opportunities to cross.

Lastly, we’re going to look at a tactical change, and there are three things to consider here;

• ·         Do you need a sub?
• ·         Does your team have the knowledge/ability/experience to successfully enact and implement this plan?
• ·         What are the chances the change will work?

At Bayern, Pep would make changes that were risky, and borderline insane. His players were physically superior, technically superior, and more intelligent. They would also be better prepared. A lot of teams have a Plan A and sometimes and Plan B. Bayern would have about five or six plans, and although they would work extensively on this during training, due to their intelligence, the plans would work better and more effectively in the game than if any other team tried them

Counter-attack is the way to win the game, but do our players understand how to play in the necessary formation, and do we have the speed to hit the opponents on the break? Bayern always did. Other teams might not.

The opposition are apparently susceptible to long balls over the top. Do we have a target man? Do we have defenders with long accurate passes? Do we have fast wingers able to make the runs in behind to receive the diagonals? We can identify the solution, but might not have the tools. Much like car failure. This part has failed and needs to be replaced. Step one. But that doesn’t help you if you don’t have the part, and can’t get hold of one. Pep’s Bayern seemed to always have the part.

When considering the chance it will work, look at the scenario. There are twenty minutes remaining, you are 2-1 down, so two goals are needed to win the game. In seventy you scored zero. How likely are you to score two in twenty? It’s highly unlikely. There’s only 22% of the game left, and if you score two goals, that will account for 67% of the game’s total goals being scored in that 22% of time. That’s a hard ask.

So we have identified that crosses are the answer. We have brought on our big powerful forward, and we are going to launch balls into the box. In the Premier League, it is roughly sixty-six crosses per goal. You could score with the first cross, the tenth cross, the sixtieth cross, or the hundredth cross. You could even score from two crosses. We just don’t know. With the other team looking to hold onto their lead, will they sit back and park the bus? With your forward coming on that can’t press, does that allow the opposition more possession? How many crosses can you put in during those twenty minutes? How many of them will be good? Especially against a parked bus defence. How many does your striker need to attack in order to score one goal? Two goals? If it were that easy to identify and change our plans, football would be a lot higher scoring than it is.

What do you know about your opponent? To be able to judge whether any of your tactical changes will work, or whether any of your subs will make the difference, you have to know how the opposition will respond. If you put on that 6’5’’ striker for the last twenty minutes and launch crosses into the box, we have to consider how the opponents might react, and if this has a knock-on effect in other areas. They themselves may have used all of their subs, but have a tall striker of their own. All game they have been playing long looking for their striker to win headers, and then capitalise the second ball. They might decide to move their striker into defence to nullify the threat of yours, by having someone tall to compete aerially. Doing so would alter their plan for an out-ball, so do they have a way of adjusting their attack in order to compensate for the missing target player? Do they feel they need to? They were playing 4-4-2, and for twenty minutes will now be at 5-4-1, with that extra defender. Perhaps they believe they can defend effectively like this against what you have for twenty minutes.

As a coach we must evaluate the following;

Opposition strengths and weaknesses
Your strengths and weaknesses
View it all within the context of the game

Context of the game includes factors like momentum, form, referee, and weather. Could you switch to a slick passing game if the pitch is muddy? Is it reasonable to play a high press during a scorching hot afternoon? Should you try to rough up your opponents if the referee is card happy? You may have a genius creative midfielder on the bench, but in the last five games, they couldn’t hit a barn door. You want your keeper to sweep, but they have recently had a personal tragedy, and their mind is elsewhere, so it’s probably not best to pass the ball backwards to the keeper when under pressure.

If we recognise their strengths and weaknesses, and our strengths and weaknesses, and we can apply this during the context of the game, there are then a series of questions we need to answer to evaluate if this change can and should be implemented;

• ·         What is the negative v the positive of the change? In what way does it strengthen us? In what way does it weaken us?
• ·         What is the change likely to cause? In a tight game, any adjustment risks exposure. By changing to expose the opponents, how much do we expose ourselves?
• ·         What is the frequency of such an action? We have identified the outcome that is likely to happen as a result of our change. Do we just want it to happen once, or a lot more?

·         On average, how many times does it need to happen before it is successful? We have brought on the creative midfielder, thinking they can slip the striker through on goal. If it is only going to happen once in twenty minutes, how certain are we tat the striker will score that chance? Does the striker need roughly four chances before a goal is scored?

·         How long will it take the opposition to realise the plan? Some changes we make are obvious, whereas others are more subtle. For very shouty coaches, the opposition will know right away

·         How likely are the opposition to be effective and stopping your plan? They have identified what you are trying to do, but can they do anything about it? . Knowing and solving the problem are two different things though, as we all know Robben will cut inside and shoot, but very few can stop him.

All of the above is difficult to quantify. It’s all rough estimates and gut feeling. I have had my teams boss games, creating chance after chance, with my keeper not touching the ball, but won 1-0 in the last minute. I have also had games where my team created as many chances as the opposition, and the game looked quite even, but we won 6-0. There are trends, but it is never an exact science. The stats and the averages can only tell us about what happened, and we can obtain an idea of what is likely to happen, but it doesn’t provide us with any rules. Like the sixty-six crosses. On which of those sixty-six are you going to score your goal? And just because it is an average of sixty-six, doesn’t mean that you won’t score four goals from your next thirty crosses. Everything we do in football, we are not quite rolling the dice, as we have some influence, but there is always a gamble, always a risk. My team might score more frequently from crosses due to; the quality of delivery, the quality of attacker, and that we are playing early low crosses, rather than high long ones.

As coaches, we all hold certain beliefs, preferences, or even biases. This can shape and distort our views. Just because something worked in the past, doesn’t mean it will work now. And just because it worked, it may not have worked for the reasons the coach thinks it did. It can sometimes be completely unrelated. Have you ever known a sub to come on the field, and not be involved in the process of the winning goal, yet will cheekily claim “We only won that because of me. Game changed when I came on.” I’m certain I have said that myself.

As usual, here are a series of pictures thrown together from a Google search that illustrate the point.

Tactical changes come with context. I wrote earlier about how we may have identified the solution, but do we have the tools to pull it off? Remember when I said Pep’s Bayern had all the tools. These were extremely talented players that could understand, process, and implement just about any adjustment Guardiola threw at them. Not all coaches have that luxury.

Have you worked on it before? You think it would make sense to switch from two forwards to three forwards. Does everyone know what they will be doing? Build-up, pressure, positioning, constellations etc. You believe they know it, but are they any good at it? How good? Can it be successful? That also depends on the opposition. How well do you know your players? How well do you know the opposition? Is it a stab in the dark? Is it a roll of the dice?

We look at the Risk v Reward within the context of our expectations from the players, units, team, and match. It happens rarely, but it does happen, to figure out the solution, but not have the players with the technical ability or tactical understanding to pull it off. Then we are powerless to watch the remainder of the game, hoping for the random factor or luck.

Coaches should also try to be aware, or the team of coaches should try to be aware, of unconsidered or undervalued circumstances. In your league games, your team plays with a soft Nike football. Now they are playing with a rock solid Jako ball, like they use in the Conference. It’s a small difference, but over distance that adds up. A twenty-five yard free-kick with a Nike ball bends into the top corner. The Jako ball doesn’t give enough, so the curl is less exaggerated, and goes straight to the keeper. Or maybe the player is having trouble at home, and the coaches have been oblivious. This means that after eighty minutes, when the game is looking lost, they unconsciously switch off and think about their personal problems. The coach screams at them for not trying hard enough, and the player is pushed to the brink of breakdown. There are so many factors such as this that are beyond the tactics of the game. We can’t prepare or anticipate all of them, but we can heighten our awareness and understanding.

There are many variables that we don’t consider, see, or value. The opposition plays with a high line, so the coach feels the correct form of attack is to counter. Upon initiating the first counter it turns out that the defence are lightning quick. That had not been evident before until it was tested. The coach then traps the opposition backline into committing an extra defender to join the attack. The defender takes the bait, the ball is hit over the top into the gap left by the defender, and the onrushing sweeper keeper comes out to calmly defuse the situation. Now what? We didn’t know this before. How do we deal with it?

It’s time for the second scenario.

That is a lot of information before we have even begun to dissect the match tactically. We will do that shortly. So much of this is psychological, and that determines how we apply our tactics in the second half. What can we figure out?

• ·         It’s a twenty team league, meaning it’s probably a fairly high level. Money is at stake.
• ·         We’re playing away, so won’t be surrounded by our adoring fans. It could be hostile and uncomfortable.
• ·         We are sixteenth, meaning we could be trying to avoid a relegation battle.
• ·         The opposition are second, and probably gunning for the title. It also means there are plenty of league places between us, and likely a lot of quality.
• ·         We are winning by two goals, which is probably unexpected for them and for us.
• ·         It is half-time, so we have a chance to evaluate and implement a plan for the second half. So too does the opposition.

·         In our previous game we lost 4-0 to the opponents, at home. That would have hurt. Are we being spurred on by the thought of revenge? Does the opposition believe we are pushovers? Have we learnt from that game? And because it is the second leg, chances are that it is towards the end of the season.

Our strengths and weaknesses, their strengths and weaknesses, within the context of the game.

Form: Were they first and have dropped down to second? Were we in the bottom three and have been clawing our way up?

Under appreciated variables: Have we bought a new signing from the French second division, who is having the most amazing game on their debut? Did this catch the opposition off-guard?

Unexpected: Has their star player been exposed in the national newspapers and is now in the wrong frame of mind? Did their first choice keeper gain an injury during the warm-up?

Luck: Have they missed two open goals? Was our first goal offside? Should the referee have given them a penalty?

Preparation: Were we better prepared? Mentally, physically, and tactically, were we up for this game? Did our scouts do a good job? Did the coaches get the training right in the days leading up to the match? Did the players watch the presentations with real intent and purpose?

Mentally: Did we see this as an opportunity for revenge? Are we motivated by avoiding relegation? Do we play better in the bigger games? Have our own fans become hostile, so we enjoy playing away? Have the opposition underestimated us and put in too many kids into their line up? Are these kids now bricking it because they are losing against a weaker team, in front of their own fans, during their chance to shine, and are scared they won’t make another first team appearance? Are the experienced players going to pull together and come out fighting in the second half? Do they have a cup game or European game midweek that they have half an eye on? Would our manager accept a draw right now if offered it? Are we going to try to go for the third goal? Will we crack under pressure? Do we have some cool heads and experience on the bench?

Physically: Our players have worked like beasts in the first half to gain this lead, can they sustain the energy levels? Will our opponents tire if they keep having to throw the kitchen sink at us? Will the pressure make our players feel like they are in double gravity? Can we out-run them? Are we physically stronger than them? Do we have a physical advantage that we can use effectively in attack or defence? Do we have any injuries or fatigue? Do they have any injuries or fatigue? Do we need to bring on fresh legs?

Technically: Are we better than the opposition in some areas? Have we got technical strengths that have led to the two first half goals? Are they going to respond to that? If they are going to make changes, do we need to combat those changes? Are we looking to maintain the course to victory, or use these two goals as a shield to prevent defeat? Do we need an extra CDM? Have we seen any weaknesses on our side or theirs that will likely be exploited in the second half? Who are their magicians? Which players can make the difference?

Tactically: Did we get it right? Did they get it wrong? Were we creating overloads? Were we being overloaded? Do we go high, medium, or low press? Send them inside or outside? How will their changes make them play in the second half? Where did our goals come from? How did they create their chances? Are there any players that need man-marking, and will that create holes in our system? Does our backline need to drop or push? Are we too narrow or too wide? Does our construction need to be more patient or more direct? More vertical or more horizontal? Which of their players will the look to get into 1v1s? How do we press, cover, and mark their key players? How do we restrict access to danger areas? Are there any parts of the field we feel safer when out of possession? Will we look to be more cautious in our set-pieces?

Game management: Are we going to risk yellow cards for feigning injuries, arguing with the referee, time-wasting, and diving, in order to slow the game down and eat away the time? Will we be able to use any subs tactically? Are there opponents that we need to target with some rough treatment to provoke them, and take their mind off the game? Take an extra five seconds to get the ball? Take ten seconds longer to restart play? Change corner or free-kick taker once or twice after the players have already lined-up? Kick the ball long into the corners? Smash clearances way up into the crowd? Keeper to dive and fall on every loose ball? And never forget to have cramp. Do we wish to kill their momentum, or use it against them?

By the time players and coaches reach adulthood, they are already familiar with many of these concepts, and do most of them automatically. The thought processes detailed in this article don’t suddenly run through the mind like a computer conducting a virus scan. Most of it is contextual or subconscious. Often the circumstance will limit or even force our reaction to the game. It can be obvious, or done without thinking. We don’t need to consider every example listed here, just the small number that are relevant to our own unique situation.

Our brains during matches operate like a running commentary, with multiple tabs open in the browser. With experience, we learn how to easily switch our focus between certain relevant streams of information. As principally a development coach, I know that one of my weaknesses is monitoring the opposition. I struggle to focus on that and the technical and tactical performances of my players, as well as their physical, mental, and social well being. Technical and tactical of my players are often my main concern, so I have my assistant look primarily at the opposition. Can my assistant figure out what they are doing, looking for strengths and weaknesses, how they might beat us, and how they are responding to our attacks and how they are looking to break through our defence? We work like a good team. The assistant will make an observation about the opposition with a suggestion about what course of action we could take. I filter that information through my brain of how we could do that and who we can use. My assistant supplies part one, I supply part two, and together we have come up with an adjustment to make.

There have been games where my players have been running on empty, and I haven’t noticed until one of the player points it out. “Will, she needs to come off, she can’t run!” Then I look over to see a player limping, and suddenly it becomes clear she’s been doing that for the last five minutes. When you’re by yourself, you have to focus on everything, and naturally some areas will be neglected. Because I usually work in development scenarios, my main concern is the development of my players. It’s the Plan-Do-Review process. I’m not completely blind to what the opposition are doing, it’s just not my main focus. In training we worked on building out from the back, so I need to see how we are doing that today. Is the keeper distributing well and making the right choices? Are my defenders positioning themselves right and creating the correct support network? Are the midfielders receiving on the half turn? Are the strikers making movements to pull the opposition apart? How are we doing, who is learning, who is demonstrating the technique and decision making, who needs extra help? Next week we’re working on something different, so I’ll have one eye on whichever concept that is, and how well we do it.

Videos do help from many perspectives, especially development, as we get a second look, or can come back again looking for different clues. It’s hard to be opposition scout, head coach, physio, and psychologist all at the same time. When we’re coaching on our own, that’s what we have to be doing. It’s also why when we’re on our own that we need to give our players a little ownership and responsibility. You’re still boss, but there are eleven sets of eyes on the pitch, all with valuable insight into how the game is being played. It would be silly to ignore them. “Coach, we’re being overrun in the midfield, should we turn our triangle the other way around?” Information goes into the coach’s brain, the brain processes the idea, runs the checklist, evaluates the options, considers the positive and negative of such a change, looks at the likelihood of it leading to success, failure, or indifference, and then forms the opinion.

“Yes, good idea. Let’s tell X to drop back and cover… allowing Y to…”
“No, as that will leave X in a difficult situation without support from Y… and little cover for Z…”

In my experience, players appreciate a little bit of input. As long as the barrier is respected and lines not crossed. We’ve all worked for bosses who don’t listen, who never change, and never consider our opinions, even when we’re 100% right. Don’t be that boss. Don’t be the pushover either, but then you already knew that. In a team of two, three, or four plus coaches, we have more analytical eyes, and can be more autocratic, but never completely. Players aren’t as stupid as many think. It helps to know what’s on their mind to know how they see the game, and to see if your decisions or actions will be effectively understood.

Especially as a development coach, it is paramount to have discussions. At half-time, simply ask the question; “What have we seen out there?” “Left back keeps pushing up, Coach. Leaving plenty of space in behind. I reckon if we win it and the chance is on, hit some diagonals into that space.” “Brilliant. X, if you win it in your zone and see that Y is making the run behind the left back, launch that ball in front by about ten yards to give them something to run onto before crossing. W should then make an early front post run, V, to the back, and Z to hang around for a late entry into the box.” The player to have made the suggestion feels valued and appreciated, the players feel more open to idea sharing, and the coach has still maintained the respect and authority of the team because of the advice and decision making. People switch off if it’s a one-way conversation. That’s why my blog posts are so boring.

I believe it is important to examine our thought processes. To see if we have any biases, or to see if we are leading ourselves to barking up the wrong tree. We also need to constantly be looking to streamline or automate processes, without sacrificing quality, to free up more brain processing power for the more important observations and decisions. Football is like a complex but random game of chess, where we look to apply structure within a chaotic environment. Quick and informed decisions can make the difference between life and death.