Fun Focus

If you enjoy my content and want to express gratitude, I would be so happy if you made a contribution towards my Argentina trip in the summer of 2021. The plan is to go there for four weeks and look at everything football, development, coaching, and culture. Any amount helps. I won't be upset if you ignore this message, as I produce this content purely for the enjoyment of it. Here is the link: http://fnd.us/c1en5f?ref=sh_98yL48

Oh, so you're the fun coach...

"When fun gets deep enough, it can heal the world."

Why do we play football? Because it is fun. That's why we watch it, play it, and consume it in every way possible. It can bring communities together. It can open up new worlds to explore. It can provide a pursuit of mastery and excellence. It can bring camaraderie. It is a passion. It is a calling. Let's never forget that.

One of the strangest complaints ever levelled at me was by a group of parents, having a go, saying that all I ever do is play games during practice. That small accusation offers a window into the confused web of American soccer. Was I to explain to them the constraints based approach? Teaching games for understanding? That learning doesn't transfer if the environment in which we practice is too far removed from the environment in which we compete? Although not the most articulate of people, as this family were Trump supporters with an aggressive grandmother who used to shout at referees and parents (and they did give their daughter a boy's name, while spelling it incorrectly for no apparent reason) they hit several nails on the head without realising it.

You see, I am a very different coach to what they are used to. Up until then, they had only ever experienced drill sergeants. The archetypal American coach, full of high fives and cool nicknames like "Slugger" and "Champ" who certainly puts the players to task. They were used to a lot of cones, strong organisation, and plenty of (albeit vague and unhelpful) instruction. They wanted a shouter, someone who would whip these young whippersnappers into shape. Someone who knew that deep down, soccer was a silly sport, invented by effeminate European men as a pastime to flirt with other men, trying to hide from their wives. Beyond all this, sport is a vehicle to teach the true American values of bigotry grit and gluttony determination. Making our kids HUSTLE until they feel weak. So what if coach is a little hard on them? It's character building! (Often in a way that said parents will never demonstrate in front of their kids, hence why it is a responsibility offset onto other individuals)

In my sessions, kids were active participants, agents of their own journey. That would include discussions and decision making, that sometimes would be left to them. I don't shout, grill, or embarrass. I try to appeal to their intrinsic motivations, and bend myself to meet them at their level, rather than applying a one size fits all approach to coaching. I treat them like equals. I can sometimes be a bit silly, or not entirely serious. And my games are always fun and game realistic.

WHAT KIND OF BERNIE SANDERS KARL MARX CCP BRIE LARSON CRAP IS THIS?!?!?!?!?

In America, coach is God. Capital G. If coach tells you to punch yourself in the balls, you better do it. And most parents will shed a tear as they watch their little soldier pound themselves in the balls, without question, because a true democratic society such as this one, relies on its constituents never questioning those in power. Imagine their shock when I spoke to the kids kindly, made them laugh, didn't lose my temper when the team lost, and never once made them run a lap or perform a push-up. Everyone knows the two biggest components of youth soccer development are laps and push-ups. It's just pure facts. Utter blasphemy.

What pissed them off even more is that I was their kids' favourite ever coach. You can suck on my tea and crumpets flavoured balls.

Many parents over the years, particularly in the USA, have made the kind of half-patronising, half-complimentary remark, that their kid has so much fun in my sessions. Yay, I'm the fun one. Which is kind of strange, as my personality is that of a reserved cynic, spewing sarcasm and nihilism. Just the other day, I heard a parent explaining the difference between myself and a British colleague is that my colleague is "more serious." To them, it means more involved, more into it, more of what they expect. To me, it is synonymous with boring. No coach at the grassroots level should be described as "serious."

Will is the silly one, the one the kids like, the one who tells jokes, the one who plays with them. And that's a bad thing? Yes, because this is youth soccer, and everything is win at all costs, win now, forget your morals, treat kids as pawns, and give it your all for that plastic trophy.

If only they knew. If you want to talk about serious, I watch far more games on TV, far more games in person, read far more books, listen to far more podcasts, read far more tactical magazines, watch far more videos, read far more articles, attend far more coaching courses, have far more strings to my coaching bow, have far higher qualifications, have stepped way further out of my comfort zone, have sacrificed far more to be where I am today, have coached at a far higher level than my more serious colleague. But, you know, I tell dick jokes and don't do line drills, so, guess that makes me the fun one.

But why is fun such a bad thing? Why is it looked down upon in this country? Most American parents equate fun to goofing off and dicking around. So what is fun? To have fun, as a verb, is to enjoy oneself. Well kids certainly aren't playing football because it is boring. In fact, that's why they quit. Fun is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "Light-hearted pleasure, enjoyment, or amusement; boisterous joviality or merrymaking' entertainment." Although particularly associated with recreation and play, fun may be encountered during work, social functions, and in daily life.

Similar words are; enjoyment, pleasure, entertainment, amusement, excitement. And your kids get all that from me while (these are things multiple parents said to me while here) being the best coach their kid has ever had, and their kid learning more in one year with me than in their entire soccer playing career? It's almost like there's something sinister going on here... Perhaps learning is linked to engagement? And engagement is down to... giving a crap about what you're doing? Because it's... interesting... challenging... fun?

See, that's it! Fun is a byprodct of what I do, while not necessarily being the goal. My goal is to challenge kids, to grow their understanding of the game, to make them players for life, to develop an interest in the game that goes beyond our training. If you make sessions challenging and engaging, kids will have fun. Kids like to solve questions. Parents forget that kids actually like to learn stuff. It's just because most parents are so boring and passive that their kids don't give two craps what any of them have to say. Football is a game of problem solving, much like those bloody video games kids play on their X-Stations. They have a challenge, not too easy, not too hard, give it a go, and get to try again if they fail. There's guidance nearby if they need it, and they get rewarded by points if they succeed.

Enjoyment is also linked to competence. The more we can help players develop their football IQ, the  better they will become, and the more fun they will have. This increases enjoyment. As does ownership. Not all the decisions have to be made by the coach, and these parents hated that I did that (they couldn't see the parameters that I set for kids making decisions, and would get pissy - the parameters were much like those on a Disney ride; you can't stray too far off-course, and there is no real danger).

Let's compare why kids begin playing football, and why they dropout. In the US, the big dropout occurs around age thirteen.

Why kids play.
Why kids quit.

They play because; it's fun. They like to try their best, they enjoy game time, they like being treated with respect, they like playing well as a team, they like making friends, they like being active.

They quit because; it's no longer fun. There's too much pressure, they get overuse injuries, they lack competence, it is too time consuming. They lose ownership, they don't get to play, they're afraid to make mistakes, they are not respected.


But not being a dick to kids is so hard! I know everything, and they need to appreciate that! If they want to be a world class athlete, they need to do everything I say!

STOP TAKING KIDS SPORT SO SERIOUSLY YOU DICKS!!!!!

Often, the most fun times of our youths were spent with little to no adult intervention. The paradox that kids face themselves in these days is that they are accused of being to soft, by the very parents who make them soft. The parents that constantly wipe their children's arses, and then wonder why their kids can't wipe their own arse. The parents who teach their kids that everything is a threat and to be feared, and then wonder why their kids are such chickens. The parents who ridicule and deny their kids any chance of being different or special, forcing them to conform, and then complain that their kids are too boring and lacking in personality.

Kids need to fall down. They need to take risks. They need to have periods without supervision or intervention. They need to be given the tools to stand on their own two feet when you are not around. I have long said that if you want your kid to stop playing Fortnite, you should start playing Fortnite with them. It becomes uncool when the adults get involved and take it too seriously. The focus and the narrative shifts from the child to the adult. The irony here being that the parents who complain about their kids playing too many video games are also the parents that bought the console, buy games, make their credit cards available for in game purchases, and put TVs in their kids' rooms so that they can play unattended.

Here's a bunch of crack, you crack addict. Stop taking so much crack!

This is an important line about burnout; "If they lack an intrinsic drive, if they're not having fun, they'll likely become frustrated and quit. When parents hire personal trainers and coaches, there's an expectation of success that can create a pressure-cooker scenario and lead to burnout."

Parents turn fun into work. They want to replicate the conditions of their miserable existence, and force it upon their kids.

Something kids may have originally enjoyed, even loved, suddenly becomes a life and death competition. The knee slides, the high fives, the shouting at referees, the cup final type celebrations, the tense pacing, the screaming of unsolicited illogical tactical advice, all coming from the sidelines. If watching your kid play a game they love with their friends makes you nervous, you need serious psychological help. Let me reiterate that. If you are watching your kid play a game they enjoy, with their friends, in a safe environment, and you are concerned with their winning and losing to the point where you are nervous, can't sit down, and have emotional outbursts, you seriously need to rethink your life. This is not one of those occasions where I make a silly joke that over-exaggerates reality to prove a point. No. You have a very small and insignificant life, and the fact that you become nervous at youth sporting events, or lose your temper, or have huffs, become aggressive, means that perhaps you were too damaged to have kids in the first place, and you have condemned these innocent souls to forever having to carry around your baggage. Drop your kids at the game, and piss off. Maybe even spend that hour or two at a therapist, talking about how you feel like such a twat, that the only way you can redeem yourself is if your eleven-year-old's team defeats a team of other eleven-year-olds, at a sport you didn't give two craps about until your kid started playing it.

Seek help.

And stop referring to your kid's team as "we." "We won today" no, your kid's team won, while you sat on your fat arse and shouted at the ref about rules you don't understand. "We are four and oh" is just another way of demonstrating that you are a sociopath that is caught up in the dick measuring of youth soccer. Love being with your kid. Enjoy watching them grow. Be grateful that they are alive and healthy. You are so lucky, while also so ignorant that you don't see why you should be appreciating every second of it.

Kids play because it is fun. Play is something that can be found all throughout the animal kingdom. Ever made a cat chase a laser pen? Truly a hilarious and wholesome pastime. But what exactly is play? When we see two cubs fighting, we assume they are honing their hunting skills. Play is a form of exploration and experimentation. Anyone who has ever learned a musical instrument, and spent hours playing it without supervision will know this. As a kid, I explored every aspect of my guitar. I experimented with different sounds. I heard songs I liked and tried to replicate the rhythm or the melody. When competent enough, I tried to write some of my own pieces. This was all outside of supervision. Nobody made me do it. I was intrinsically motivated by the music (and as I got older, by impressing girls).

Remember that education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. We are looking to spark or ignite a lifelong love of something within these kids. We don't do that by turning it into work. When something is work, you do what you have to. You do the bare minimum to get by. You do it to shut people up and get paid. You're not happy about going there, your only happiness comes when it ends, and you spend significant free time dreading having to go there. That's how many coaches and parents make kids feel about football, sport in general, and a whole range of other activities.

We know that competency increases with deliberate practice hours. The few hours a week we get with the kids in practice will do absolutely nothing to help them. We are pissing in the wind. Our main objective here is to light that fire. Once they start watching games on TV, asking for football shirts for their birthday, going out and playing by themselves, looking up personal drills on YouTube, attempting to emulate their favourite players, that's when you know you have got them. It's an intrinsic drive that you will not reach by being dicks to them.

In football, we say that a child must first fall in love with the ball before they fall in love with the game. The ball becomes an extension of your body and mind. You want to do things with it, like juggling, manipulation, and different ways of kicking. If I go to the park by myself with a bag of balls and take shots and free-kicks, it's not for anyone else but me. I like bending that ball so that it goes outside the post, and then curls back in again. The swish of it hitting the net is bliss. Or cracking a shot off the underside of the bar, that bounces behind the line and into the roof of the net. I love that. Is there a better feeling?

So what are we doing in America to cultivate this love of the ball? We're making kids kick it as far away from themselves as possible. We're telling kids that having the ball is dangerous. We're not teaching them how to do anything with it, for fear of losing it and conceding goals. We're playing games with teams that are too big, on fields that are too large, so that they rarely touch the ball. In summary; the exact opposite of what we should be doing.

"Play is the universal language of childhood." I would argue that it goes on for life, but many people are beaten into submission into turning into old farts. These people grow to resent fun. They cast long shadows from their clouds of misery, ridiculing anyone who dare take a chance on perhaps enjoying themselves. They walk among us. They become parents, teachers, and youth coaches. They hate life, and it's time to pass that gift onto others. They guilt trip anyone who dare try to smile or enjoy themselves in their presence.

In my sessions, I aim to make it feel like an expedition. We are on a journey to explore the concepts of football. We encounter problems, and work to find solutions. Every player can get something out of it, and every player can contribute. And much like in the video games, there are consequences for bad decisions or poor execution, but this is in the form of losing, points, and challenges, not being scolded, verbal abuse, or physical punishment.

Removing the crippling fear of failure allows for the players to make mistakes. Kids won't grow without mistakes. Fear of failure leads to a player not taking risks, and playing within their means. That's certainly not an enjoyable way to participate, nor is it how world class players perform. Imagine watching a game on TV where nobody took risks, and kept passing the responsibility to do stuff onto their teammates. A team is awarded a penalty and nobody steps up to take it because they don't want to be the idiot to miss. This is how we make most of our kids feel.

Risk taking leads us to creativity. A good 99% of my exploration and practice on the guitar was pure crap. Bad timing, duff notes, and even things like perfectly playing the wrong chord, because I may forget what comes next. And most of that was done away from other people. Had I been told I was an idiot and should quit, I would have. Many kids are self-conscious, and they react to our reactions. Ever seen a kid fall over, pause, and look at the adults? If the adults laugh, the kid laughs, and is completely fine. If the adults panic, the kid begins howling, and you remember you should not hang out with people who have kids.

If kids know they will get several attempts, have your support and guidance, and that the world will not swallow them up when they fail, they can begin to accomplish great things. Another paradox being that many Americans think that soccer is boring, and yet do all they can to create boring players.

Creativity in football is essentially problem solving, but in unexpected, unorthodox, or unconventional ways. Creativity is not fostered in environments where coach rules with an iron fist, and players are too scared to make mistakes. We have to show kids what they can be, allow them to explore the confines of the game, and encourage them to try and fail, and try and fail, until they start to become good. You hardly see this in the American game. A load of fit and functional players, but no magicians. We beat it out of them at such a young age.

This is how the rest of the world aspires to play the game. This is why we call it the beautiful game. It's fun to watch and fun to play. And if Americans saw more of this and less of the dross displayed at college and high school, there might be a larger appreciation for it.

To play football is fun. And to get good at football, you have to play football. You get good at what you do, so if you run around cones, you get good at running around cones. We have a phrase in coaching that asks "Are they learning the game or learning the drill?" when it comes to session design. A good session is fun, because a good session is game realistic, challenging, and interesting, delivered by an engaging and empathetic coach. If your kid complains that practice is boring or frustrating, chances are their coach is doing it wrong. If the session has a lot of organisation, instruction, and closed unopposed repetition, it's not soccer that they are learning how to play. We are learning more and more about learning transfer as the years go by. If kids are disengaged, they will not focus, and thus will not learn.

I can recall when I first started out here, some dads were talking to me on the sidelines of a practice one night. We were observing another coach's session, who they all viewed as this coaching God. Booming voice, lots of high fives and nicknames, makes players run a lot. They were telling me how the other night, the players were messing about, and that he made them run laps as punishment. They passed this onto me like it were sage advice to be given to a coaching novice. If I wish to be as great as him, I need to study his methods. Yet the way I looked at it, and the way I encourage you all to do, is that his session was so bad, the kids broke focus. He designed a session that was not engaging, challenging, and gave no autonomy to the players. He made a mistake. And then he punished his players? Because they were bored in his boring session? Wow. They may have stopped misbehaving in coming sessions, but that was more likely due to the external motivation of fear of punishment than it was down to enjoyment of the game.

And if you think I'm just some stuck up English twat who spouts opinions as if they are gospel, listen here to the science.

Remember; life's too short. Enjoy yourselves.

Thought Experiment: Liga United

If you enjoy my content and want to express gratitude, I would be so happy if you made a contribution towards my Argentina trip in the summer of 2021. The plan is to go there for four weeks and look at everything football, development, coaching, and culture. Any amount helps. I won't be upset if you ignore this message, as I produce this content purely for the enjoyment of it. Here is the link: http://fnd.us/c1en5f?ref=sh_98yL48

What would happen if we combined Liga MX and MLS, and then split it into three divisions with promotion and relegation? How could it work? Inspired by a bit of chatter I have heard, and then considering the United 2026 World Cup, plus attempts at joint ventures like the Leagues Cup to inspire more MLS and MX interaction.

SUM knows it is still struggling to crack markets. The most watched league in the United States is Liga MX. Even Bournemouth v Sheffield United on a busy Saturday Premier League morning gets more viewers than two MLS Sunday evening prime time games combined. And then there was the week that even a Tuesday night Liga MX Femenil game, broadcast only in Spanish, brought in more viewers than any MLS game of that week.

SUM also knows that the biggest football loving demographic up here is the Latinos. Specifically, Mexicans. Teams like Club America and Chivas may not be giants in the sense of international recognition, like Barcelona and Manchester United, but they do very well in terms of popularity. The Chivas v America snoozefest friendly I went to in Chicago had more fans, and a far better atmosphere than even the best and most intense MLS games. At the end of the day, these teams generate income. Why do they do that? I think in part because Mexico is a football country with a rich, deep-rooted football culture, but also because it's actually good. I think one of the biggest problems facing MLS is that it is a poor standard. Some of the teams are just terrible, and some games lack any real quality at all.

How can MLS get good? We all speculate. One huge barrier is that teams cannot have any more than three good players due to the DP rule and the wage cap. It might not necessarily be ethical, but consider the success that has come from investment at clubs like Chelsea, PSG, and Man City. Then there's the promotion and relegation issue. The crap never gets flushed away. The league may grow in teams, but it does not grow in quality. And because half the teams make playoffs, with the winners being decided by the crapshoot of playoffs. If anyone can make it, and nobody has the threat of relegation looming over their heads, the games lose meaning.

Just this last week in MLS, now it has gone to single elimination in the playoffs, everyone has noticed how the games are now super exciting and entertaining. That's the point. You had to wait until October to get entertaining games. How about seeing that every week?

Enjoy the following PowerPoint Slides.

Here's how the three divisions would look. This is based off of Liga MX standings for the recent Clausura, and MLS Supporters Shield standings for 2019. Throw in the franchise expansion teams, and one of the bigger teams from Liga Acenso.

There would also be a cup across the three divisions, while the clubs still compete in their national cups too.

 Cup Simulation.

Club America versus LA Galaxy in a meaningful final would have SUM shooting their collective loads.

And then, as a Community Shield/Super Cup type deal. Cup winners taken from most recent real life editions.

How does this factor into Concacaf Champions League?

 How does the schedule work?

It all fits.

I'm not necessarily an advocate of this, just running a mere thought experiment. SUM still gets the summer opportunity to host those meaningless cash grab friendlies against big European teams. The league would not continue during huge international tournaments, which kind of admits your poor quality when you do that. Don't worry, we don't need a break for the World Cup, as they won't be selecting any of our players.

This also provides an opportunity for real rivalries to develop. Why do some teams in Europe hate each other, despite having no links or proximity? It's due to having played meaningful games at some point. And because games will be meaningful, real fan culture will develop. We will no longer need to hand out stupid hymn sheets at matches, run Simba cams at half-time, cheerleaders, freestylers, t-shirt cannons, dance cams, or dedicate every game to Autistic Military Pride appreciation night (I joke, but don't tell me you aren't 100% certain they haven't thought of combining these events to make way for new events). The fans would turn up excited, not because of free t-shirts, but because of three points.

And if the team doesn't do the business, they get relegated. You're crap. Leave. Come back when you're better.

What's at stake? Being the champion (in real countries, champion soccer teams are the most winningest teams, not the most playoffest teams), then there's avoiding relegation, CCL spots, prize money based on league position, and one which is somewhat neglected, NOT EMBARRASSING YOURSELF BY FINISHING LOW DOWN ON THE TABLE. Try it. It's kind of uplifting.

BUT 'MERICANS WILL NEVER GO FOR THIS

We still have cups. But essentially, if they have to be brought into football with gimmicks and flashing lights, it's not really the football they care about. There's enough people over here who love the game. Cater to giving them a good product. Make football good. Then people will join the hype. Seriously though, go back and look at the cup simulation. There are some very interesting story lines present there. Relegation threatened Veracruz travelling to Red Bulls and smashing them 5-1. Plucky Division 3 St. Louis enjoying a highly entertaining win at home to Division 2 Dynamo. We even had a Canadian derby in the second round.

Then look at the leagues. We want the top teams to play each other more frequently. Currently, MLS makes you play awful teams like Chicago, Cincinnati, and Orlando, sometimes three times a year. In a real league pyramid, you would only play them if they are worth playing. See how Division 3 has Kansas, Pumas, Chivas, Vancouver, who will all think they should be top division. Prove it.

In Division 1, there are many teams to have won an important trophy recently, that would think they are the best; Toronto, Seattle, Leon, America, LA, Atlanta, Cruz Azul, Galaxy, Tigres, Monterrey, Pachuca. PROVE IT!!! And if you can't handle these matches, there's a spot waiting for you in Divison 2, with plenty of teams ready and willing to come up and take your place.

This is a truly open system that puts the best against the best. And if you want to stay the best, you have to work really hard at it, over a sustained period of time. Who is the best? Playing four matches to determine a champion is not a scientifically valid method of doing so. The sample size is not large enough. Playing every team twice over ten months, collecting points for wins and draws, then projecting that onto a table, comes with more of the required statistical rigor to be able to determine a team as a "champion."

I do think each nation should have a strong and competitive team in its own right. MLS is stupid, Liga MX is corrupt and essentially broken (have a gander at the silly way they do relegation, thus protecting the big teams), while Canadians are waiting for the maple syrup to thaw for nine months of the year. They have just started a national league, called the Poutine Championship or something, but have Toronto, Vancouver, Montreal, and Ottawa in MLS and USL, with another five clubs in lower USL.

But most importantly, keep Alexi Lalas away from my television.

Soccer In The USA: Private Training Charlatans

If you enjoy my content and want to express gratitude, I would be so happy if you made a contribution towards my Argentina trip in the summer of 2021. The plan is to go there for four weeks and look at everything football, development, coaching, and culture. Any amount helps. I won't be upset if you ignore this message, as I produce this content purely for the enjoyment of it. Here is the link: http://fnd.us/c1en5f?ref=sh_98yL48

Over the next year, I am going to produce a series of articles that document my thoughts and feelings on soccer in this great country. Now yes, many will feel that I should be saying "football" but the American version of the beautiful game is such a diluted and deranged version of the beautiful game, that I believe "soccer" and "football" to be two entirely different sports. Americans play soccer, the rest of the world plays football. And this is where we reach an impasse.

What do I want to do with this? Maybe someone will collate everything and put it into a book for me. Perhaps some parent somewhere will stumble across my corner of the internet and will be red pilled into change. Or even one of the dickheads I am going off on will realise that they are a dickhead. This is a very complex landscape, and so much is nuanced. Not everything can be made right. Not everyone will agree with me. Not everyone will walk away from reading this without being offended. But here goes.

Soccer In The USA: Private Training Charlatans

In my experience, this is something which I feel is unique to the United States. Hence why we play "soccer" here, and not "football." Nowhere else I have worked offers such a service on such a grand scale. I suppose there are two factors involved here; soccer is catered to middle class white kids, other people in other countries play more football and thus have little need for private training.

For those who may be unfamiliar with this, for those who were born outside of the Matrix, it often goes a little like this. One coach with between one and four players, working on individual skills. They are quite pricey, and can, depending upon the reputation (not quality or level of expertise) of the coach, can be upwards of $100 per hour. If you are like me, and believe to subscribe to some semblance of morals, you may feel this is wrong. If you wish to capitalise on the ignorance of others and make a lot of cash, this is your opportunity.

Let's first talk about the price of these sessions. The market here is strange. Parents are unaware that soccer coaching credentials exist. As someone with an accent who owns multiple tracksuits, I could quite easily fill my boots. Go out several times per day, charge a fortune, and make tons of money. My conscience doesn't allow me to do that. There are hyper-competitive parents out there who wish to buy their children into success. I do think some are genuinely trying to do the right thing, and are just misguided, which is where the morality of it creeps in. What something is worth is simply defined by what people will pay for it. What am I worth? However much I can get, really. So how much can I get? A lot.

I feel that outside the Matrix, the need for these sessions does not exist, because of three main factors;
1. Kids play football with their friends, so do not need to pay an expensive babysitter to supplement their soccer training.
2. Parents outside the Matrix are not stupid enough to pay an extortionate hourly rate to dribble around cones while coach yells at a kid to hustle.
3. Parents outside the Matrix still play with their kids, and do not need to offset that quality time to outside agents.

We shall discuss these factors further.

1. Kids play football with their friends. Simply, the more you do something, the better you get at doing it. Quality of training is more important than quantity of training, yes, but the training here is so formalised, kids are not afforded much opportunity to play. For every one hour of a formal practice, young players should be engaging in four hours of unstructured, unsupervised play. This does not happen in the Matrix, because black people, and everybody is a paedophile (for those of you new to my humour, it's worth noting that I think the biggest cowards on the planet are white middle class Americans. They drive big cars, wear camo, tactical sunglasses, but are afraid of their own shadow, set security cameras around all over their house, have apps on their phones which allow them to view their house cameras at any time, and some even have panic rooms. I mention black people, because so much of the fear held within the average American is based on race, and paedophiles because this demographic believes that everyone is out to get them. They watch Fox News, so everything is a threat to their life. I will not be explaining further jokes in this article).

Kids can't be dropped off at the park, left in the street, or even allowed in their back yard, such is the fear that permeates American society. I live in a very safe neighbourhood, but never see kids in the parks. They are always accompanied. And every second of kids' lives have to be scheduled. There's no time left over for dossing around with their mates and making up games. Kids wouldn't know how to. They literally do not have the skills, because parents do everything for them. When left to their own devices, American kids really struggle to initiate in play. More on this in a later article.

2. Parents outside the Matrix are not stupid. Not true in absolute terms, but relative to this sport, yes. If you asked an English parent for £60 to coach their kid for an hour, they would probably smack you in the mouth. £60 for an hour? Four hours with that one coach, and that's their entire season's club fee paid. So you see, it's all relative. Americans pay a fortune for soccer anyway, so what's an extra $60 or more for ONE ON ONE PROFESSIONAL TRAINING. And as they were not born into the Matrix, they are not plugged into this pointless competition, which is a zero sum game. The hyper competitiveness of parents inside the Matrix leads them to spend vast fortunes of money to gain the smallest of edges over other kids. American kids spend more on boots than English kids spend on football in a whole year. Why? Is it because American kids care more? No, it's because some charlatan has duped them, robbed them blind, and left them with their pants down. The charlatan is often not around by the time it all comes crashing down when the kid's journey is over. They have skipped town, found other clients, or the kids are at a different club, different, high school, or have left for college.

The ruse is simply if you want to be a better soccer player, pay for training with me, and you will learn new things. The parents fall for it. They are desperate through fear of missing out. They want to be a good parent. They want to win the dick measuring contest against other parents. It's like being told you need oxygen to live, and being convinced to live in a room that is 100% oxygen. It's not doing you any good. And as I try to tell people, one guitar lesson with Jimi Hendrix isn't going to solve anything, especially if they don't know how to hold a guitar.

3. Parents outside the Matrix still play with their kids. I think this is a huge factor culturally. Parents outside the Matrix actually know how to play football, so can join in with their kids. Parents inside the Matrix don't know how. The ones who told me they used to play in high school or college, upon seeing them in action, are shockingly bad. I mean kick with their toes bad. I mean fall over when trying to control a ball bad. And it's no secret that American parents aren't necessarily the most physically active. Some can hardly walk for two minutes without wheezing and needing a sandwich. So essentially they pay someone else to parent their kid for them for a while. Then a picture of it will go up on social media #baller #superstar #futureUSWNT to indicate that they have been duped into giving away vast sums of money, while offsetting their parenting, like a true American capitalist.

"But Will!" I hear you cry, "What does it matter if some snakeoil salesmen are ripping off people with deep enough pockets for this to just be spare change?" Good question. I am glad you asked. The United States soccer sphere has a problem with recognising what is actually important in football, and what is required to be good or successful at it. These charlatans with their bland advice and their obstacle courses, simply obscure and muddy people's judgement.

Coach A, who played in high school, works at a local club, and has an E license, high fives my kids, has nicknames for them, and has taught them all these cool tricks, like how to do toe-taps around cones, jump over hurdles with the ball between their feet, and juggle a tennis ball.

Coach B, didn't play in high school, has qualifications and experience that I can't understand, and isn't eccentric in his personality, simply told my kid that they need to reconstruct the way they strike the ball when shooting, because some coach should have taught them that four years ago. Most of his work is slow motion, repetitive, and isn't full of high fives. How am I supposed to tell who is better?

A big part of American training in general is that it lacks realism, and is based off of gimmicks. Gimmicks sell. People here want something tangible. My kid can do 300 juggles! My kid can do an around the world! It looks cool, but it is largely unhelpful. It's enough to pull the wool over their eyes, and make them think their kid is doing something useful. I have a boy who is fifteen who started coming to our practices. He has never played football before, but he has a good attitude, and is a quick learner, so we are going to give him a chance. He has learnt how to do an around the world. What he can't do is strike a pass, control a ball, or move into space to receive. Those things are hard to measure, and therefore, it becomes harder to sell the progress made to parents. Fundamentals are boring, but you can easily trick people into thinking they had a good time with catchphrases and high fives. I learnt that at Disney.

How can I, a force for good, affect positive change, if these charlatans are lying to parents? It's very difficult. And people inside the Matrix do not like negativity, as it threatens their world view, so they tend to switch off, or tell you to quit your bitching.

I don't believe that most personal training coaches are deliberately trying to deceive. Even worse, I believe many are so ignorant of real football, how to break it down into smaller chunks, and how to teach it, that they end up doing a bad job. Most people who get into coaching emulate the coaches they had, before realising that they were complete idiots, and then changing their ways. How terrible would you still be as a coach, had you not experienced that epiphany? In England, I did the FA Goalkeeping Level 2. In the US, I completed the USC 1, 2, and 3 goalkeeper courses. I am far more qualified than people out there who charge a fortune, and I also have less confidence in by ability to effectively deliver, thanks to impostor syndrome.

With keepers, it is different. They are a different animal. I do believe they require one-to-one work, and many footballing parents would not have the expertise required to help them. Still, a parent outside the Matrix could at least hit a few shots on target for their child to dive around for.

Look at it this way. All sessions, regardless of size, need to be ticking these three boxes; repetition, realism, relevance. Often in private training, the only box ticked is the repetition. They repeat the wrong things, or unhelpful moves. So much of the private training lacks the context of the game and the perceptual cues to have any useful transfer to the real game. Every now and then, a video will do the rounds on social media, some kid performing amazing skills with a ball, but when you take a step back, these are all circus tricks. They are essentially trained seals. But it looks cool, so people will pay for it.

We should call them for what they are. Most private sessions are just SAQ with a ball. That's fine. There is a place for that. But nobody is turning an average kid into a superstar by doing an hour of SAQ with them every now and then. Complete the obstacle course, do a million stepovers, and then volley a tennis ball into a pugg goal off a rebounder. Private sessions could be a great opportunity to work on coordination, but that would require a level of expertise far beyond what most of these trainers could obtain. Going into the mechanics of how a player's body moves, and then working to make it more effective, that is hard work. If their striking technique or balance is off, they might need adjustments. It is boring, takes a lot of hard work to affect, and needs to be constantly reinforced. It could even be a great opportunity to work on something psychological, like confidence in front of goal. Could your private trainer break down the decision making required to put the ball in the back of the net? No? Well here's a tennis ball. Do a rainbow.

Working with better players is fine. They bring the skill, the intensity, and the focus. Plus you're not reconstructing, but topping up. Most of the sessions we do are with disinterested ten year olds who have been dragged out by their parents. They do everything half-arsed, and keep asking if they can go home. They will not think about football again until they are dragged to their next session. But hey, as long as the money keeps coming in, keep charging, right?

It's 99% parent lead. The players don't get involved. They aren't lying awake at night in their beds thinking about how they need to spend a fortune on private training to become a professional soccer player. The parents though, they are tossing and turning. And then they talk to me with sheer hope and desperation in their voices. "My son just really loves soccer and he is not being challenged enough on his team" and then reel off a bucket load of clichés about all sorts of nonsense; kid needs a heavy foot, he's fast but doesn't use it, sometimes doesn't hustle, can jump really high, doesn't take enough shots, and on it goes. The kids don't wake up begging their parents to take them out to a private session. They, as the player, realise that what they are about to work on, will not really transfer very well, because it lacks teammates and opponents, so they become disengaged. They're not interested. Who can they beat? Who can they show off to?

And the market is full of gimmicks. Here are a couple of the more flashier ones.

Don't get me wrong. There is a use for this kind of thing. Especially for players that don't have the time or space to get a coach. That's why programmes like Coerver, Beast Mode Soccer, and Football Starts at Home are so good. They help you work on fundamentals in your own time, at your own location. And the advancements in technology, they are great for tracking your progress. My question will always be about the impact long term. At what point will kids get bored of this? How many days until it is stacked in the cupboard and never brought out again?

These gimmicks are not the difference makers. You don't buy a kid an expensive piano if they are not inspired by music. Having a Fitbit to track your exercise and weight loss makes no difference if you do not first attack the psychological problems that have caused the weight gain or lack of exercise. Spending loads of money on gimmicky toys and private training will make no difference if your kid does not actually love them game.

Have a look at where Usain Bolt trains, and the equipment he uses. Hardly what you would expect. The Bolt Supremacy is a fantastic book. Essentially, all the gimmicks in the world do not make up for lack of desire and poor fundamentals. I'm not saying don't invest in better training or better training equipment. I'm saying don't spend a fortune on a kid that isn't really that interested. Don't fool yourself into thinking it is necessary.

And try spending more time being mum or dad, rather than being their agent.

DON'T FORGET TO LIKE MY FACEBOOK PAGE FOR 5% OFF YOUR NEXT PRIVATE SESSION
BUY MY T-SHIRT FOR $20 AND SPREAD THE WORD TO YOUR RICH ACQUAINTANCES

Rondo Is Life

Great coaching convention talks on rondos.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do rondos have to do with this? Everything.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This next image can perhaps shed a little more light.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's another example from Brazil.

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

And here's my video that proves it.