I don't really want to do this, as it's started to become a pointless dick measuring exercise, often not by the leaders of the camps (although there are some exceptions) but more often by certain sycophants, looking to regurgitate soundbites to score points on Twitter. So many people taking shots at certain thought leaders, and the snide needs to stop. Yes, I take shots at people on Twitter, but the big difference is that I'm actually funny. Plus, I'm not dependent upon convincing you of my way of thinking in order to make money. I present my work and my ideas, sometimes with citations, sometimes with accompanying videos or plans, and it is up to the reader to decide if any of it is useful to them in their environment.
A lot of people also take shots without naming who they're talking about. Come on, guys. Put on your big boy pants and have at it.
This guy is perhaps the master of it. Tagging three guys who all contribute tons of good resources to the Twitter discourse, acting like he's one of them, in the upper echelons of coach education and programme design. I used to listen to the podcast frequently, but got tired of the smugness. Anyone who goes to a university campus will be bombarded by the thick fog of unwarranted self-importance, that hits you like a punch to the nose, from many students who believe they are changing the world. After a while, I felt the same assault from the podcast.
The talk about "proven results" is a form of grandstanding that I take issue with. What are the results we're looking for? Is it kids to go pro? Player retention rates from season to season? Work in football long enough, and you will have worked with a player to have made it. It's more a numbers game, because it's not just your coaching or programme that creates players. That's only a small chunk of what makes a great player, and we are fortunate when a player with all the right attributes comes into our path. It's what American clubs like to do, which is to hoard players, steal players, and grow to clubs with thousands of players, and eventually one of them might get paid to play football. The club then plasters that all over their social media, and repeats the process. "Come to us because X played at Y." But what about the other 3000 kids in the same timeframe who quit the game and haven't kicked a ball since? It's the analogy of chucking eggs at the wall, finding the one that didn't break, and pointing to that as proof of a successful formula.
From my perspective, I see two schools of thought that are underpinned by two distinct ambitions. One seeks to create professional players, the other seeks to create fit and healthy people. The two don't have to be entirely mutually exclusive, and our thoughts regarding the matter follow conventional wisdom, but sometimes the truth is counter intuitive.
Take the example of American coaches grilling five year olds like army sergeants. They do so with the best intentions, but it is misguided. They have the values of hard work, sacrifice, and commitment, which is a good thing. But it doesn't work. The kids aren't ready for that. It's not appropriate. Many will quit, or will be negatively impacted by it, whereas one kid might do well in spite of it.
Where do we agree?
There is a time and a place for both opposed and unopposed.
Kids who do work by themselves outside of practice hours will improve more than kids who do nothing.
You probably shouldn't replace team training hours with too much individual work.
Lots of pros continue to work in isolation, supplementing their regular training.
Many pro clubs have large parts of their training dedicated to individual or unopposed work.
Much of the isolated work we see pros do is strength and conditioning, or injury prevention.
Many federations promote unopposed training in the form of pattern play in their coach education.
Doing pattern play with U8s will not be effective or enjoyable.
Anyone disagree? Let's dig in.
I believe it was the comedian Tim Minchin who, in a commencement speech, was talking about discord in modern times. People have started to disagree that the world is round. We have our preconceived notions, and seek to defend them, rather than scrutinise them further. The cliché about coaches is that we have many hats, and one advantage I have over many in my twelve year career is the vastly different environments I have worked in. Poor kids, rich kids. Boys, girls. Men, women. Competitive, recreational. High level, low level. Academy, grassroots. High motivation and dedication, love motivation and dedication. Players who would give an arm to go pro, players who can barely be bothered to turn up to practice. And I have done this in six countries. Most coaches you see arguing on Twitter are doing so from their very narrow perspective.
Going back to the podcast, the guests became more and more from California, working in specific environments, with a narrow set of viewpoints. It became an echo chamber. It's a human passtime to fantasise about what an opponent might say, and win an imaginary argument against the representation of them that you have formed in your head. Turns out, imagination and reality have no distinct boundaries, particularly in the conspiracy obsessed USA, where aliens have visited Earth, Bill Gates wants to spy on people by implanting microchips in their arses, and all world leaders are shapeshifting reptiles. These aren't exactly fringe views. Tim Minchin, in his speech, described modern arguments as two people playing tennis, on two separate courts. They're not returning each other's serves, replying only to what they thought they heard, and saying only what they want to say.
It also helps to paint your opponent into a caricature, which is something Trump does tremendously well. They're easier to ridicule that way. Politicians the world over simply and misrepresent arguments to win over stupid people, but Trump is amazing at it. Did you know the Democrats want to kill babies? Did you know that Mexicans are taking your jobs? Did you know that Muslims want to ban the American flag? Not being able to tell fact from fiction, these imagined caricatures become real, and are then easier to rally against. How could anyone want to kill a baby? And then, just like that, it's so easy to have your followers dismiss anything your opponent says, even to the extent that they vote against their own self-interests.
How an argument should work:
A: I believe we should do X.
B: X won't work because Y.
A: It will if we do ABC.
B. A, maybe, but BC definitely not.
A: Here's an example where A worked and caused X.
B: Here's an study that refutes that claim.
How arguments really happen these days:
A: I believe the US should implement universal healthcare.
B: Do you hate capitalism? Are you un-American? Do you want to kill babies and fly planes into buildings? You're a communist and a terrorist sympathiser!
In the realm of unopposed v opposed, there is always context, but this is rarely communicated. You might have an example of kids working unopposed at home, and using their skills in a real life game. The hypothesis therefore is that if kids do this practice, then they will have this result in a match. What isn't communicated was that these were academy kids, who have been playing for years, love the game, and regularly practice by themselves every day in addition to their practice with their team. The coach seeing this example tries to use this individual practice idea, and apply it to their team training environment, with ten low skilled U9 kids. The U9s have been in school all day, football isn't a priority of theirs, and they quickly lose interest in the training because it is too difficult, and they don't get to engage socially with their teammates.
Skill level and motivation for play are simply two of many variables for helping you choose your practice type. Another example being working with a semi-pro team. Most have day jobs and families. There's a big game coming up at the weekend, and you have one remaining two hour practice, 72 hours before kick off. Tactically, you as the coach, have identified a way to beat your opponents. You're sure of it, and your team are willing to listen. How do you implement it in practice? You can't do opposed games for two hours, as they will be knackered, and the quality will eventually drop, meaning that the level of transfer gained from the practice will soon reach diminishing returns.
Likewise, you can't spend the whole two hours doing patterns and rehearsing team moves unopposed. The team will become bored, disengaged, and the practice will become sloppy. When working with higher level teams, I might use pattern play to implement a new idea. I do it for about fifteen minutes, and bargain with the players, but telling them how important it will be for victory at the weekend. It allows you to deliver lots of information in a short amount of time.
But not all players, teams, and environments are the same. Why is it I can teach patterns to high level adults, and not to low level kids? It's because it sticks. Why does it stick? The game of football consists of a series of mental pictures, with individual cues. The U9s haven't played enough football to gather all of these pictures, nor are they able to recall them subconsciously. Ever noticed how easy it is to get points across to better players? "When you see this, do this." Simple. "When their defender is here, make this run." Okay, Coach. And they do it straight away, no problem. The younger kids have to be taught what all of that means, and need to have experienced it hundreds and thousands of times before it sticks. That's why we have a variety of coaching styles, and a variety of practice designs. You use what's required by the players at the time. The many coaching hats.
Even when it comes to individuals, some respond better to being told, some to being shown, some to being asked, and some to being left alone to try it first without the coach. Our job as coaches isn't to bend them to fit our will, but to bend ourselves to fit their need.
Consider this video from Aldershot manager Danny Searle.
Could you give this video to your players, and expect them to set it up and execute it by themselves without your help? There's likely to be a variety of answers, but I believe there will be three main correlations; age, knowledge (ability/experience), and self-motivation.
My U12 girls in Missouri who were switched on, loved football, and were a self-motivated group, could have done something like this without my help. The U13 girls at the same club, could not have. They had the same coach, played the same style, and used the same training methods. Why could the U12s self-administer this and the U13s not? The U12s were more intrinsically motivated. They wanted to win, to improve, and to compete. They were already very good players, who could perform the actions necessary to be competent at this exercise. Why could the U13s not do this? Because they didn't really care much about football. Their motivations for playing were largely social. Everything was half-arsed, and many of the players struggled to make unopposed passes accurately, let alone with opposition.
Check out the next video.
I was working in Mexico with a bunch of low skilled U7 boys. This article documents a really fun time I had with the dads of this team. The parents were concerned that our U7 team of beginners, without a regular keeper, which regularly played games with less players or no subs, was losing too many games. One of the players was five-years-old (surprisingly, one of the better players) and they were playing 9v9 on a massive field, with goals twice the height of the average player. Three of the kids hated football, and only played it because their dads forced them. One dad even paid me to work one-to-one with his kid. The boy had zero interest in physical activity. His dad tried everything, including buying him brand new expensive boots and football shirts, like Real Madrid and Mexico. I say he tried everything, other than actually taking the time to bond with his kid and be a dad, always seeming to take the route of agent or instructor. The dad made the kid feel bad for being bad, and had no real bond with him. The boy didn't care about disappointing his dad because he didn't care about his dad.
The attempted coup happened via emails, and it was brought to my attention. A dad from Uruguay detailed his opinions on the match performances and my training methods. He sent the above video to prove his point, saying that I should be doing this with six-year olds. The dad did know his football, but as you can see from his suggesting of such a video for six-year-olds, had no clue about how kids learn to play football. He was looking at the top, seeing where we were deficient, and then prescribing what he saw as effective remedies. No idea about context whatsoever. In case anyone is inclined to side with the dad here, I will take this time to remind you that some of the players could not kick a ball to save their lives. They would run away from it in games. Two of them even pulled their shorts down and compared dicks during the middle of a game. The blindness of parents is that even THAT didn't wake them up to the fact that their kids didn't care about football.
Would I do something like the exercise in the above video with higher end adult players? Potentially. Depending upon certain factors, but yes, I have done similar exercises, and will again in the future. Is it right for six-year-olds who get their dicks out during games? No.
I also think there needs to be a separation between unopposed and individual work. Free-kick and corner routines might be practiced unopposed, but they are not individual. As a kid, I spent hours every week in my back garden, working on shots. I had a long garden, and my dad made a goal for me, with a big net behind it, that always rebounded the ball back out. This is why I can strike a ball at over 100mph. Hours upon hours of work, different shots, different techniques. Sometimes a friend or a cousin would come over and we'd take shots at each other. No kid could strike the ball as hard as me, or put on the bend that I could. And that is simply down to accumulation of hours.
Could I have done it without guidance? No. I had no siblings, but older relatives who would show me things. Then as kids, we all were obsessed with football. Roberto Carlos, Tony Yeboah, and David Beckham were examples of shots we would try. This is called modelling. We had a mental representation of what it should look like, and were able to replicate it. I never used anything as a wall, but when striking stationary balls, knew to imagine where a wall was, and how a keeper might act. It also helped to play lots of FIFA, with the visual representations of the different free-kick scenarios and techniques, which FIFA 98 thankfully displayed via a big yellow arrow. So with no wall and no keeper, due to the modelling, I still knew I had to bend the ball, and hit it with at least a minimal pace, or else it would never be a goal in a real game.
Do the players you're working with have enough visuals in the memory bank to do this? Are they dribbling around a cone because you have told them to, or do they realise the cone is supposed to be a defender? If they know the cone is supposed to be a defender, they might dribble more effectively. If they know the cone is supposed to be a defender, yet don't care enough to dribble more effectively, what is it about the practice design that is not engaging with them?
What kids get and what kids need differs from culture to culture. American kids are great at working hard and following orders, but have no magic. There's not much in their lives that enables them to develop this. Likewise, in some countries like Brazil and Ivory Coast, we see videos of kids playing barefoot in the street, who are so in tune with the ball, it looks like an extension of their body. Yet one might surmise that these kids don't have the tactical discipline or levels of organisation demonstrated in other countries. I've seen it here in Mexico. Kids who are lazy, uncoordinated, and not very fit, are far more skilled and intelligent in tight situations than the American kids
What do your players have, and what needs to be supplemented? The kids in Kuwait were the most laziest and unathletic I have ever seen, yet their ball skills and decision making was relatively good. They would never make it because they did not have the drive or desire to do so. This was reinforced by their culture, as most came from insane privilege, already had everything at home, and would never have to work a day in their life. Physical education at their schools was so bad that it was practically non-existent. So what is lacking, and how do we provide it?
The American culture is all about grit and perseverance, yet I think they lack the joy. Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard and all that. They can play football for years, and not fall in love with the ball. I worked with a girl in Missouri who regularly posts freestyle videos. She's outside frequently, on her own, trying to improve her abilities to manipulate the ball. But she's also a skilled and intelligent player on the pitch. Where some kids have been turned into circus acts, she can put the ball in the net. She has the game understanding to do so, and has the intrinsic motivation to study the game, and work on improving her game without any coercion from parents or coaches. She loves the ball.
Think back to why we first get involved in the act of playing with the ball. It's freedom, it's artistry, it's a challenge. The two main factors I see for why we start are play and social. Both of these form joy. Without joy, whatever we're doing doesn't work.
In practice, I say that kids only need to know three things;
1. The teams.
2. The area.
3. How to score points.
They don't care about the why. For them, the why is to get the ball, to show their skills, to compete, to have fun with their friends. Discovering the game for the first time, they don't want to run around cones, they don't want to wait in lines. They want to be free, and they want to compete. Always look to video games for inspiration of how to inspire and engage kids. Set them a task, provide the constraints, and let them get on with it. Video games don't bark instructions on what kids can do, and hardly limit where they can go. This seeks to build buy-in and emotional investment from the player. That must happen first, before we try to do anything else with them.
Why do we see a lot of pro teams have their players run around cones, and do isolated repetitive drills? The main answer to that is periodisation. Last summer, as partners to Bayern Munich, we took a bunch of players and parents to watch their training the day before a game against AC Milan in Kansas City. As this was the day before the game, the players did light work, and a lot of unopposed. The parents were confused and angry. "You say this type of training is stupid, and yet here's Bayern doing it." It was at that point, we realised many lacked the contextual understanding.
Bayern spent a week in the US, and played three matches in three different locations. It was preseason, and very warm. We would see our kids two or three times a week. The kids were learning the game, whereas the Bayern players included World Cup and Champions League winners. Thomas Muller can run around that cone there, because he understands what it represents in the game. He knows he is curving his run to drag out a defender, to create space, to attack the ball in the box. Our kids can't even hit an accurate cross. The demands placed on them are entirely different, not just because of when training and games are, but because the Bayern players had faced thousands of repetitions of those mental pictures. Our kids had hardly even faced a hundred.
The question always is; are they learning the drill or learning the game? Take the free-kick example earlier, of me working alone in my garden. I was learning free-kicks. To the untrained eye, I'm kicking a ball into an empty goal. Therefore, getting the ball between the posts is a success. To me, in my head, I was beating a real wall and a real goalkeeper. In the US and Canada, I would regularly turn up to practice a little early, and strike shots unopposed into an empty net. Some of the kids and parents who also got there early, were impressed when a 30 yard shot went in the net dead centre, where the keeper's knees would be. I knew this was a failure, because a real keeper would save it. Conversely, if I tried a free-kick with the outside of the boot, the Quaresma trivela style, and hit it 3 inches past the post, they would laugh at me for missing an open goal. Personally, I would be impressed that I came so close from such a distance with such a difficult technique. It's context, but more importantly, mental representations. They didn't get it, because they didn't know.
The counter-intuitive element to this debate is that we think it is technique first. It makes sense. How can we teach kids to pass and move if they can't pass accurately? So we make them stand in lines, 10 yards apart, hitting balls to each other, without defenders. We shout at them to look up, to communicate (even though everyone knows where the ball is going), and tell them to hit with the inside of the foot. Invariably, it goes horribly wrong. They're not engaged and don't care. "Why is it that you can't play a ten yard pass without defenders?" They can, they just can't be bothered to focus here, because there is no incentive for them to do so. Remember the motivations for kids? They're not getting to interact with their friends in this drill, and there's no way to score points, so they don't care about performance because they are not rewarded for performance.
Why am I not satisfied with my unopposed shots simply going in the goal? Because I want better. I am holding myself to a higher standard. I want to replicate the shots I see the pros do, and gain intrinsic feelings of self-satisfaction when I do. Out there, by myself on a pitch with nobody around, I will beat the imaginary defender, and then rifle a shot past the imaginary keeper. Only if my move was realistic, my touch not too slow, and the shot out of reach of the keeper, will I be satisfied. It's performance goals. Our beginner players, don't yet have this.
We believe at the beginner levels that we have to improve technique before we can teach understanding, and that at the higher levels, it's understanding we work on while neglecting technique. It's more the opposite. With more novice players, we have to first help them build a decision making framework, a mental representation of the game. "This is what good looks like, this is what bad looks like, here is success, here is failure, these are your options." The beginner players need the freedom and the autonomy first.
Liken it to learning a language. Come join my language class, and I will teach you Spanish. You're not too bothered about Spanish, but you're open minded to giving it a go. Depending upon the individual, I have a limited time to hook you in. Let's first try it this way.
Lesson 1.
Okay class, today is going to be about colours. Repeat after me:
Verde
Rojo
Azul
Amarillo
Blanco
Negro
Naranja
Rosa
Okay, some of you are struggling with that double l in amarillo. Try and say it like a y. Am-a-ree-yo. And again. Am-a-ree-yo.
We're going to repeat these a few more times so that you can work on your pronunciation. Let's go.
Verde
Rojo
Azul
Amarillo
Blanco
Negro
Naranja
Rosa
Great, now that we've done this a few times, I'm going to teach you what they mean in English. Say it with me.
Green -Verde
Red - Rojo
Blue - Azul
Yellow - Amarillo
White - Blanco
Black - Negro
Orange - Naranja
Pink - Rosa
Good, but we're struggling with naranja. Treat the j like it's an h. Naranha. Naranha. Almost. Try and make it a bit more guttural. Naranha. Naranha. Okay. That'll do.
Next, I'm going to say the colours in Spanish, and you're going to repeat what they are in English.
What is Verde?
What is Rojo?
What is Azul?
What is Amarillo?
What is Blanco?
What is Negro?
What is Naranja?
What is Rosa?
Some of you did well. Now again, but this time the Spanish and English is reversed.
Que es red?
Que es pink?
Que es yellow?
Que es black?
Que es orange?
Que es green?
Que es white?
Que es blue?
Okay. Not bad, but some of you need to work harder. This isn't difficult.
What I'd like you to do now is to write down these translations in your notebooks.
Let's say the entire hour lesson is like that. Are you willing to come back next week? How much would you put up with it like this before you quit? Have I made you any more interested in Spanish? Have I turned you on to learning languages? Chances are that I haven't had any positive impact on your desire to learn Spanish. This method is boring. There's no autonomy. It's completely dependent upon the teacher. We'll look at it again, and break it down.
Lesson 1.
Okay class, today is going to be about colours. Repeat after me: Who cares? Where's the fun and useful stuff?
Verde
Rojo
Azul
Amarillo
Blanco
Negro
Naranja
Rosa
Okay, some of you are struggling with that double l in amarillo. Try and say it like a y. Am-a-ree-yo. And again. Am-a-ree-yo. Why didn't you tell me that first?
We're going to repeat these a few more times so that you can work on your pronunciation. Let's go. This is boring.
Verde
Rojo
Azul
Amarillo
Blanco
Negro
Naranja
Rosa
Great, now that we've done this a few times, I'm going to teach you what they mean in English. Say it with me. Still boring.
Green -Verde
Red - Rojo
Blue - Azul
Yellow - Amarillo
White - Blanco
Black - Negro
Orange - Naranja
Pink - Rosa
Good, but we're struggling with naranja. Treat the j like it's an h. Naranha. Naranha. Almost. Try and make it a bit more guttural. Naranha. Naranha. Okay. That'll do. Should have told me that at the start.
Next, I'm going to say the colours in Spanish, and you're going to repeat what they are in English. Am I a parrot?.
What is Verde?
What is Rojo?
What is Azul?
What is Amarillo?
What is Blanco?
What is Negro?
What is Naranja?
What is Rosa?
Some of you did well. Now again, but this time the Spanish and English is reversed. What about the ones who didn't do well?
Que es red?
Que es pink?
Que es yellow?
Que es black?
Que es orange?
Que es green?
Que es white?
Que es blue?
Okay. Not bad, but some of you need to work harder. This isn't difficult. I am working hard. It's not difficult for you because you are the teacher. I'm struggling here, and working harder isn't the solution.
What I'd like you to do now is to write down these translations in your notebooks. When am I going to have a conversation?
I've done a fair bit of language teaching. The subject may be different, but the application is the same as any subject. Always remember this; what is everybody's favourite subject? Themselves. You need to make it a story, where they can transplant themselves into it. For learning to take place, there has to be emotion involved. We learn football, because we love it, and we love it, because we are allowed agency as players. This pretend Spanish lesson didn't have any of that. The teacher was the focal point, broadcasted information, and treated the learners like parrots. There was no connection between the teacher and the learners. This is where we fall down as educators.
The learners don't get why they're doing it this way, and don't care. Same with musical instruments. I can tell you why scales are important, and spend ages showing you evidence of this. You, as the learner, just want to replicate your favourite guitar riffs. If we spent the entire lesson talking about pentatonic fifths and major scales, you will quickly lose interest in guitar. You want to play TNT because it's been stuck in your head since you played Tony Hawk Pro Skater on PlayStation.
Sure, language learners need to know vocabulary, and music learners need to know scales, but we are missing the element of self-discovery here. Everyone has different motivations for learning or taking up an activity. We must first appeal to those. Just last week, I taught my wife a few riffs on the guitar. She doesn't know what notes they were or what key they were in. As a teenager, she had a guitar teacher than taught her scales and shredding (shredding is the guitar equivalent of teaching a five-year-old how to do ten consecutive stepovers in front of a cone, while neglecting how to do it with a real defender). She never learnt the music she wanted to play. We worked on three simple riffs from songs she knows, and then played along with the songs. You can bet that this was far more fun than any lesson she had ever paid for. What was the result of that fun? She now associates joy with the guitar, whereas before it felt like work. She's also experienced a small degree of competency, which has done wonders for her confidence, and intrinsic motivation to do it again in future.
If we're teaching scales to a beginner, if they're not instantly good at it, they will stop caring very quickly. This will lead to mistakes caused by lack of concentration. What we then tell them as teachers is the equivalent of saying "you're not very good at that thing you don't care about, so work harder." That is the message they hear. Every learner has an image in their heads of what they want to be. This dictates the expectations of their experience. One of my main motivations of playing the guitar was Aerosmith. I loved Walk This Way. Turns out that the riff was fairly simple. It took me months to realise that, as my teacher was too busy trying to teach me Malaguena. I didn't know the song, and didn't care about it. It was a Spanish classical piece. Nothing like the music I was interested in. I know now why he wanted to work on that piece, because it teaches the fundamentals of different plucking techniques and the coordination of the fret hand through arpeggio shapes.
What my teacher initially failed to do was appeal to my motivations. I eventually learnt the song, but this was well after we had originally tried to learn it. I wanted to play riffs like Chili Peppers, Status Quo, and AC/DC, whereas my teacher was forcing boring classical pieces on me. I had a black Fender Stratocaster, and in my head, looked like a rock star. Had we started there, I would have eventually been more inclined to learn the stuff he believed I needed to learn, because then I would have possessed enough guitar knowledge to know that his recommended pieces would have improved my techniques, allowing me to play a wider variety of songs.
As I got older, my motivations evolved. I was a teenager, unable to talk to girls, but I knew what music the girls I like were interested in. One lesson a week with the teacher, and several hours per day by myself, in control of my own learning journey. Some mates would come over and we would thrash around riffs from metal and rock songs we liked. If I was home alone, I'd work on learning songs like Wherever You Will Go by The Calling, so that I could impress girls. But something had to click. The penny inside had to drop. With better guidance, it would have happened sooner. It always has to be tailored to the individual.
I once made the same mistake teaching guitar to a friend of mine. I thought I would start by teaching very simple riffs, and build it from there, much like my teacher did with me and the classical pieces. My friend didn't know the riffs, and didn't care. At the time, I couldn't see it from her point of view. I knew that learning these riffs would allow her to work on basic technique and timing. She didn't get that. How could she? She was a complete beginner, that was hearing me prescribe music she didn't care about. I should have made it about her. "So you want to learn this? Okay, let's break it down and see what we can do."
Going into a bunch of young players and following the same method as my pretend Spanish lesson might look like this.
Everyone get a ball. Listen. Get a ball. Now, look at me. I'm going to show you some moves with the ball, and you're going to copy them.
1. Toe taps. Watch me. Can you do this? One foot, then the other.
2. Side to sides. Look. Use the inside of your foot, tapping the ball across your body.
3. L-Turn. Use the bottom of your right foot to drag the ball behind your left leg, and then back to the front again. It's easy. Look at how I'm doing it.
4. Drag back. Using the bottom of your foot, pull the ball behind your body. Keep your eye on the ball as you turn. No, that's the wrong way. Stay looking at the ball.
Next up, we're going to run through cones. Make a line behind the blue cones. Watch me,
1. Using only your right foot, dribbling in and out of these red cones, and then back to your line.
2. This time, it's only your left foot. I know many of you aren't left footed, but you won't improve it if you don't use it.
3. This time you will use only the inside of your feet. It's not complicated. Look at how I do it.
Engaged? Probably not.
Ever seen a bunch of kids get together at the park, bring out poles and cones, and do an SAQ workout? No. They play headers and volleys, crossbar challenge, and either Wembley singles or Wembley doubles. It's play, but it's also structured. The games have rules, stages, points, and winners and losers. Who can hit the crossbar from 20 yards? Now 25 yards? Five lives at each level. Don't hit it, and you are eliminated. Ever seen a coach with a bunch of disinterested kids try to do Coerver? It's painful. The coach will reason that the kids aren't interested in football because they aren't good, and so doing these practices is a shortcut to making them good, but they have failed to identify and work with the motivations of the players.
I introduced headers and volleys to the kids in Missouri, and it's all they ever wanted to do. Like all forms of play, it did follow a structure. There were rules, as well as acceptable and unacceptable behaviours. It also allowed the players to try stuff. You get a good insight into their psychological makeup. What they are trying to do shows you what their motivations are, and usually where they came from. Who is trying the bikes? The volleys? Who is getting the assists? Who is doing the short range headers in the six yard box? Now you know what they are capable of and also what inspires them. Now, you can teach them.
Kids aren't just random, they do want a bit of structure. You as the coach need to be good at recognising what structures work, and how to manipulate them to coerce learning.
Think about the things you love, and the things you like. If Roberto Carlos comes up to you and shows you a practice he uses to strike the ball in the way he does, do you go out and do it? I know a lot of it depends on availability, and unlike me, not every kid had a long garden with a goal and a net in it. Let's just pretend all things are equal for the sake of this thought experiment. How many hours would you spend working on that technique? How many days a week? Likewise with guitar. Joe Perry shows up and shows you has practice techniques to be able to play rad guitar solos. After he initially shows you, how many times do you then practice it by yourself? Your answer simply depends on how much you care.
The readers of this piece will be working with all sorts of players from many different backgrounds. Pretend Pep Guardiola is going to deliver a guest session for your next team training. What's the attendance like at your next practice? Is it the same? Higher? How about engagement? Are your players hanging on his every word to soak up as much information as possible, or are they indifferent? A lot of it depends on how much they like football, and how much they want to improve. The average American parent would have zero idea of why this would be such a great opportunity. "He may have won that Championship League or something in Europe, but did he play in high school? College? ODP? How much does he charge for a session?"
We have to treat learning like a story. It's a journey or an adventure, and the learner must be one of the stars of this story.
Let's try another Spanish lesson, on the same topic.
Good afternoon. Today we're going to learn about colours. Can anyone think of a place or a location where we see plenty of colours?
- A market?
Good. So let's pretend we're in a market. What do we see?
- People.
- Shops.
- Clothes.
- Food.
Great answers. Let's make a note of these, and I want you to write down the translations too.
People = Gente
Shops = Tiendas
Clothes = Ropa
Food = Comida
Are there a lot of people in our market today?
- Yes.
So if there's a lot of people, we say "mucha gente." There's mucha gente at the market today. Does anyone know what the Spanish word for market is? Have a guess.
- Marketo?
Not bad. Close. It's "mercado." Can you write that down? So there's mucha gente at our mercardo today. What type of tienda are we going to look at first? Ropa o comida? (O means or) Ropa o comida?
- Ropa?
Great. At the front of the tienda, there are a lot of dresses hanging up, and they are all different colours. Can anyone guess the word for dress?
- Dresso?
Ha! Not bad, but no, it's vestido. Like a vest, because it goes over the shoulders. Can you write down vestido?
These vestidos in the tienda are all pretty colours. What colours can we see?
*Students list colours in English.
Great choices. Before I tell you, does anyone know what any of these colours are in Spanish? How about white? If we have a piece of white paper with nothing on it, we say the paper is... what?
- Blank?
Great. The Spanish word is very similar. Blanco. Here's the other colours and their translations. Take a moment to write them down.
Let's go back to the start of our journey. Where are we going today?
- Mercado.
Good. And what colour is the sky?
- Azul.
Great. What colour is the sun shining down on us?
- Amarillo?
Good. Just be careful with the pronunciation there. In Spanish, a double l is pronounced like a y. Can you say it like am-a-ree-yo?
Where do we go in the mercado?
- To a tienda.
Good. And what does this tienda sell?
- It sells ropa.
Fantastic. What kind of ropa do we see at the front of the tienda?
- Vestidos.
Excellent. Can you now shout out the colours of vestidos we saw?
- Azul.
- Amarillo.
- Verde.
- Blanco.
- Negro.
- Rojo.
- Rosa.
- Naranja.
Good stuff. Now get with a partner, and take turns. One of you will read out the English, and the other will guess the Spanish. See who can get the highest score out of eight. Off you go!
Better? I certainly think so. In this second example, the teacher created a story, and took the students along on a journey. The students had input and were allowed to help shape the world that the teacher was building. Of course, it was constrained and guided by the teacher, but the students felt like they were in the driving seat. The interaction between the teacher and the students allowed for a lot of positive affirmation, and a lot of monitoring of progress. If the students were getting the answers wrong, the teacher would be able to go back and work on it again. At the end, it was turned into a competition. The students have mental images in their head, with these colours now representing realistic pictures that they could draw upon, and the test in pairs gave them a chance to score points and win. This increases engagement.
The learning is embedded in a kind of scaffolded way. Slowly but surely, piece by piece. In this second example, it's also more possible for the teacher to dip out and individually help a student that is struggling. In the mini test at the end, the class had been given a task. If a student were having problems, the teacher could leave the class to continue without them, because they are focused on their task, and the teacher can now help the struggler.
When it comes to football and young kids, things like toe taps and side to sides aren't bad. In fact, I'd argue they are helpful. Just don't make it the focus of your session. Let's imagine a ball each exercise. The U6 boys and girls are running around a 20x20 area marked out by cones. We will start off by playing a game of follow the leader. Get them into pairs, and assign numbers 1 and 2. Number 1 is going to lead, by dribbling their ball around the area. 2 has to follow and stay as close as possible. Number 1 needs to try and be a little tricky and send 2 the wrong way. When the coach calls, roles will swap, and now 1 will chase 2.
What does this simple exercise have the kids doing? Dribbling, turning, and changing direction. All with their heads up, because they have to look for their partner, and monitor the congestion so they don't bump into other players. It's also autonomous and competitive. The leader can go where they like within the coned area. Coach isn't telling them what to do. The competition is between the partners to see who can lose or catch the other one.
"Come on in guys! Hands up if you managed to lose your partner. Well done! Who was able to catch their partner? Good job! Can anyone tell me if their partner was really tricky? Yes? Good. Tell me what they did!"
- My partner kept speeding up and changing direction.
"That's great. Can you show me how?"
*Kid runs one way and then another.
"Excellent. I'm going to help you all do this, but even better. Ready? Watch me. I'm going straight, and I want to turn right. Watch as I drop my left shoulder like this. What does this make my partner think?"
- It makes them think you're going to the left.
"It sure does. But now look. I'm going to use this part of my right foot. Does anyone know what we call this part here?"
*Coach taps the foot.
- The outside?
"Good. With the outside of my right foot, I'm going to now go in the opposite direction. Watch. Drop my left shoulder, push off with the outside of my right foot. Can you guys do that?"
- Yes!
"I'm not sure. You don't have magic feet like I do!"
- Yes we can!
"Okay then. Find a space, and spend a moment practicing this skill by yourself. Show me who has magic feet!"
What has this simple exercise done? Created a picture for where the use of the skill might be relevant, hooked all the kids in by making it fun and competitive, challenged them to do something, and created an incentive for doing it by saying anyone can do it has magic feet, which is really cool. This is a blend of opposed and unopposed, and is completely contextual and engaging.
Football is an intelligent game that requires a lot of thinking. Most of this thinking is subconscious. Nobody has the ball at their feet and verbalises questions in their mind like "Where are my teammates? How can I get it to them?" but those are the processes your brain goes through during the game. Before we teach anything else, we must first teach them how to think. Kids are naturally curious, and love solving problems. So let's give them a problem to solve. As I keep saying, coaches are session architects. Create something that engages them, allows them to be socially active with others, is competitive, and gives them problems to solve.
It's at the higher end that we can refine technique. Higher end players have a mental framework which allows them to visualise the game around them, even when practising alone. A player that is a really good dribbler will know, when practising alone, if they have taken a bad touch, or been too slow to change direction. The memory bank of vivid experiences tells them that. Ever seen a U13 girl toe the ball from thirty yards over the head of a 5'0'' goalkeeper in an 8'0'' goal, and everyone go crazy? They don't know it's a bad technique. They don't have the experience to know that, and the constraints of the game reward them for bad technique.
Every coaching style and practice style has its place. My view is that I'm not using unopposed with beginners, because I don't think it transfers knowledge well enough to players that don't have a mental framework, and I also don't think it appeals to their motivations. I don't even use it that much with higher end players, because it's not as enjoyable. Unless we have a short time to deliver a lot of information, and the players are already intelligent and experience, with the ability to handle what I'm throwing at them.
During lock down, I have been working out with a high level goalkeeper here in Mexico. I got talking to her in the gym, the night before everything shut down in this country. We'll go out back on the grass, and do some football related SAQ work. Very soon though, it turns into something else. We'll make something competitive, challenging, and representative of part of a game. It's a million times more fun. One is a plank competition. We're both goalkeepers in the plank position, facing each other. We have two cones each, either side of us, representing small goals. With one of our hands, while remaining in the plank position, we'll try and hit the ball past the other to score goals. If you fall out of the plank position, or the ball goes between your cones, you have conceded a goal.
What's the purpose? It works on core strength. For us, it doesn't feel, at least primarily, like a core workout. We're goalkeepers trying to protect our goal, and just happen to be planking. Another is a reflex game. She faces the wall, maybe four yards away from it, with a cone either side of her to represent a goal. I throw or kick balls off the wall from behind her where she can't see, and she has to react to the wall rebound and stop the balls going in the goal. Depending on the success rate, we might change something, like increase or decrease the size of the goal, or her distance from the wall. She's working on low diving saves and reflexes, which we could do in the boring prescribed way. "I'm going to shoot just down here to your left. Dive in this way, and gather the ball in this way." She doesn't need or want that. She wants to do something that simulates making real saves, so she can feel like she's in a real competition. She wants to win and demonstrate her competence against the challenge set. If she doesn't know where the ball is going, she has to read and react, like she would do in a real game. She's doing the fun bit. Goalkeepers love making saves, and making saves is a form of problem solving.
The above is a typical unopposed passing drill from Coerver. I used to be obsessed with this stuff. The coaching points in such videos are always great. But let's have a look at the kids. These look like Fulham academy players, so quite a high level. If you tell them about timing or which foot to play to, and rehearse this over and over again, they will get better at it. They have enough stored pictures in their memory banks that they have the mental representation required to transfer learning from this drill to the game. Not all of our kids do. A big difference here, is that these kids are motivated by becoming better players. So they will drill in crisp passes. They will stand on their toes. They will check their runs. They will pass to the correct foot. They will receive with the correct foot. They will get their timing right. The coach will be making tweaks to their techniques, and it will improve their game.
Would any Americans reading this try such an exercise with their U9 rec team? You'd be insane to do so. The kids can't pass accurately enough, consistently enough, and the one waiting for the ball has switched off and is chasing a butterfly. Even with higher end players, I'd still rather do a rondo or possession game, because I believe it is more fun, more challenging, and presents better mental pictures.
Unopposed isn't bad. I just don't think it should replace large segments of team training with kids. If I wanted to teach a passing combination, I may first do it in small groups, and do it unopposed for a few goes. For instance, a third man run, or up back through. Then take that into congestion, and then full opposition. Unopposed might be a start point, but it is not the whole exercise or the whole session.
If anyone uses a training session of Barcelona or Man City the day before a match, or on a recovery day, where the players are doing unopposed training, and uses it as justification for making their U9s stand in lines, then that person is not very bright, and should be ignored.
I'm working with this bunch of players, who have this skill level, and this level of motivation. Why is your practice methodology useful for them? Why is your practice methodology better than what I'm already doing?
This is a video I made from a camp I did two years ago. It was a one-man kid, with about 25 kids, representing about seven different age groups. Four days, six hours a day. While most of it was opposed, competitive, and useful, there was unopposed, and there was even freestyle.
The kids got a little bit of everything, but it was all pieced together. The freestyle was fun, and a bit of a change up from the norm. It has the added benefit of giving them a challenge they can try on their own. Which they did. Some of the kids who couldn't do it, would go home and work on it, then come in the next day and show me their success. Appeal to their intrinsic motivation, create a bond, set a challenge, give praise. This creates the joyful experience kids seek, and helps them fall in love with the ball.
Every unopposed example was quickly followed by a "for realsies" situation. Okay, now do it against a defender. Unopposed started the exercise, which embedded an idea, and then became contextual. Especially when showing a new or complex move. They need a few goes without a defender first. In order for it to translate to the game, we need to add the opposition and begin to present the players with the game realistic pictures.
If we can encourage kids to practice at home, even better. Resources like Beast Mode Soccer and Coerver apps are great for that kind of thing. It supplements their team learning. I don't think it should replace it. Dedicating a bit of time to it occasionally in team sessions? Sure. Show them how to do it, and encourage them to do it at home by themselves.
How many of these Dribble Up Smart Balls have been received for Christmas or birthday, only to be confined to the toy box forever after two weeks? And why is that? This is a great app, and a fantastic tool for self-motivated and dedicated players to work out at home by themselves. But how many do? A mum asked me for advice on whether to buy one for her son. I wrote a long email with pros and cons, to really inform her of her choice. She bought it, and later told me her son doesn't use it. "He prefers going outside and playing with his dad." Why is this? Because for that boy, football was a social experience. He turned up and had fun with his mates. He had a mild interest in the game, but it didn't go beyond that. He wasn't interested in mastery or self-improvement. His joy didn't come from what he could do with the ball, but from what he could do with others.
Another boy, whose mum used to frequently tell me how much he loves soccer and wants to go pro, the boy never showed it himself. If there was a game on TV, he wouldn't watch it, which is a big red flag. He had all the resources available to him. He might have liked football more than most of his friends, but he wasn't obsessed with football to the point that professionals are. He wasn't obsessed with improving his game. He wasn't obsessed with studying matches and copying top players. He liked to compete, and was a fierce competitor, and he liked the bonding and camaraderie that comes with being part of a team. It's also cool when you've got foreign coaches and cool uniform. The innate drive, however, didn't exist.
How you teach the learner, depends on the learner. I think unopposed training as a philosophy to employ in team situations, falls short. There is a time and a place for it. We should encourage kids to practice at home by themselves. It is a useful tool for embedding ideas. However, it is not as effective in team training situations as opposed training is.
Use it to introduce an idea. Use it for recovery or fitness sessions (high level, not grassroots kids, don't even dare). Use it to rehearse something the day before the game, in a low impact, non contact setting, so nobody clobbers your star player in training on the eve of the cup final.
Choose rondos. Choose possession games. Choose maximum engagement. Choose game realistic scenarios. Choose active defenders. Choose competition. Choose social interaction. Choose winners and losers. Choose game related consequences (why motivate players with pushups or laps when losing the ball and conceding a goal should be the motivation they need to not make mistakes?). Choose small sided games. Choose the right coaching style, for the right individual, at the right time. Choose the appropriate training method for the specific scenario. Be flexible in your approach. Be open minded in your learning. Scrutinise your ideas. And make sure you're not doing line drills with U6s to run around cones.
JUST BECAUSE THE PROS DO IT DOESN'T MEAN IT IS RIGHT FOR THE KIDS TO BE DOING IT!
SO YOUR KID WANTS TO BE A STUNT PERFORMER IN ACTION MOVES? GREAT. JUMP OFF THIS BUILDING!
OH LOOK, YOUR KID IS DEAD! PROBABLY DIDN'T WANT IT ENOUGH! WEAK! SOFT! SUBURBAN! CALIFORNIA! LATINO LEAGUES!
