While that sounds like a simple question a quick look at many practice fields reveals a bewildering answer. Many practices find children facing situations that they never see in an actual match. This should lead a coach to evaluate the practice by first asking, "is it soccer?"
Soccer is a game. The children are involved in an activity that pits them against an opponent. It is, in most cases, about winning and losing, competition and cooperation. It is also a leisure activity. The children are there because they want to be there. They want to play a game.
To play a game of soccer you first need a ball. Then an opponent. Add a field, a couple of goals across from each other, mix in a few soccer rules and you have a game of 1v1. But this is hard work and you can't play it for very long. So you get some teammates, and to keep it fair, a few more opponents. With these elements you can play soccer all day.
These are the elements of soccer. They make the game what it is. If you remove a key element such as the ball or opponent it can't be soccer. Likewise, to change an element too much you can move too far from the game. Playing with two balls or three teams might be fun and a game, but is it soccer? To pass a ball across a grid and run to a corner involves kicking techniques, but is it soccer?
Soccer also involves the element "chaos." Opponents, team mates and the ball are all moving in different directions. Players, parents and coaches are shouting different instructions and information. Bringing "order out of chaos" is an important skill in learning how to play the game.
Soccer is a game with certain elements. There must be a ball, teammates and opponents, a field with boundaries, goals opposite each other and soccer rules.
A soccer coach coaches soccer, not something else. This thought is at the heart of the Dutch Vision. A practice is either soccer, soccer like or soccer strange.
Click here for a YouTube video on What is Soccer.
What goals should be used? The players must have an objective to work towards. The objective, (goal) should be realistic and meaningful for the players in question and be related to their problem.
Field. When the problem, number of players and the type of goals are known a field can be constructed. The dimensions and alignment can be set.
Rules. Adding or changing a rule is a quick way to test how the game is going. They can help to keep the focus on exactly what the game is supposed to teach.
Ball. There are some situations that might be helped by changing or modifying the ball.
The elements of the game can be manipulated to suit a need. The pages below contain some examples of how they can be changed in order to create various problems/solutions. Each game represents a different form and learning can be achieved by mastering the basic forms. In many cases more than one element will need to be adjusted in order to get the right effect in the game. Playing with the elements uses the principle of overload. While this principle is most closely associated with weight training or running it can be applied to small sided games.
The Principle Of Overload
1) Number of repetitions. What is the work to rest ratio? If three teams are playing a tournament against each other than the W-T-R ratio is two games to one rest in a cycle. In a reload game it can be the number of times that certain players start in specific positions. Simply playing a basic form over time allows the players to proceed through the different stages of learning. Adding repetitions can increase resistance, or overload, as fatigue sets in and
href="http://www.bettersoccermorefun.com/dwtext/concentr.htm">concentration slips.
2) Speed of repetitions. How fast is the game? What is the speed of play? Playing a game with a "new ball in" removes the down time that retrieval brings. Players don't get to wait around while someone chases the ball, the game restarts immediately.
3) Length of the repetition. Playing 2v2 for 2 minutes is much harder than playing for 20 seconds. The physical and mental demands are greater. Too long, however, is counter productive. Once the players have become totally fatigued learning ceases.
4) Decreasing the rest period. Shortening the breaks between activities is a step in efficient planning and increasing the load that the players have to carry. When playing with a "new ball in" the time between the ball going out of play and the new one put into play can be shortened. Going from a three second delay to a one second delay makes the players work that much harder.
5) Increasing the resistance. Making one or both teams play with a handicap. Changing the rules, teams, field or ball so that the game becomes conditioned favoring one team or a particular problem.
Soccer games are decided by goals. Practice centers on creating and finishing opportunities, or, on denying them. The entire soccer world revolves around one team trying to put the ball in the net while the other tries to stop them. Yet, when pressed, many coaches and most players have a hard time analyzing how a goal was scored beyond the last touch of the ball.
Here is where small-sided games, along with clear functions, can help. In 11v11 or 7v7 the picture can be crowded, chaotic. The real reason that a goal was scored might get lost. In 4v4 the reduced picture makes it easier to read the actual problems. And since it is real soccer, the microcosm bears a direct relationship to the bigger game.
"There are, in fact, five basic fundamental reasons why goals are scored. Sometimes, of course, there is a combination of factors, but it is a combination of two or more of the five basic factors." 9
1) Lack of pressure on the man with the ball. The forward that breaks through for an uncontested shot. The midfielder with enough space to play the ball forward to the striker. Any player that can play the ball forward poses problems for the defense.
2) Lack of support for the pressurizing player. Attackers look for 1v1 opportunities in the attacking third. Here the return is worth the risk. Defenders try to minimize these situations. They try to keep enough players behind the ball so that when the first defender is beaten another is close enough to control the damage.
3) Giving the ball away. The careless square pass in midfield. The lost throwin. With so many players placing so little value on ball possession it's not hard to see this as a major factor in goal scoring.
4) Restarts. This is an opportunity for the attackers to use a rehearsed play. It is also impossible for the defenders to put pressure directly on the player with the ball.
5) Failure to track players down. When opponent's run at the defense late and from deep positions the defenders are faced with a significant soccer problem.
Note that reasons 1, 2 and 5 are directly related to a player being in the wrong position. The player is either too close, too far or at the wrong angle to the opponent. Reason 4 is partly because direct pressure cannot be applied to the ball. In all 3 out of 5 reasons why goals are scored are because a player was not at the correct place at the proper moment. This is often more of a breakdown in the decision making process than in execution of any technique. When players understand what poor positioning looks like and it's effects they can take advantage of their opponent's mistakes as well as avoid errors for themselves. They can make a greater contribution to the game. See some examples in shape, size and space.
One other important note about goals. Over 60% of all goals are scored with only one touch. This statistic should be kept in mind when coaching and planning a practice.
"The coaching of goalkeepers is basically similar to the coaching of soccer players in general. Goalkeepers should participate in small sided and competitive games (e.g. 4v4). 1Coaching Soccer
The position of goalkeeper brings a new set of problems for the youth coach. Because of the specific technical requirements of the position there is a strong attraction to training the goalkeeper outside of the rest of the teams training. This can result in isolated, soccer strange, activities.
This section will examine some of the effects that occur when goalkeepers are included in small sided games at practices. Their use is an important step in development, after all goalkeepers are an integral part of 7v7 and 8v8, the larger small sided games. However, simply adding a goalkeeper to the smaller games without taking into account the effects can lead to conflicting tasks, miscommunication and have an adverse effect on what is being learned.
Point of departuretasks and responsibilities
When introducing children to goalkeeping it may be appropriate to start them with recessed goals. This can allow them to deal with age appropriate shooting without the fear of anyone crashing into them.
When goalkeepers have the ball the standard instruction from most parents and coaches is to get the ball as far from the goal as possible, resulting in the "long boot." That the opponents often get possession is rarely considered. An option can be found in the sweeper keeper game. If the opponents are far away, bring it out yourself. If they're too close look for the deep player, even throw it. Think about the consequences of the initial decision.
When children play in the goal they can become very defensive and "bunker down" on the line. This is largely due to the weight of responsibility of the position. To start with, the coach can help minimize the fear by ignoring a lot of the goals that get by. Continually drawing attention to failure can lead to a heightened fear of failure and the predictable fight or flight syndrome. The occasional "oopsies" from the coach can help to relieve stress. Other ideas to help get the keeper off of the line: #The midfield game using goalkeepers, forces the goalkeepers to get across midfield for their team to score. #Sweeper keeper, encourages the goalkeeper to be an active part of the attack.#Use a standard 4v4 sized field with a midfield line. The goalkeeper is allowed to use his hands anywhere in his own half, (no backpass and goals cannot be thrown in). This encourages the GK's to get out from the goal and meet the opponents at midfield, dare them to try the chip shot. Think aggressively.#Big goal-two small goals, lots of success in bringing the ball out from in front of the goal. Every attack starts with the GK and they soon become aware of their importance and power.#Last man back is the goalkeeper. This rule keeps in place the principle of mobility at the expense of one player taking on the responsibilities of the position. Whoever is closest to the goal is the goalkeeper. Recessed goals might be of use in this game.
In the modern game foot skills will be as much a part of the goalkeepers arsenal as most field players. The time spent playing in nongoalkeeping roles in small sided games will never be wasted. Likewise, the basics of goalkeeping can be learned largely through play, and small sided games offer ample opportunity for that.
My position is this: street soccer is the most natural educational system that can be found."
By analyzing street soccer yourself, you will conclude that its strength is that it is played daily in a competitive form, with a preference for the match on all sorts of 'street playing fields', usually in small groups. Rarely in street soccer do you see youths busy practicing isolated technical and tactical drills. No, it is always the competitive form, where youth players learn from their mistakes, unconscious of the technical, tactical, mental and physical qualities they are developing through the scrimmages being played.
Playing soccer every day ensures this development. It is a process where it is not necessary for adults to be present. You also learn the team tactical principles without effort through playing the game. Your teammate, higher in the street soccer hierarchy, forces you to comply...
In African and South American countries, where the conditions for street soccer are favorable, you can immediately notice that youth players have a head start. They go through a more varied technical and tactical development within their own experiences. Therefore, the "feeling" for the game is also better. They find their motivation on the street to play the games over and over again, no matter how simple they are. Even if there is only a wall at their disposal... 6
There is an argument that street soccer today is no longer possible. "Automobiles now drive where games were once played. The playgrounds are used as hangouts for older youth with other interests. Open grass fields are now dog parks. The conditions for street soccer in many countries are less than ideal." 6 Add bicycle unfriendly suburbs, the need for permits to use public fields, the managed schedules that most children have today and spontaneous play of any kind, let alone street soccer is hard to imagine.
In spite of all of these obstacles, which are solvable, there's another reason why street soccer doesn't enjoy the same popularity as pick up basketball. In his book, How Soccer Explains The World, Franklin Foer observes:
But for all the talk of freedom, the sixties parenting style had a far less laissez-faire side too. Like the 1960's consumer movement which brought American car seatbelts and airbags, the soccer movement felt like it could create a set of rules and regulations that would protect both the child's body and mind from damage. Leagues like the one I played in handed out "participation" trophies to every player, no matter how few games his (or her) team won... Where most of the world accepts the practice of heading a ball as an essential element of the game, American soccer parents have fretted over the potential for injury to the brain. An entire industry sprouted to manufacture protective headgear... Even though very little medical evidence supports this fear, some youth leagues have prohibited headers altogether.
This reveals a more fundamental difference between American youth soccer and the game as practiced in the rest of the world. In every other part of the world, soccer's sociology varies little: it is the province of the working class... Here, aside from the Latino immigrants, the professional classes follow the game most avidly and the working class couldn't give a toss about it. Surveys, done by sporting goods manufacturers, consistently show that children of middle class and affluent families play the game disproportionately... That is, they come from the solid middle class and above.
Observing youth soccer in America it is very difficult to argue with Foer's assessment that it is solidly a middle class sport. And the middle class brings it's values into the picture. Middle class values don't see street soccer as a legitimate educational method. It is recess as opposed to physical education. Children need to be taught and teaching should be done by experts. Few would argue that over the last 30 years children are being "taught" almost everything at increasingly younger ages. Soccer instruction now begins with four year olds, so that the children will have an advantage as six year olds. This need to get ahead brings with it the fear of falling behind and the need for accountability that only expert instruction can prevent and provide. This type of instruction leaves no room for the trial and error system of street soccer. Middle class values are in conflict with the basic ideas behind a street soccer culture. The following are a few ideas that demonstrate the conflict between the two.
One of those basic ideas in the street soccer culture is that you are assigned a role by a better player and are expected to play it for the good of the team, see Michels above. Such an assignment runs counter to the idea that every child needs to learn every position. This democratization of the team, where everyone is a jack of all trades and a master of none, is best achieved by an adult outside of the game itself. A responsible individual, (the coach) that can ensure that each individual child's needs are being met at every moment. In street soccer you fill the position that you are best suited for at the moment in the context of the team. While this position can change from game to game and team to team the purpose is always the same, to get the best out of each individual possible at the moment.
This brings up another difference. In street soccer children have to learn patience, to wait for their turn, that they are not entitled to lead, make decisions or even be listened to simply because they show up. Leadership is earned through competition within the pecking order inside of the team. Younger players in street soccer would wait their turn when they would finally be able to lead the group, and there are no guarantees. In the democratization of the soccer children don't have to learn patience, they are guaranteed their turn their time in the spot light. Whether it's a turn to be captain, to play center forward or to take a shot at goal middle class children learn that hard work and patience aren't really necessary.
Not only does everyone get a chance, but no one fails. The mantra, "Everyone's a winner, no ones a loser" is a benchmark in recreational soccer. The idea is to help build every individuals positive self esteem. No one can leave the game or practice feeling bad. In street soccer every game resulted in a winner and a loser and every one knew who was who. Failure was a common experience, as it is in life, and children learned early on how to handle the disappointments. Children learned self respect instead of self esteem.
A huge difference here is that in street soccer no standings are kept. You can lose this morning and win in the afternoon. Disappointment is only temporary and is forgotten within minutes of the end of the match. But in today's soccer society standings can be kept and the failures are cumulative. They are carried along all season. An eight year old will be reminded in November about a game they lost in September and how important that is.
This emphasis on self esteem brings up another difference between the cultures. If there really are no losers then why try at all? Since giving less then your best receives the same reward as giving your best why go to any extra effort? The implication for children is that mediocrity is acceptable and makes developing soccer skills a moot point. (Coaches often complain that getting children motivated is one of their biggest problems.) The bar of acceptance is set to the lowest common denominator and the children in the top percentage will be affected the most. In street soccer it's peers that will decide what is and isn't acceptable and it will be based on each players contribution to the game. Nothing politically correct here but an honest assessment from those that it matters most to. (Children can be cruel and lack good judgment about how to express themselves. This can be especially true when there is too big a gap in the levels of talent. But with proper guidance they can learn some basic lessons about relationships, such as working together with limited resources, a positive, instead of simply placing blame a negative.) Each child has the opportunity to decide for themself how important the game is and how involved they want to be.
But if the children set the bar of acceptable behavior how will they be held accountable? Can children really be trusted to guide the educational process? This brings back the need for educational experts yet also sets up the conflict between a coaches problems and the players problems. It also highlights the conflict between real and pretend leadership. Leadership involves a lot more then calling heads or tails or leading a set of stretches. Some ten year olds feel comfortable leading eight year olds, after all, they've been there, done that and the chance to show off their expertise is irresistible. But many parents can't trust that their children will be given the correct instruction by another child or see fail to see the benefits that their child will have when given the opportunity to do so themselves. Yet these are often the best coaches and examples for younger children to have. Someone with real empathy for the problems. Finally, the bottom line comes down to realizing that children need to learn how to play before they can play soccer. Physical activity, free spontaneous play, is rapidly disappearing as an activity of preference for youths much less meeting the demands of soccer. To think that adults are the best resource to teach play to children is questionable at best.
Many of today's parents live with a fear that their child will be left behind, that they will lose control. Learning in street soccer is subtle, control is exercised by peers. There is no adult to report that "today Jimmy learned how to dribble with the outside of the foot. He's getting better. Thursday we'll work on shooting." This type of reassurance is comforting to any involved and concerned parent. But, in a pure street soccer culture, most parents have no idea of what is going on. This part of childhood belongs to the child. Reports to parents were brief and to the point, "I was with the guys, we played some, it was good. What's for dinner?" Not the type of things that involved parents want or expect to hear. These parents want accountability and guarantees which is difficult to demonstrate in street soccer
One way to bridge this cultural gap is through the use of soccer festivals or tournaments with an individual winner. These play days give the game back to the children yet allow adult supervision from a distance. Ages can be mixed so that one week the ten year olds are at the bottom and the next they're at the top. Leadership can be learned from the position of the leader and the follower. Children can learn new tricks and ideas from a wide variety of sources. New faces bring fresh challenges and problems.
Without question, the vast majority of American youths playing soccer today have never experienced street soccer. Yet, this concept is not foreign in American culture. Millions of adults today remember "the good old days" of sand lot baseball, pick up basketball and neighborhood football games. Games, and childhood's, built exactly as Michels outlines above. Older players organizing the teams, coaching the younger ones and having the opportunities to lead. Children had a responsibility to the game and each other. Play brought everyone together, and it took everyone together to play. Sadly, today's soccer children are denied this. What was good enough for the parents is not good enough for the children. Instead, they are getting something that is supposedly better, after all, we wouldn't knowingly create something worse. In the world of adult supervised soccer control and accountability have been gained for the adults. But what has been lost is the sense of accomplishment and the entrepreneurial spirit for the most important people involved, the children.
The most important thing in football are the lines. Let's start withthat. Attack, midfield, defense. We also know thebarometer in football is the midfield."Johan Cruyff
We would like to thank Paul van Veen at Soccer Coaching Net for allowing the use of the following article. It was written by Dave Schumacher, WSYSA Coaching Director and US Soccer National Staff coach. The original article, along with reactions to it, can be found in The Soccer Coaching Nets Articles Archives.
The Evolution of Small Sided Play
Over the past two years I have had the opportunity to experience first hand the benefits of small-sided play for players under the age of nine. During this time, I have coached my son, Sean and his team as U-8's and this year as a U-9 team. I am doing double duty this year, coaching my six-year-old son Christopher and his U-7 team. Both teams are part of the Micro-Mod program in the Lake Washington Youth Soccer Association.
As some of you may remember, from 1989 to 1995 I served as the Coaching Director for Lake Washington Youth Soccer Association. One major change that we made during that time, with the help of many volunteers (Dr. Dan Broughton, John Graham), was to redesign the soccer program for the players under the age of 12. The LWYSA Micro-Mod program was created: U-7's would play 3v3 (without goalkeepers), U-8's would play 4v4 (first year with goalkeepers), U-9's would play 4v4, u-10's would play 6v6 and U-11's would play 9v9. Players would experience 11-a-side when they reached the age of eleven. This system was implemented over a five year period. This way no existing team was impacted by the new system. Only new teams starting in 1990 would experience the new system. This program has remained intact for ten years; the only modification came just this season with U-9 teams playing 5v5.
The proposal to move to small-sided games did not come without it's critics and skeptics. At one meeting one gentleman was most irate; he claimed that by using small-sided games we weren't allowing the kids to play the "real game." This change was a threat to most adults' comfort zones because it violated their concepts of how soccer should be played. Despite their concerns, small-sided play has endured and proven to be a tremendous program for young children.
Even after ten years of success, some Clubs and Associations in Washington State have not adopted small-sided play for U-7 to U-11 soccer players. These groups hold onto excuses, such as there is not enough field space or coaches to make the change. Unfortunately, these are only excuses. Every Club and Association that I have met with indicate that neither field nor coach availability have been issues during implementation. Believe me, making the change is well worth the small risk.
After a decade of small-sided play for children, we need to look at its next evolution of growth. I believe we need to look at how we schedule practices and games for these same ages. Anyone that has coached players six, seven and eight years of age knows that the most challenging days of the week are the practice days. I found that by the beginning of the season, my U-7 team was working best with one practice before their weekly game. For my U-9 team, we practiced twice a week for our weekly game through October, then we cut back to one practice a week.
There is no doubt in my mind that as our season progressed, the players benefited as much from the games as they did from the practice. Other coaches I have spoken with concur with this assessment. If this is the case, why not allow the players at this age to play more games? This can be done several ways. First, just schedule two games a week, one midweek the other on Saturday. The second way would be to schedule a day, at a central location, that would bring together all teams of the same age. During this time, teams could combine to play 2v2, 3v3,4v4 or 5v5, whatever is age appropriate. (See tournament formats). For example , there are six players on my U-7 team. I would join with another team or two and we could play several 2v2 or 3v3 games at one time. That way no player is sitting out. All players will have a chance to benefit from playing other players and learn from the game. It would also provide coaches with an opportunity to network and learn from each other's experiences. The real benefit is for the player getting a chance to play. I had an opportunity to do this once during the season with my U-9 team (when I set it up with another team) and it was great. The players enjoyed playing with and against new players and I didn't have to plan out another practice session. Everyone benefited.
Once players reach the age of nine, they are able to (and should) practice twice a week. They are just beginning the "Golden Age of Learning" and will develop and improve from increased training. However, below this age we need to expand the benefits of our small-sided format and provide our youngest players with the opportunity to play more. The kids will love it and I know most coaches would be much more comfortable organizing and managing another game during the week rather than a practice.
Ten years ago when I helped design and create the Micro-Mod Program in LWYSA it never occurred to me that I would be getting married and having two little boys that now benefit from playing in that program. I can only imagine what the next decade of change might bring.
"The quality of soccer can be evaluated in many different ways. There is nothing wrong with this. Differences of opinion can stimulate soccer development, provided they are expressed clearly. Clearly formulated opinions are a good basis for seeking areas of agreement." 1Coaching Soccer
But when two opinions use key terms differently agreement will be difficult. Instead, what often happens are arguments based on parallel lines of thought. Opinions moving on independently and never finding any common ground. The end result can be opposed groups, each with a position that it defends by selectively defining terms to meet its own needs. Even if one group understands the other, an agreement still might not occur. It takes two to tango and when this happens inside an organization a power struggle can result. The camps can retreat into their own world, suspicious of anyone outside of it and new recruits learn the accepted dogma as gospel and the gulf between the groups grows.
Author Robert Pirsig describes this type of communication as having a platform problem. Each group starts with a different point of view of the problem so they naturally arrive at different conclusion. For example: two people are asked to describe a moving train to Bill, who has no experience with trains at all. One description will be made from riding inside the cars and the other from standing outside the train as it goes by. The descriptions cannot borrow from, or even acknowledge the other, they can only define the experience from their perspective. It's easy to imagine how different the descriptions would be and the confusion that Bill would experience trying to decide which is right. Eventually, Bill would choose one of the two and would likely discount the other even though it would be just as valid when viewed from the other perspective.
The following will use the term development as an example how two people can be talking about the same subject yet come to completely different conclusions what it means. To begin with it's vital that the discussion stay rational, that is, the laws of logic will apply. (At least the basic ones. Irrational text is fine in poetry or song writing but it has no place in this context.)
Start the definition by stating who or what is being developed, the text must first be put into context. This is usually the first stumbling block in any discussion and introduces our two contestants, Many and Few. Many maintains that development is measured by the number of children playing the game. Few maintains that development is measured by the level attained by the top 10% of the players. In common terms it's the rec. crowd vs. the elite's.
Next, refine the context for each group. Is Few talking about players in the National pool, college, high level club ball, exactly what is the measure of the group? For Many, quantity must be measured in relation to something else, another time, club, sport. Something must stand in for a comparison, for example what is the increase in the number of players of a certain age in the club over the last five years. The more specific the description the easier it is to define.
With these steps both parties should be able able to carry on a dialog that addresses the question by taking the other parties point of view into account. A legitimate give and take. But what often happens is that each party frames their position in their own context while ignoring the other resulting in a parallel discussion. Example: Many states that, " Youth development is going great. Our numbers in the rec. program have grown 78% in the last two years. Baseball and Football people are really worried because they see us as raiding their programs." To which Few replies, "Development is stagnant, even going backwards. We have all of these kids in the rec. leagues but when the MLS is looking for an impact player where do they go? Latin America, Eastern Europe and for what, a second division nobody that can save the franchise. We do a lousy job of creating top class players." This type of argument is common. Both positions are valid within their own context. But neither one really addresses the other. The result is that Few and Many can talk endlessly, provide examples to support their positions but they fail to discuss the same issue from the same point of view. The result is a parallel discussion with the argument going nowhere. Neither party will learn much from the other because they are not addressing a common point of view.
Another communication disconnect is to look for the exception to the rule. (A basic rule in logic is that each premise and conclusion in an argument deals with a number, all, some or none.) If Few maintains that the small number of Americans capable of running an MLS franchise on the field shows a lack of progress in development, Many cannot simply answer with "Well, Reyna could do it" and invalidate Few's argument. Finding the exception to the rule only works when the argument is based on all or none, which in the real soccer world happens rarely outside of the team that scores the most goals wins. This does introduce the difference between what is probable and what is possible. The exception to the rule might be possible, a fourteen year old can start in the MLS. But is it likely? Only in exceptional circumstance's. When an argument is based on possibilities instead of probabilities than hope and luck becomes a method and they provide little in support of a clear definition. "The best tacticians, however, are the realists who calculate everything in terms of percentages and who leave as little as possible to chance." 9
Communication is hard enough as it is, but when terms are ambiguous or vague effective communication can be impossible. A good way to avoid these traps is to start with the Socratic method of discourse, "I am ignorant, please enlighten me" and question the premises and conclusions. By asking questions you gain greater insight into a different point of view as opposed to simply restating what you already believe. It can also clear up those ambiguities that derail a discussion right out of the gate. Finally, most arguments or discussions are essentially an incomplete text, i.e. the conclusions are stated without the premises. This can be due to a short hand form of communication where brevity is more important than clarity. This can require some reading between the lines and it's important not to change the original context of the message. In order to better understand the argument some questions concerning background information, i.e. any underlying assumptions, may help to clarify a position.
Debate is an excellent toll for coaches to sharpen and refine their opinions and knowledge. Having your ideas questioned and having to defend them can help to move ideas in new directions and keep things fresh and up to date. It can quickly point out areas that you need to rethink or at at least restate. This can make future explanations easier to understand. But debate itself requires a structure, it isn't the same thing as a "Pub conversation" about which is better, Brazilian or English Football. That type of discussion is not meant to change anyone's opinion or to prove a point. It's just rhetoric for the sake of entertainment. Instead debate, in this context, is meant to advance an idea by subjecting it to the tensions of a conflicting idea.
All of us, Managers, Coaches, Writers and Commentators, should accept our share of blame for having introduced a certain confusion into Association Football. We have not worked hard enough at presenting the game in a simple easy-to-understand manner. There is little doubt that some have delighted in what they mistakenly believe to cleverness. It has turned to confusion. Confusion for some players and most spectators (i.e. parents). Cleverness, if only these people could realize it, involves being clear and simple.
As far as teams are concerned, Managers should understand that lack of clarity leads to lack of understanding and lack of understanding leads to lack of agreement and lack of agreement spells disunity and disaster.
It's not a question of expecting more. It's more a question of "can he do it?" We give him a chance and either he takesit or he doesn't. It's in his hands." 2 Johan Cruyff
"Where do we go from here?" Every team, player, coach and parent has to deal with this question sooner or later. At the heart of it is the question " what level is best?" Unfortunately, the concept of levels is usually introduced to those least prepared to deal with them.
Levels can be overt, such as a division structure for an age group or a travel player vs. a house player. Or they can be covert, a first division team in one league won't be at the same level as a first division team from a different league and two coaches in the same division can be at different levels. But whether it is as obvious as a label or as subtle as an opinion, levels are one of the biggest problems facing coaches, children and their parents in youth soccer.
When children and their parents are first exposed to soccer, (assuming around 4 or 5 year old level) most leagues are formed on democratic principles where every child gets equal playing time and results mean nothing. This is to promote the game, encourage the children and their parents and to help find future coaches. It isn't long before levels become apparent. Some of the children simply have better motorskills or are keener on playing the game. Others have less athletic ability or interest. The levels are subjective, based on observations of the children's play and what is for them, the norm. The concept of levels is born.
The next stage is the "competitive results" stage. The children are now ( around 6 or 7 year old level ) competing in a structure where scores and standings are kept. Here an objective quality enters the picture. The level can now be quantified. But winning can be confused with mastery. Possession of a trophy can hide the inadequacies that the children and coaches have while a team that finishes in the middle of the pack can be closer to mastering a much higher level of play. Suddenly, everyone is in an environment where the success of the group is directly related to the success of the individual. One child in one moment can decide the fate of the entire team. The coach can be a "bonehead" for playing a certain child in the goal. A child can be labeled "talentless" because he isn't successful in 1v1. On the other hand coaches can be carried to fame and adulation on the shoulders of their charges and a six year old becomes a "soccer prodigy, the future savior of the game." The addition of the objective criteria, winning and losing, at this stage can lead to incorrect evaluations of talent. This is especially true when the evaluators, parents and coaches, do not have much experience with the current and future possibilities for the children. "They win so they must be good" or "they lose so they must be bad" isn't necessarily valid at this stage.
This brings the up the third stage. The move from recreational to select soccer. Now the children, parents and coaches are faced with a whole new set of expectations. For some it will be viewed as an achievement. For others it's just another step in the journey. At this level team development can become confused with recruiting prowess.
Competitive soccer, like all competitive athletics, is most enjoyable when everyone is at, or close to, the same level for the participants. To continually play against inferior opposition or to continually face getting schooled isn't fun. Likewise, to play with lesser talents can also demotivate more talented players who will feel that they are being held back. When the difference in levels is too great the enjoyment of the activity and the opportunities to grow are limited.
And levels don't stop there. They permeate every stage of soccer. Varsity and Junior Varsity, State ODP and DDP programs, starters and substitutes and at the professional level you find national team players. While each stage represents an arrival it is also a departure point for the next one. Some players and coaches will move on, some find a home and some are in over their heads. What is important for youth development is to be realistic with the expectations and to find the appropriate level. The greatest enjoyment in the game is found when the challenges just stretch the abilities. This margin is a fine line, and individual to each participant. Each player, coach and team has an optimum level. Recognizing it can be a difficult task and involves an experienced and objective point of view.
Using Levels As Guidelines For Development
Levels can assist the youth educational process by providing players, parents and coaches with a set of guidelines to help prepare for the future. These guidelines will be some of the new standards and expectations that a "step up" will require. By being aware that each stage in the journey brings a new, and possibly unique, set of problems a little preperation can help to ease the transition. "To be forewarned is to be forearmed." Some examples:
Youth players that are moving into high school soccer find a new standard would be the incorporation of several different ages in the team. A fourteen year old 'big fish' in their club team might be a 'small fish' in the high school pond. This change has as much to do with understanding their position in the pecking order as it does in their play on the field. They go from calling the shots, to taking orders. The education for these children can involve having them practice or play up an age level or two for short periods. Very talented 12 year olds can train with 13 or 14 year olds on a regular basis. This not only helps them to adjust to the increased speed of play, but helps them to understand their limitations and lowered expectations when 'playing over their heads.' (The same thing can be done for high school age players making the transition to college. This select group is passing from the world of youth soccer into the adult game. By training with senior amateur teams, talented youth players begin to get a taste of the demands of the college/adult game.)
Parents can find that a change in levels can have a dramatic effect inside the family. Sibling rivalries can develop as one child has more success or gets more attention than another. Higher levels of play usually means more traveling, greater distances, fewer free week ends, spending major holidays in motels at tournaments, greater financial obligations all wrapped up in a questionable return on the investment. Often the increased time and money doesn't bring anyone any increased enjoyment. In fact it can bring the opposite. When the expectations aren't quickly met it doesn't take long for the whispering to start, fingers to point and excuses to be made. A good club structure is the best way to work through these problems. Talk with parents who have already gone through the scenario or club officials like the DOC.
Coaches should be aware of and prepared for changes in the demands that they face. Two common situations that often 'break the back' of well meaning parent coaches are taking a rec. team into select play and moving from small sided games to a larger size in the competitive phase. In the first case the star players that carried the rec. team may become very average in this new environment. This means that going in everyone, parents, coaches and players have increased expectations only to find that they are far from being met. Also, parent coaches who enjoyed success at the rec. level will be going up against paid trainers and will be routinely out coached. This can lead to high levels of frustration and self doubt. Coaches also need to be prepared to deal with the selection process, an unavoidable part of select play. This means making hard decisions that until now were largely handled by an administrator.
Moving from 3v3 to 4v4 and 7v7 or 8v8 to 11 a side brings a new set of problems. The complexity of the game and how to organize training to meet the new demands are two areas that can take years to adjust to. The best course of action for coaches to avoid these situations is to invest time in their own education. The State level coaching courses are the best place to start. They provide a structure to hang onto and a frame of reference for the new found problems. Short of that, seek out experienced help and be patient enough, both with yourself and with the children.
Soccer is a game. The children are involved in an activity that pits them against an opponent. It is, in most cases, about winning and losing, competition and cooperation. It is also a leisure activity. The children are there because they want to be there. They want to play a game.
To play a game of soccer you first need a ball. Then an opponent. Add a field, a couple of goals across from each other, mix in a few soccer rules and you have a game of 1v1. But this is hard work and you can't play it for very long. So you get some teammates, and to keep it fair, a few more opponents. With these elements you can play soccer all day.
These are the elements of soccer. They make the game what it is. If you remove a key element such as the ball or opponent it can't be soccer. Likewise, to change an element too much you can move too far from the game. Playing with two balls or three teams might be fun and a game, but is it soccer? To pass a ball across a grid and run to a corner involves kicking techniques, but is it soccer?
Soccer also involves the element "chaos." Opponents, team mates and the ball are all moving in different directions. Players, parents and coaches are shouting different instructions and information. Bringing "order out of chaos" is an important skill in learning how to play the game.
Soccer is a game with certain elements. There must be a ball, teammates and opponents, a field with boundaries, goals opposite each other and soccer rules.
A soccer coach coaches soccer, not something else. This thought is at the heart of the Dutch Vision. A practice is either soccer, soccer like or soccer strange.
Click here for a YouTube video on What is Soccer.
What goals should be used? The players must have an objective to work towards. The objective, (goal) should be realistic and meaningful for the players in question and be related to their problem.
Field. When the problem, number of players and the type of goals are known a field can be constructed. The dimensions and alignment can be set.
Rules. Adding or changing a rule is a quick way to test how the game is going. They can help to keep the focus on exactly what the game is supposed to teach.
Ball. There are some situations that might be helped by changing or modifying the ball.
The elements of the game can be manipulated to suit a need. The pages below contain some examples of how they can be changed in order to create various problems/solutions. Each game represents a different form and learning can be achieved by mastering the basic forms. In many cases more than one element will need to be adjusted in order to get the right effect in the game. Playing with the elements uses the principle of overload. While this principle is most closely associated with weight training or running it can be applied to small sided games.
The Principle Of Overload
1) Number of repetitions. What is the work to rest ratio? If three teams are playing a tournament against each other than the W-T-R ratio is two games to one rest in a cycle. In a reload game it can be the number of times that certain players start in specific positions. Simply playing a basic form over time allows the players to proceed through the different stages of learning. Adding repetitions can increase resistance, or overload, as fatigue sets in and
href="http://www.bettersoccermorefun.com/dwtext/concentr.htm">concentration slips.
2) Speed of repetitions. How fast is the game? What is the speed of play? Playing a game with a "new ball in" removes the down time that retrieval brings. Players don't get to wait around while someone chases the ball, the game restarts immediately.
3) Length of the repetition. Playing 2v2 for 2 minutes is much harder than playing for 20 seconds. The physical and mental demands are greater. Too long, however, is counter productive. Once the players have become totally fatigued learning ceases.
4) Decreasing the rest period. Shortening the breaks between activities is a step in efficient planning and increasing the load that the players have to carry. When playing with a "new ball in" the time between the ball going out of play and the new one put into play can be shortened. Going from a three second delay to a one second delay makes the players work that much harder.
5) Increasing the resistance. Making one or both teams play with a handicap. Changing the rules, teams, field or ball so that the game becomes conditioned favoring one team or a particular problem.
Soccer games are decided by goals. Practice centers on creating and finishing opportunities, or, on denying them. The entire soccer world revolves around one team trying to put the ball in the net while the other tries to stop them. Yet, when pressed, many coaches and most players have a hard time analyzing how a goal was scored beyond the last touch of the ball.
Here is where small-sided games, along with clear functions, can help. In 11v11 or 7v7 the picture can be crowded, chaotic. The real reason that a goal was scored might get lost. In 4v4 the reduced picture makes it easier to read the actual problems. And since it is real soccer, the microcosm bears a direct relationship to the bigger game.
"There are, in fact, five basic fundamental reasons why goals are scored. Sometimes, of course, there is a combination of factors, but it is a combination of two or more of the five basic factors." 9
1) Lack of pressure on the man with the ball. The forward that breaks through for an uncontested shot. The midfielder with enough space to play the ball forward to the striker. Any player that can play the ball forward poses problems for the defense.
2) Lack of support for the pressurizing player. Attackers look for 1v1 opportunities in the attacking third. Here the return is worth the risk. Defenders try to minimize these situations. They try to keep enough players behind the ball so that when the first defender is beaten another is close enough to control the damage.
3) Giving the ball away. The careless square pass in midfield. The lost throwin. With so many players placing so little value on ball possession it's not hard to see this as a major factor in goal scoring.
4) Restarts. This is an opportunity for the attackers to use a rehearsed play. It is also impossible for the defenders to put pressure directly on the player with the ball.
5) Failure to track players down. When opponent's run at the defense late and from deep positions the defenders are faced with a significant soccer problem.
Note that reasons 1, 2 and 5 are directly related to a player being in the wrong position. The player is either too close, too far or at the wrong angle to the opponent. Reason 4 is partly because direct pressure cannot be applied to the ball. In all 3 out of 5 reasons why goals are scored are because a player was not at the correct place at the proper moment. This is often more of a breakdown in the decision making process than in execution of any technique. When players understand what poor positioning looks like and it's effects they can take advantage of their opponent's mistakes as well as avoid errors for themselves. They can make a greater contribution to the game. See some examples in shape, size and space.
One other important note about goals. Over 60% of all goals are scored with only one touch. This statistic should be kept in mind when coaching and planning a practice.
"The coaching of goalkeepers is basically similar to the coaching of soccer players in general. Goalkeepers should participate in small sided and competitive games (e.g. 4v4). 1Coaching Soccer
The position of goalkeeper brings a new set of problems for the youth coach. Because of the specific technical requirements of the position there is a strong attraction to training the goalkeeper outside of the rest of the teams training. This can result in isolated, soccer strange, activities.
This section will examine some of the effects that occur when goalkeepers are included in small sided games at practices. Their use is an important step in development, after all goalkeepers are an integral part of 7v7 and 8v8, the larger small sided games. However, simply adding a goalkeeper to the smaller games without taking into account the effects can lead to conflicting tasks, miscommunication and have an adverse effect on what is being learned.
Point of departuretasks and responsibilities
When introducing children to goalkeeping it may be appropriate to start them with recessed goals. This can allow them to deal with age appropriate shooting without the fear of anyone crashing into them.
When goalkeepers have the ball the standard instruction from most parents and coaches is to get the ball as far from the goal as possible, resulting in the "long boot." That the opponents often get possession is rarely considered. An option can be found in the sweeper keeper game. If the opponents are far away, bring it out yourself. If they're too close look for the deep player, even throw it. Think about the consequences of the initial decision.
When children play in the goal they can become very defensive and "bunker down" on the line. This is largely due to the weight of responsibility of the position. To start with, the coach can help minimize the fear by ignoring a lot of the goals that get by. Continually drawing attention to failure can lead to a heightened fear of failure and the predictable fight or flight syndrome. The occasional "oopsies" from the coach can help to relieve stress. Other ideas to help get the keeper off of the line: #The midfield game using goalkeepers, forces the goalkeepers to get across midfield for their team to score. #Sweeper keeper, encourages the goalkeeper to be an active part of the attack.#Use a standard 4v4 sized field with a midfield line. The goalkeeper is allowed to use his hands anywhere in his own half, (no backpass and goals cannot be thrown in). This encourages the GK's to get out from the goal and meet the opponents at midfield, dare them to try the chip shot. Think aggressively.#Big goal-two small goals, lots of success in bringing the ball out from in front of the goal. Every attack starts with the GK and they soon become aware of their importance and power.#Last man back is the goalkeeper. This rule keeps in place the principle of mobility at the expense of one player taking on the responsibilities of the position. Whoever is closest to the goal is the goalkeeper. Recessed goals might be of use in this game.
In the modern game foot skills will be as much a part of the goalkeepers arsenal as most field players. The time spent playing in nongoalkeeping roles in small sided games will never be wasted. Likewise, the basics of goalkeeping can be learned largely through play, and small sided games offer ample opportunity for that.
My position is this: street soccer is the most natural educational system that can be found."
By analyzing street soccer yourself, you will conclude that its strength is that it is played daily in a competitive form, with a preference for the match on all sorts of 'street playing fields', usually in small groups. Rarely in street soccer do you see youths busy practicing isolated technical and tactical drills. No, it is always the competitive form, where youth players learn from their mistakes, unconscious of the technical, tactical, mental and physical qualities they are developing through the scrimmages being played.
Playing soccer every day ensures this development. It is a process where it is not necessary for adults to be present. You also learn the team tactical principles without effort through playing the game. Your teammate, higher in the street soccer hierarchy, forces you to comply...
In African and South American countries, where the conditions for street soccer are favorable, you can immediately notice that youth players have a head start. They go through a more varied technical and tactical development within their own experiences. Therefore, the "feeling" for the game is also better. They find their motivation on the street to play the games over and over again, no matter how simple they are. Even if there is only a wall at their disposal... 6
There is an argument that street soccer today is no longer possible. "Automobiles now drive where games were once played. The playgrounds are used as hangouts for older youth with other interests. Open grass fields are now dog parks. The conditions for street soccer in many countries are less than ideal." 6 Add bicycle unfriendly suburbs, the need for permits to use public fields, the managed schedules that most children have today and spontaneous play of any kind, let alone street soccer is hard to imagine.
In spite of all of these obstacles, which are solvable, there's another reason why street soccer doesn't enjoy the same popularity as pick up basketball. In his book, How Soccer Explains The World, Franklin Foer observes:
But for all the talk of freedom, the sixties parenting style had a far less laissez-faire side too. Like the 1960's consumer movement which brought American car seatbelts and airbags, the soccer movement felt like it could create a set of rules and regulations that would protect both the child's body and mind from damage. Leagues like the one I played in handed out "participation" trophies to every player, no matter how few games his (or her) team won... Where most of the world accepts the practice of heading a ball as an essential element of the game, American soccer parents have fretted over the potential for injury to the brain. An entire industry sprouted to manufacture protective headgear... Even though very little medical evidence supports this fear, some youth leagues have prohibited headers altogether.
This reveals a more fundamental difference between American youth soccer and the game as practiced in the rest of the world. In every other part of the world, soccer's sociology varies little: it is the province of the working class... Here, aside from the Latino immigrants, the professional classes follow the game most avidly and the working class couldn't give a toss about it. Surveys, done by sporting goods manufacturers, consistently show that children of middle class and affluent families play the game disproportionately... That is, they come from the solid middle class and above.
Observing youth soccer in America it is very difficult to argue with Foer's assessment that it is solidly a middle class sport. And the middle class brings it's values into the picture. Middle class values don't see street soccer as a legitimate educational method. It is recess as opposed to physical education. Children need to be taught and teaching should be done by experts. Few would argue that over the last 30 years children are being "taught" almost everything at increasingly younger ages. Soccer instruction now begins with four year olds, so that the children will have an advantage as six year olds. This need to get ahead brings with it the fear of falling behind and the need for accountability that only expert instruction can prevent and provide. This type of instruction leaves no room for the trial and error system of street soccer. Middle class values are in conflict with the basic ideas behind a street soccer culture. The following are a few ideas that demonstrate the conflict between the two.
One of those basic ideas in the street soccer culture is that you are assigned a role by a better player and are expected to play it for the good of the team, see Michels above. Such an assignment runs counter to the idea that every child needs to learn every position. This democratization of the team, where everyone is a jack of all trades and a master of none, is best achieved by an adult outside of the game itself. A responsible individual, (the coach) that can ensure that each individual child's needs are being met at every moment. In street soccer you fill the position that you are best suited for at the moment in the context of the team. While this position can change from game to game and team to team the purpose is always the same, to get the best out of each individual possible at the moment.
This brings up another difference. In street soccer children have to learn patience, to wait for their turn, that they are not entitled to lead, make decisions or even be listened to simply because they show up. Leadership is earned through competition within the pecking order inside of the team. Younger players in street soccer would wait their turn when they would finally be able to lead the group, and there are no guarantees. In the democratization of the soccer children don't have to learn patience, they are guaranteed their turn their time in the spot light. Whether it's a turn to be captain, to play center forward or to take a shot at goal middle class children learn that hard work and patience aren't really necessary.
Not only does everyone get a chance, but no one fails. The mantra, "Everyone's a winner, no ones a loser" is a benchmark in recreational soccer. The idea is to help build every individuals positive self esteem. No one can leave the game or practice feeling bad. In street soccer every game resulted in a winner and a loser and every one knew who was who. Failure was a common experience, as it is in life, and children learned early on how to handle the disappointments. Children learned self respect instead of self esteem.
A huge difference here is that in street soccer no standings are kept. You can lose this morning and win in the afternoon. Disappointment is only temporary and is forgotten within minutes of the end of the match. But in today's soccer society standings can be kept and the failures are cumulative. They are carried along all season. An eight year old will be reminded in November about a game they lost in September and how important that is.
This emphasis on self esteem brings up another difference between the cultures. If there really are no losers then why try at all? Since giving less then your best receives the same reward as giving your best why go to any extra effort? The implication for children is that mediocrity is acceptable and makes developing soccer skills a moot point. (Coaches often complain that getting children motivated is one of their biggest problems.) The bar of acceptance is set to the lowest common denominator and the children in the top percentage will be affected the most. In street soccer it's peers that will decide what is and isn't acceptable and it will be based on each players contribution to the game. Nothing politically correct here but an honest assessment from those that it matters most to. (Children can be cruel and lack good judgment about how to express themselves. This can be especially true when there is too big a gap in the levels of talent. But with proper guidance they can learn some basic lessons about relationships, such as working together with limited resources, a positive, instead of simply placing blame a negative.) Each child has the opportunity to decide for themself how important the game is and how involved they want to be.
But if the children set the bar of acceptable behavior how will they be held accountable? Can children really be trusted to guide the educational process? This brings back the need for educational experts yet also sets up the conflict between a coaches problems and the players problems. It also highlights the conflict between real and pretend leadership. Leadership involves a lot more then calling heads or tails or leading a set of stretches. Some ten year olds feel comfortable leading eight year olds, after all, they've been there, done that and the chance to show off their expertise is irresistible. But many parents can't trust that their children will be given the correct instruction by another child or see fail to see the benefits that their child will have when given the opportunity to do so themselves. Yet these are often the best coaches and examples for younger children to have. Someone with real empathy for the problems. Finally, the bottom line comes down to realizing that children need to learn how to play before they can play soccer. Physical activity, free spontaneous play, is rapidly disappearing as an activity of preference for youths much less meeting the demands of soccer. To think that adults are the best resource to teach play to children is questionable at best.
Many of today's parents live with a fear that their child will be left behind, that they will lose control. Learning in street soccer is subtle, control is exercised by peers. There is no adult to report that "today Jimmy learned how to dribble with the outside of the foot. He's getting better. Thursday we'll work on shooting." This type of reassurance is comforting to any involved and concerned parent. But, in a pure street soccer culture, most parents have no idea of what is going on. This part of childhood belongs to the child. Reports to parents were brief and to the point, "I was with the guys, we played some, it was good. What's for dinner?" Not the type of things that involved parents want or expect to hear. These parents want accountability and guarantees which is difficult to demonstrate in street soccer
One way to bridge this cultural gap is through the use of soccer festivals or tournaments with an individual winner. These play days give the game back to the children yet allow adult supervision from a distance. Ages can be mixed so that one week the ten year olds are at the bottom and the next they're at the top. Leadership can be learned from the position of the leader and the follower. Children can learn new tricks and ideas from a wide variety of sources. New faces bring fresh challenges and problems.
Without question, the vast majority of American youths playing soccer today have never experienced street soccer. Yet, this concept is not foreign in American culture. Millions of adults today remember "the good old days" of sand lot baseball, pick up basketball and neighborhood football games. Games, and childhood's, built exactly as Michels outlines above. Older players organizing the teams, coaching the younger ones and having the opportunities to lead. Children had a responsibility to the game and each other. Play brought everyone together, and it took everyone together to play. Sadly, today's soccer children are denied this. What was good enough for the parents is not good enough for the children. Instead, they are getting something that is supposedly better, after all, we wouldn't knowingly create something worse. In the world of adult supervised soccer control and accountability have been gained for the adults. But what has been lost is the sense of accomplishment and the entrepreneurial spirit for the most important people involved, the children.
The most important thing in football are the lines. Let's start withthat. Attack, midfield, defense. We also know thebarometer in football is the midfield."Johan Cruyff
We would like to thank Paul van Veen at Soccer Coaching Net for allowing the use of the following article. It was written by Dave Schumacher, WSYSA Coaching Director and US Soccer National Staff coach. The original article, along with reactions to it, can be found in The Soccer Coaching Nets Articles Archives.
The Evolution of Small Sided Play
Over the past two years I have had the opportunity to experience first hand the benefits of small-sided play for players under the age of nine. During this time, I have coached my son, Sean and his team as U-8's and this year as a U-9 team. I am doing double duty this year, coaching my six-year-old son Christopher and his U-7 team. Both teams are part of the Micro-Mod program in the Lake Washington Youth Soccer Association.
As some of you may remember, from 1989 to 1995 I served as the Coaching Director for Lake Washington Youth Soccer Association. One major change that we made during that time, with the help of many volunteers (Dr. Dan Broughton, John Graham), was to redesign the soccer program for the players under the age of 12. The LWYSA Micro-Mod program was created: U-7's would play 3v3 (without goalkeepers), U-8's would play 4v4 (first year with goalkeepers), U-9's would play 4v4, u-10's would play 6v6 and U-11's would play 9v9. Players would experience 11-a-side when they reached the age of eleven. This system was implemented over a five year period. This way no existing team was impacted by the new system. Only new teams starting in 1990 would experience the new system. This program has remained intact for ten years; the only modification came just this season with U-9 teams playing 5v5.
The proposal to move to small-sided games did not come without it's critics and skeptics. At one meeting one gentleman was most irate; he claimed that by using small-sided games we weren't allowing the kids to play the "real game." This change was a threat to most adults' comfort zones because it violated their concepts of how soccer should be played. Despite their concerns, small-sided play has endured and proven to be a tremendous program for young children.
Even after ten years of success, some Clubs and Associations in Washington State have not adopted small-sided play for U-7 to U-11 soccer players. These groups hold onto excuses, such as there is not enough field space or coaches to make the change. Unfortunately, these are only excuses. Every Club and Association that I have met with indicate that neither field nor coach availability have been issues during implementation. Believe me, making the change is well worth the small risk.
After a decade of small-sided play for children, we need to look at its next evolution of growth. I believe we need to look at how we schedule practices and games for these same ages. Anyone that has coached players six, seven and eight years of age knows that the most challenging days of the week are the practice days. I found that by the beginning of the season, my U-7 team was working best with one practice before their weekly game. For my U-9 team, we practiced twice a week for our weekly game through October, then we cut back to one practice a week.
There is no doubt in my mind that as our season progressed, the players benefited as much from the games as they did from the practice. Other coaches I have spoken with concur with this assessment. If this is the case, why not allow the players at this age to play more games? This can be done several ways. First, just schedule two games a week, one midweek the other on Saturday. The second way would be to schedule a day, at a central location, that would bring together all teams of the same age. During this time, teams could combine to play 2v2, 3v3,4v4 or 5v5, whatever is age appropriate. (See tournament formats). For example , there are six players on my U-7 team. I would join with another team or two and we could play several 2v2 or 3v3 games at one time. That way no player is sitting out. All players will have a chance to benefit from playing other players and learn from the game. It would also provide coaches with an opportunity to network and learn from each other's experiences. The real benefit is for the player getting a chance to play. I had an opportunity to do this once during the season with my U-9 team (when I set it up with another team) and it was great. The players enjoyed playing with and against new players and I didn't have to plan out another practice session. Everyone benefited.
Once players reach the age of nine, they are able to (and should) practice twice a week. They are just beginning the "Golden Age of Learning" and will develop and improve from increased training. However, below this age we need to expand the benefits of our small-sided format and provide our youngest players with the opportunity to play more. The kids will love it and I know most coaches would be much more comfortable organizing and managing another game during the week rather than a practice.
Ten years ago when I helped design and create the Micro-Mod Program in LWYSA it never occurred to me that I would be getting married and having two little boys that now benefit from playing in that program. I can only imagine what the next decade of change might bring.
"The quality of soccer can be evaluated in many different ways. There is nothing wrong with this. Differences of opinion can stimulate soccer development, provided they are expressed clearly. Clearly formulated opinions are a good basis for seeking areas of agreement." 1Coaching Soccer
But when two opinions use key terms differently agreement will be difficult. Instead, what often happens are arguments based on parallel lines of thought. Opinions moving on independently and never finding any common ground. The end result can be opposed groups, each with a position that it defends by selectively defining terms to meet its own needs. Even if one group understands the other, an agreement still might not occur. It takes two to tango and when this happens inside an organization a power struggle can result. The camps can retreat into their own world, suspicious of anyone outside of it and new recruits learn the accepted dogma as gospel and the gulf between the groups grows.
Author Robert Pirsig describes this type of communication as having a platform problem. Each group starts with a different point of view of the problem so they naturally arrive at different conclusion. For example: two people are asked to describe a moving train to Bill, who has no experience with trains at all. One description will be made from riding inside the cars and the other from standing outside the train as it goes by. The descriptions cannot borrow from, or even acknowledge the other, they can only define the experience from their perspective. It's easy to imagine how different the descriptions would be and the confusion that Bill would experience trying to decide which is right. Eventually, Bill would choose one of the two and would likely discount the other even though it would be just as valid when viewed from the other perspective.
The following will use the term development as an example how two people can be talking about the same subject yet come to completely different conclusions what it means. To begin with it's vital that the discussion stay rational, that is, the laws of logic will apply. (At least the basic ones. Irrational text is fine in poetry or song writing but it has no place in this context.)
Start the definition by stating who or what is being developed, the text must first be put into context. This is usually the first stumbling block in any discussion and introduces our two contestants, Many and Few. Many maintains that development is measured by the number of children playing the game. Few maintains that development is measured by the level attained by the top 10% of the players. In common terms it's the rec. crowd vs. the elite's.
Next, refine the context for each group. Is Few talking about players in the National pool, college, high level club ball, exactly what is the measure of the group? For Many, quantity must be measured in relation to something else, another time, club, sport. Something must stand in for a comparison, for example what is the increase in the number of players of a certain age in the club over the last five years. The more specific the description the easier it is to define.
With these steps both parties should be able able to carry on a dialog that addresses the question by taking the other parties point of view into account. A legitimate give and take. But what often happens is that each party frames their position in their own context while ignoring the other resulting in a parallel discussion. Example: Many states that, " Youth development is going great. Our numbers in the rec. program have grown 78% in the last two years. Baseball and Football people are really worried because they see us as raiding their programs." To which Few replies, "Development is stagnant, even going backwards. We have all of these kids in the rec. leagues but when the MLS is looking for an impact player where do they go? Latin America, Eastern Europe and for what, a second division nobody that can save the franchise. We do a lousy job of creating top class players." This type of argument is common. Both positions are valid within their own context. But neither one really addresses the other. The result is that Few and Many can talk endlessly, provide examples to support their positions but they fail to discuss the same issue from the same point of view. The result is a parallel discussion with the argument going nowhere. Neither party will learn much from the other because they are not addressing a common point of view.
Another communication disconnect is to look for the exception to the rule. (A basic rule in logic is that each premise and conclusion in an argument deals with a number, all, some or none.) If Few maintains that the small number of Americans capable of running an MLS franchise on the field shows a lack of progress in development, Many cannot simply answer with "Well, Reyna could do it" and invalidate Few's argument. Finding the exception to the rule only works when the argument is based on all or none, which in the real soccer world happens rarely outside of the team that scores the most goals wins. This does introduce the difference between what is probable and what is possible. The exception to the rule might be possible, a fourteen year old can start in the MLS. But is it likely? Only in exceptional circumstance's. When an argument is based on possibilities instead of probabilities than hope and luck becomes a method and they provide little in support of a clear definition. "The best tacticians, however, are the realists who calculate everything in terms of percentages and who leave as little as possible to chance." 9
Communication is hard enough as it is, but when terms are ambiguous or vague effective communication can be impossible. A good way to avoid these traps is to start with the Socratic method of discourse, "I am ignorant, please enlighten me" and question the premises and conclusions. By asking questions you gain greater insight into a different point of view as opposed to simply restating what you already believe. It can also clear up those ambiguities that derail a discussion right out of the gate. Finally, most arguments or discussions are essentially an incomplete text, i.e. the conclusions are stated without the premises. This can be due to a short hand form of communication where brevity is more important than clarity. This can require some reading between the lines and it's important not to change the original context of the message. In order to better understand the argument some questions concerning background information, i.e. any underlying assumptions, may help to clarify a position.
Debate is an excellent toll for coaches to sharpen and refine their opinions and knowledge. Having your ideas questioned and having to defend them can help to move ideas in new directions and keep things fresh and up to date. It can quickly point out areas that you need to rethink or at at least restate. This can make future explanations easier to understand. But debate itself requires a structure, it isn't the same thing as a "Pub conversation" about which is better, Brazilian or English Football. That type of discussion is not meant to change anyone's opinion or to prove a point. It's just rhetoric for the sake of entertainment. Instead debate, in this context, is meant to advance an idea by subjecting it to the tensions of a conflicting idea.
All of us, Managers, Coaches, Writers and Commentators, should accept our share of blame for having introduced a certain confusion into Association Football. We have not worked hard enough at presenting the game in a simple easy-to-understand manner. There is little doubt that some have delighted in what they mistakenly believe to cleverness. It has turned to confusion. Confusion for some players and most spectators (i.e. parents). Cleverness, if only these people could realize it, involves being clear and simple.
As far as teams are concerned, Managers should understand that lack of clarity leads to lack of understanding and lack of understanding leads to lack of agreement and lack of agreement spells disunity and disaster.
It's not a question of expecting more. It's more a question of "can he do it?" We give him a chance and either he takesit or he doesn't. It's in his hands." 2 Johan Cruyff
"Where do we go from here?" Every team, player, coach and parent has to deal with this question sooner or later. At the heart of it is the question " what level is best?" Unfortunately, the concept of levels is usually introduced to those least prepared to deal with them.
Levels can be overt, such as a division structure for an age group or a travel player vs. a house player. Or they can be covert, a first division team in one league won't be at the same level as a first division team from a different league and two coaches in the same division can be at different levels. But whether it is as obvious as a label or as subtle as an opinion, levels are one of the biggest problems facing coaches, children and their parents in youth soccer.
When children and their parents are first exposed to soccer, (assuming around 4 or 5 year old level) most leagues are formed on democratic principles where every child gets equal playing time and results mean nothing. This is to promote the game, encourage the children and their parents and to help find future coaches. It isn't long before levels become apparent. Some of the children simply have better motorskills or are keener on playing the game. Others have less athletic ability or interest. The levels are subjective, based on observations of the children's play and what is for them, the norm. The concept of levels is born.
The next stage is the "competitive results" stage. The children are now ( around 6 or 7 year old level ) competing in a structure where scores and standings are kept. Here an objective quality enters the picture. The level can now be quantified. But winning can be confused with mastery. Possession of a trophy can hide the inadequacies that the children and coaches have while a team that finishes in the middle of the pack can be closer to mastering a much higher level of play. Suddenly, everyone is in an environment where the success of the group is directly related to the success of the individual. One child in one moment can decide the fate of the entire team. The coach can be a "bonehead" for playing a certain child in the goal. A child can be labeled "talentless" because he isn't successful in 1v1. On the other hand coaches can be carried to fame and adulation on the shoulders of their charges and a six year old becomes a "soccer prodigy, the future savior of the game." The addition of the objective criteria, winning and losing, at this stage can lead to incorrect evaluations of talent. This is especially true when the evaluators, parents and coaches, do not have much experience with the current and future possibilities for the children. "They win so they must be good" or "they lose so they must be bad" isn't necessarily valid at this stage.
This brings the up the third stage. The move from recreational to select soccer. Now the children, parents and coaches are faced with a whole new set of expectations. For some it will be viewed as an achievement. For others it's just another step in the journey. At this level team development can become confused with recruiting prowess.
Competitive soccer, like all competitive athletics, is most enjoyable when everyone is at, or close to, the same level for the participants. To continually play against inferior opposition or to continually face getting schooled isn't fun. Likewise, to play with lesser talents can also demotivate more talented players who will feel that they are being held back. When the difference in levels is too great the enjoyment of the activity and the opportunities to grow are limited.
And levels don't stop there. They permeate every stage of soccer. Varsity and Junior Varsity, State ODP and DDP programs, starters and substitutes and at the professional level you find national team players. While each stage represents an arrival it is also a departure point for the next one. Some players and coaches will move on, some find a home and some are in over their heads. What is important for youth development is to be realistic with the expectations and to find the appropriate level. The greatest enjoyment in the game is found when the challenges just stretch the abilities. This margin is a fine line, and individual to each participant. Each player, coach and team has an optimum level. Recognizing it can be a difficult task and involves an experienced and objective point of view.
Using Levels As Guidelines For Development
Levels can assist the youth educational process by providing players, parents and coaches with a set of guidelines to help prepare for the future. These guidelines will be some of the new standards and expectations that a "step up" will require. By being aware that each stage in the journey brings a new, and possibly unique, set of problems a little preperation can help to ease the transition. "To be forewarned is to be forearmed." Some examples:
Youth players that are moving into high school soccer find a new standard would be the incorporation of several different ages in the team. A fourteen year old 'big fish' in their club team might be a 'small fish' in the high school pond. This change has as much to do with understanding their position in the pecking order as it does in their play on the field. They go from calling the shots, to taking orders. The education for these children can involve having them practice or play up an age level or two for short periods. Very talented 12 year olds can train with 13 or 14 year olds on a regular basis. This not only helps them to adjust to the increased speed of play, but helps them to understand their limitations and lowered expectations when 'playing over their heads.' (The same thing can be done for high school age players making the transition to college. This select group is passing from the world of youth soccer into the adult game. By training with senior amateur teams, talented youth players begin to get a taste of the demands of the college/adult game.)
Parents can find that a change in levels can have a dramatic effect inside the family. Sibling rivalries can develop as one child has more success or gets more attention than another. Higher levels of play usually means more traveling, greater distances, fewer free week ends, spending major holidays in motels at tournaments, greater financial obligations all wrapped up in a questionable return on the investment. Often the increased time and money doesn't bring anyone any increased enjoyment. In fact it can bring the opposite. When the expectations aren't quickly met it doesn't take long for the whispering to start, fingers to point and excuses to be made. A good club structure is the best way to work through these problems. Talk with parents who have already gone through the scenario or club officials like the DOC.
Coaches should be aware of and prepared for changes in the demands that they face. Two common situations that often 'break the back' of well meaning parent coaches are taking a rec. team into select play and moving from small sided games to a larger size in the competitive phase. In the first case the star players that carried the rec. team may become very average in this new environment. This means that going in everyone, parents, coaches and players have increased expectations only to find that they are far from being met. Also, parent coaches who enjoyed success at the rec. level will be going up against paid trainers and will be routinely out coached. This can lead to high levels of frustration and self doubt. Coaches also need to be prepared to deal with the selection process, an unavoidable part of select play. This means making hard decisions that until now were largely handled by an administrator.
Moving from 3v3 to 4v4 and 7v7 or 8v8 to 11 a side brings a new set of problems. The complexity of the game and how to organize training to meet the new demands are two areas that can take years to adjust to. The best course of action for coaches to avoid these situations is to invest time in their own education. The State level coaching courses are the best place to start. They provide a structure to hang onto and a frame of reference for the new found problems. Short of that, seek out experienced help and be patient enough, both with yourself and with the children.
<script type="text/javascript">var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));
No comments:
Post a Comment