Coaching For The Brave

- Five Reasons to embrace Free Play

2019-12-16T22:01:00.000+00:00

After taking the Free Play Pledge earlier this year, my sessions have moved from a mix of Free Play and well thought out coaching to the majority of the time being given over to Free Play.

The problem I've had, is explaining to coaches why I've moved in this direction.

Don't I want the children to learn?

Don't I want to the children to get better?

God yeah. Of course I do. I also believe they will do. But when the discussion about Free Play is always fixated on Learning, it becomes difficult to emphasise its benefits.

Even when the discussion is about Learning, different camps will try to make out that their form of Learning is the right one. Try adding Free Play into that mix!

I can quite easily write about how Play helps Learning but that would be missing the point entirely.

The best way to experience this is to throw yourself into Free Play for a period of time. Let the kids take over. Be brave, sit back and watch. Then, when you feel ready to move back to a formal coaching environment think about what is being taken away by altering the focus. We know we may be adding methodology in an attempt to instil Learning but what, and to what extent are we removing?

When I look at Informal Play compared to the sessions I was running I found lot's of things that I valued more than Learning. Please remember, I haven't said I don't value learning or that it doesn't happen in Free Play so it's still part of the mix.

So what are the reasons why I value Free Play?

1. Why not?

Everyone agrees that Informal Play has declined over the last couple of generations and everyone seems to lament this. So this is where I start. If I'm concerned about this reduction, I can do something about it. I can literally give this back. In fact, why wouldn't I?

Deep down I can understand why parents are less likely to allow kids to play Informally, I can understand that some parents feel their kids "might make it" and so value Formal coaching but I don't understand why, if they value Free, Informal Play they don't go in search of it. Why don't they ask for it? Why not demand it?

The rise of Childhood behavioural disorders and obesity has been linked in some ways to the reduction in Free Play but if parents (rightly or wrongly) don't feel safe allowing this to happen, we can actually provide it in albeit a watered down fashion.

So yes, just generally, I worry that the thing my generation benefited from we don't value enough to replicate. We threw the baby out with the bath water. We could have provided something like it via football but no, we replaced it with Formal, Coach Centered and Coach directed Play that places Learning at its pinnacle.

2. Enemies

Having replaced Informal Play we have to admit we must also have replaced or disregarded some of the key benefits.

Formal Sport is great, I loved it and still love it but to me it's the "grown up" world. Teams in leagues doing battle to win. Us vs Them. Each week you go out against your adversary to beat them. This is fine for adults or even older youths but why is it needed for children?

When we rushed to replace Informal Play did we leave behind the idea that we are all just trying to enjoy the game we love?

When playing footy Informally, this week Jack may be on team A but next week he could be on team B. How do you feel this impacts Respect and Understanding for others?

Jack can't see Team B as the enemy when he plays them cos next week, he could be the enemy!

Fixed teams and adversaries are fine for adults but are they really what kids need?

I'd suggest that rushing to get kids in kits, in teams and leagues is a mistake and we can use our sessions to show there is a different way to approach the game. A way that respects everyone and provides the creative space for kids to fall in love with the game, not the result.

3. I Give Up

Formal coaching sessions can be fun. No one disputes that but are they as much fun as the game?

Deep down, we all know the answer to this. Mainly because we hear it requested every ten minutes or so.

In Informal Play the participant must be free to stop and they will stop mainly when it isn't fun. So, inherently, Informal Play will be shaped and amended and altered to ensure it remains fun. Otherwise kids will stop.

In our rush to Formal Coaching have we broken this link?

Most coaches would not entertain a child saying "this is boring can we do something else?". Especially a coach who has spent a few hours planning for the session. Even worse, the children quickly learn that saying this would not be a good idea. They become compliant and go through the motions, whether it's fun or not.

I believe that disregarding this inherent part of what makes play unique leads to drop out as time goes on. If a player can't alter things to keep it fun, why will they stick around?

4. Keeping it going

One reason Informal Play is so compelling is the fact that rules are not the "be all and end all". They are there to guide but can be altered if need be.

Formal Play has strict rules normally set out by the "Rule Giver". An adult.

I wonder if in our rush towards the "Rule Giver" we run the risk of taking away autonomy? We reduce the child's need to think creatively, satisfy various points of view and compromise?

Aren't these great skills to have?

5. It's not about the score - no, it really isn't.

When I was a kid I pretty much did nothing except eat, sleep and play footy. No computer games, no box sets, just Subbuteo and Tiswas.

I played football as much as I could. Every break, every lunch, straight after school and every weekend. I didn't play a Formal Game until I was 10. These games increased in Middle School to once a week and then I added another game for a club on Sundays.

Informally, I played at least ten times more football.

Formally, the score mattered. Not life or death but it mattered.

Informally, the score never mattered. I just wanted to do well and enjoy the game I loved. There was no need for a coach, a pre match warm up, a plan, tactics. We just played.

If one team went a few goals up, teams would be rearranged. Can you imagine doing that if there's a league at stake?

We learned to appreciate the game, to understand its nuances, to ensure others enjoyed themselves and not to steam roll your mates. You also tried things you would never dare to in the Formal game. Overhead kick? no problem. Across the box? of course, why not?

By trying these things, we got better. Strange that, I know.

By not being conditioned by one persons way of thinking about a game we grew, we took chances and we helped each other.

Also, we all learned different things. All taking our own bits from each experience.

Is it possible that in the rush to Formal Games we have reduced risk? Constrained creativity?

When I gave Free Play to the kids I noticed all these things. I realised the Informal Game brings so much more. It's not preparation for winning It's preparation for life. The endlessly changing life that kids will need to learn to navigate.

So when coaches ask what Free Play isn't I believe they are asking the wrong the question. I believe Free Play is richer, more varied and more fun and that's why I value it.

Now THAT's a Rondo!

2019-01-10T14:31:00.001+00:00

I've seen a quote that says "The whole of the game is present in Rondos"

I'm not sure about this but since discovering them I have come to see them as an important tool for youth development. However, when I talk to other coaches I sometimes get the idea that they are misunderstood.

Opinions tend to vary from " Ah, the secret weapon of Barcelona " to " Piggy in the middle? "

I certainly found that lot's of coaches I know use what they call a Rondo as some kind of warm up before sessions or games start and my own 9 year olds saw it as just a bit of fun when I introduced them to it.

The problem is, the Rondo is so much more and can be used in many different ways. After asking my players what they thought about Rondos I decided I needed to reintroduce them and highlight their effectiveness in a new way. Below is a description of how I did this in a recent session.

We've probably all seen this set up and this 4v2 exercise is how I chose to break down the Rondo and show the elements it can work on and what the players should be thinking about.

The whole session was no longer than 30 minutes with lot's of good varied repetition and minimal intervention.

As I introduced the Session I received the inevitable groans from some of the players who have grown to misunderstand the Rondo. I used this as an opportunity for them to voice their opinions and understand how they felt.

"Boring"

"Not that again"

"Same old same old"

Some of these comments I'd heard before but some comments were new and surprised me:

"Too difficult"

"Not sure what I'm supposed to be doing"

These were the opinions I needed to try to overcome and here's what we did.

Firstly, I decided to work on the 4 players with the ball. I wanted to highlight that this shape appears in the game a lot and that how they interact and MOVE is crucial. If you watch a lot of Rondos though, even at the highest levels, the ones you tend to see show the players pretty much stationery just pinging the ball around.

I felt the lines play a part in this so we moved all the players inside the box. Keeping the box as a reference, the pitch if you like.

I then told the players that the game was about them moving up and down or side to side to help create passing lanes for the player with the ball. We placed one "defender" inside rather than two and got them started.

Immediately, movement began. Player came towards to offer themselves for a pass and others moved to create options that removed the defender.

Point Number 1

Rondo is not about standing still

The players agreed that this was already feeling more like what happens in the game. We played for five minutes and then introduced the next element.

We had discussed and coached 1st, 2nd and 3rd line passes for over a year so the players knew the concepts. I started to talk to them about each pass and what it could be used for:

1st Line - Draw the player, invite a press, make them do something.
2nd Line - Eliminate one player, go around.
3rd Line - Go through, Penetrate, Move forward, create.

Although they understood the concepts previously, this simple switch to "what are they for?" seemed to improve their understanding. We played again and I asked them to shout the type of pass they were making before or as they were playing it. After that I asked them to shout why they were doing it " move him, around him, through"

Point Number 2

Rondo is not about 1 kind of pass

So for the 4 "outside" players we were already working on numerous coaching points all of which can be worked on singularly, in combinations or as different ones for each individual:

Movement of unit

Support / depth / width

Type of pass

Weight of pass

Body shape to receive

Creating movement

Thinking ahead

Taking risks

After playing for a while I asked if they felt the exercise was getting easier and they agreed. This is when I added the second defender and made a change to the pitch.

I added thirds to the pitch and initially locked the defenders into the middle third. I asked the attackers to continue as they had been and shifted focus to the defenders.

Point Number 3

Rondo is not just about the attackers

Immediately the attackers found things more difficult and more turnovers occurred but as the defenders were locked in the middle third they soon found ways of moving them, splitting them apart and playing through with a 3rd line pass.

I asked the defenders what the issue was.

" We can't move forward to put pressure on"

Great spot. I asked if sometimes they would need to not put pressure on?

" what about when you're tired?"

This led to us quickly discussing defending as a pair, the distances between each other and shifting across when needed.

With this insight, we played for another few minutes. Cohesive defending started to appear. The attackers tended to keep possession though, they just struggled to play through as much.

"What's the problem?" I asked

" We are too flat and close together, they can always play around"

Point 4

Defending a Rondo is not about aimlessly chasing about.

After this, I allowed one of the defenders to enter any third but one was still locked in the middle. "why am I doing this?"

"To allow one of us to press"

"What about the other?"

" They should cover by being deeper but still block of the through pass"

WOW!

We played and swapped on transition as normal.

The 2 Inside players had been working on:

Pressing, triggers,
Shifting point of pressure
How to cause a mistake
Defensive body shape
Covering the press
Blocking passing lanes
Patience with 1st line pass
Defending the around and through pass

Finally, I removed the Thirds and observed the final few minutes of the Rondo. The technique, movement, defending and physical nature all seemed to have been improved.

At the end, I said " Now that's a Rondo "

Some of my players still don't like Rondos but why should everyone like everything we try to do? The difference now is they have a greater understanding of what is expected of them which allows them to throw themselves into it. As with any session the intensity should be correct.

I've even had players decide which of the many elements they want to focus on during the Rondo. As a coach you could drive this based on players needs or give them ownership.

The Rondo can be used as a simple warm up or a way to have a laugh, it can also be used in the simple format above for numerous different reasons and focuses. Beyond this simple version, a myriad of options open up. Tactical Rondo, Positional Rondo.

In the end, this is it's power, the flexibility and number of elements it covers.

Transitions: Old Job - New Job

2018-11-15T16:55:00.000+00:00

If you've read previous posts, It would be easy to come to the conclusion that I disagree with coaching of any kind. This is simply not true. After all, I'm a football coach. I simply don't see learning as the only, or possibly even the main reason why kids get involved with football.

But guess what, I do coach. I try to think about my sessions, my children and what could be needed at any point. I also ask them how they are feeling and whether they just want to play. It really is no big deal.

In this post, I'm going to discuss my interest in Rondo's, how I feel they can be unrealistic and how I've tried to morph some of them into Games.

To help with this I'll simply lay out a session that focuses on Transitions and walk you through how and why I designed the session as I did.

Transitions.

Over the last 3 years my coaching has focused on the Principles of the Game and what this means for a Footballer. Most people know these Principles and I find they're a great way to get kids involved in thinking about the game. They also act as a kind of Syllabus.

To make this even more Child Friendly, the kids tried to formulate their own ideas a few years ago. We called this the Flow of the Game.

Recently, our discussions have moved on to Transitions and how regular and important they are. This is how we ran the session.

As with most specific sessions, earlier in the week, I had sent out some video clips to some of the team as a primer for what would be discussed at training. I could have focused their attention with some well thought out questions but as usual, they just received the clips and I left it to them.

As the kids began to arrive, they immediately started to play 1V1, 2v1, 2v2 and so on as the numbers grew. This would culminate in 2 games of 3v3 until they were called together to start the session.

We chatted about the video footage and I asked what it was they were noticing. Some correctly identified turnovers while, as is typical, some highlighted other parts of the footage. A nice one two or a switch of play. This is a great reminder that no one will ever see the game as you do. Well, not unless you focus their attention.

Once I explained that we would be discussing Transitions, all the kids could see what was happening in the videos .We followed this up with a question:

What is a Transition?

"losing the ball, winning the ball, being in possession, not having the ball, having to defend"

Lot's of answers and all of them relevant and correct.

I dug deeper about the "in possession and out of possession" comments and we drew up the following list of what could be going on at either moment:

Notice they use different words than we probably would. Follow rather than Track?

The kids also noticed that the list for Out of Possession is pretty much just the opposite of what we are trying to do if we've got the ball. This is what we should be tapping into and using back with them. Their ideas and language not ours.

This chat also led to a moment of inspiration from one of the kids that shaped my comments for the rest of the evening.

"Transitions are when my job changes"

So simple, so insightful and so useful. I now had something that I could hang the rest of the evening on. "New Job".

Through this 4 minute discussion, the kids had correctly worked out how to identify and notice a transition and more importantly that a transition required some kind of reaction.

I explained that these reactions are the essence of football. Possession alters so many times during the game and that how you react, and how often you can react will make a huge difference.

The rest of the session was based on noticing the transitions and reacting.

I wanted to start with less "noisy" opportunities to do this so set up some simple 5v2 rondo's to dial down the interference and dial up the chances to spot and react. However, this is were the rondo, in it's simple format, fails to be representative of a game. I was asking the kids to notice a transition but to also react by changing their job.

The simple, basic rondo that we all know doesn't do this. Transition is obvious, the ball is won by the clever, hardworking defenders but what happens then?

Rather than an instant change of job and a reaction, there's a stop and a swapping of places, then the job changes. You don't get this luxury during a game. The thing is, without the clarity of "Transitions are when my job changes" we may never have spotted this.

We quickly varied the rondo and added a new rule. When a defender won the ball they had to dribble out of the square on any side. The attackers who had been keeping the ball had to close down the ball and prevent the movement out of the square.

I'm quite sure this game is nothing new but I'm highlighting it to show how the session evolved.

Once we had this rondo going we thought about what else happens upon transition and worked out we could add two pug goals outside the square so that as soon as an interception is made the defenders were to look to pass into the pugs.

We could also have combined these two methods to give the players a choice. Dribble out or complete the pass.

Essentially the basic rondo and "ok I've won it, time to hand over the bib" was replaced by the realism of "ok I've won it, my job has just changed."

After 15 minutes of swapping between these games we decided to add to the challenge. I divided the square down the middle and gave 1 point if you passed or dribbled on the same side that you won the ball but 3 points if you played or dribbled into the opposite side. This was an attempt to encourage players to circulate the ball out away from the pressure.

This progression was much more difficult for my group but at least they still had the choice. I wasn't insisting they must switch the play but rewarding it if they could.

Finally, I tried to dial up the amount of noise in the session and depart from the rondo to more of a game with all the inherent difficulty this brings.

We chose 3 teams, 2 playing and 1 acting as goals or receivers. The teams would play directionally and attempt to score by getting the ball to one of their receivers. The other teams would try to stop this and immediately react, changing their job and trying to do the same with the opposite receivers.

First to 3 goals would win and the receivers would replace the losing team. This element of "winner stays on" competition led to a frenzied, intelligent exploration of Transitions and reactions. Many of the kids mentioned it was the best game they had played and some even wanted to continue rather than set up a full sized game.

We carried the theme over into the 7 aside game and for 20 minutes we could hear kids reminding others that their " job had changed" as Transitions were highlighted.

I know this is a very long winded way of describing a session that others can take, use and adapt but I feel there's much more to the art of coaching that just the set up of the activities.

I'd be really interested in other sessions being expanded upon like this.

Please share your stories.

Coaching For The Brave

2018-10-27T16:26:00.001+01:00

Over the years football has become more and more commercial. At its highest levels the game is now so professional and scientific it bears little resemblance to that played just a generation ago.

This has brought great benefits for players, supporters and TV audiences around the world.

A whole industry has erupted to support the game, spawning Directors of Football, Sports Psychologists, Performance Analysts and even Sleep Advisers. Clubs have poured millions into Elite Academies for those identified as having a chance of reaching the top and reaping the rewards. Young Starlets that graduate from these Centres of Excellence are paid thousands of pounds per week despite never having done anything of merit in the game.

Coaches are trained and can't wait to get into the talent factories as a "first step on the rung" to a dream full time job with a club.

Kids as young as nine and ten have a Golden ticket dangled in front of them and doting, eager parents hapilly take them away from their youth clubs to leave playing with friends behind.

YouTube and Twitter become engorged with professional training sessions. Barca this and Real that. Rondo this and Drill that.

Still, the improvements are all worthwhile and we can all easily accept it's for the better.

But then, as time goes on, it inevitably starts to trickle down. Not just to lower league clubs or non league clubs but Grassroots Youth Clubs. You know, the club down your road or in your village.

The clubs that take in 5,6 and 7 year olds with a promise of a game of football every week.

The volunteer coaches inside these clubs can't help but think "should I be doing more?", "How can I improve my players?".

They go from volunteering to "what do I do now?" in the blink of a preseason. Looking around they see fellow volunteers obsessed with making their new 7 year olds better than his 7 year olds.

This drives a never ending cycle of Develop at all Costs. The less aggressive sibling of Win at all Costs.

Kids up and down the country are eagerly introduced to football by volunteers with limited qualifications who have fallen into the trap of believing football is just a learning experience. "I must teach them this, I must teach them that".

Winning is simply replaced by Developing.

A noble replacement but one that is still based largely on what an adult wants and not what a child wants.

Compare today's Youth football with that of a, possibly rose tinted, generation ago. Children still loved football, infact they possibly loved it more. There was far less competition in the way of computer games. They still started to play the game early but their introduction would have been completely different.

Initially it would be a sibling who'd start kicking a ball around with them or a friend from a couple of doors down. Then they'd continue in the school yard with kids of similar but not always the same age.

If they were lucky they may get some school games but probably not until 11 or 12.

Then, if excited enough and seen to be good enough they may get asked to join a Club.

However, even in these clubs, not everyone was lucky to be able to "train" as well as play a game every week. Crucially, if they did "train" it looked nothing like what you'd see today.

Regardless of this, most kids experienced the game on the streets. Adapting the 11 aside that parents insist on today to smaller games that could be played with varying numbers of mates.

What does this have to do with the coach of today?

I believe coaches can and should be less concerned with learning during their sessions for young children.

I believe coaches should be confident enough to let the kids get on with it.

Class of 92

As an example let's take a look at one of the most decorated group of players in the modern game. The famed Class of '92.

We will have heard about Scholes, Butt and the Nevilles and seen how they went from Youth Cup winners to multiple Premier league and Champions League winners.

Surely they must have been coached from an early age with Rondos and Positional Play?

Surely they must have had well meaning coaches with learning objectives and session plans?

Actually, that's not true at all.

My friend and next door neighbour was a lad called Glynn Buckley. Glynn played in the same Youth team that Scholes, Butt and the Nevilles did. Boundary Park Juniors.

I've talked to him numerous times about his football education and he never mentions anything that resembles coaching as we'd see it today.

Glynn lived next door but one to me and every day he'd be in the cul de sac playing 3 and in, Wembley, 60 seconds and maybe a 2v2 with me and our brothers.

Rain, wind, snow, it didn't matter. He'd be out with his ball. If he couldn't find others he didn't care. The ball was enough.

He did this day in, day out for years.

He was in the last year of Primary School before he ever had anyone even organise after-school games for him. I know, because that was me. His school asked for PE assistance when I was at college. We had an afternoon a week to do extra curricular activities and I chose to help in local schools.

Glynn and his school mates had never had anyone who could help them with football and I just turned up, organised 5 aside and encouraged them were I could.

Glynn's first real taste of organised football came at his next school where he started playing 11 aside against other schools.

His football teacher was Mr Wilson an RE teacher who also played in the same amateur team that I did.

Mr Wilson's coaching consisted of this:

10 minutes of static stretches
12 minute run around athletics track
5 aside round robins for whatever time was left. ( we need to return to these games )

Again, does this look like anything you'd see at a training session today? I doubt it very much.

So, at the age of 12, Glynn had been subjected to zero coaching as we would know it. None.

He was left on his own to explore and fall in love with the game.

Here's the weird bit:

Boundary Park Juniors were a very ambitious football club. Each year they would scour the local schools for the best footballers they could find and bring them together.

How else would the Nevilles, from Bury and Glynn from Rochdale end up playing with Scholes from Oldham in a team based in Oldham?

In effect they acted like academies do now. Attracting the best talent and bringing them together as a great team.

Surely this is where Glynn and the rest of them were coached and developed into the players they'd end up as?

Well according to Glynn, NO.

Training was a bit of running and loads of small games. Bit of a theme cropping up here.

Yes they had coaches demanding certain things of them and challenging them but no formalised "today we are learning this."

In fact he's clear that his team mates would have hated this approach and tended to get the best out of each other by setting their own standards.

As promised, let me circle back to these small games.

These weren't tame affairs. Honestly, they were brutal. I doubt that they would be tolerated in today's climate.

Nowhere to hide, fast, intimidating and super competitive.

These games are the one thing that no present day session can offer. No drill, rondo or whole part whole can replicate the primal experience that these games do. So much so that academies around the world are turning to forms of Street Football and Cage Football to try to imitate these hotbeds of peer pressure.

The better the players the better the games were but even at less rarified heights of talent they were awesome. Just watching and anticipating your turn would be enough to enhance your development like no coach ever could.

You'd be watching, waiting, plotting and getting pumped ready to knock "Winner Stays On" off their perch.

Watch kids 5 aside now. The comparison is night and day.

Boundary Park were so good they were eventually asked to leave their league. This is when the local professional clubs became interested.

Glynn and my other mate John didn't make it at United and ended up playing in my amateur team which Glynn later left to play Rugby league. ( A sport he'd never really played until 22).

None of this is mentioned to denigrate how things are today but to simply demonstrate that if you want, if you're confident enough, you can run youth football training sessions differently and still know it's not harming their development.

If one of the greatest groups of players ever assembled managed to get there with minimal, if any, formal coaching then I believe it's ok to let little Johnny and Jenny explore and take their own time.

In fact, I could easily argue that it's the insistence on formalised coaching that inhibits the growth of some players and leads to boredom and dropout...but I'm not going to.

So, what can that well meaning, volunteer coach do about all this?

Well, first of all, you need to feel confident enough to do whatever you feel most comfortable with and don't be afraid to watch that evolve.

Don't be wedded to any one method. They are kids and it's actually not that big a deal.

Football is a wide spectrum and can accommodate many differing styles and ways of coaching.

Find something that suits you, something that you can be true to and enjoy.

You'll need to be confident though because you'll probably get questioned by parents, other coaches or if you're like me, YOURSELF.

I've spent months trying to work out how to describe my coaching style, which Pedagogy it lines up with and how I try help kids learn the game.

What I learnt was that I was asking the wrong question.

The real question is "what do I want to offer the kids?"

Once I asked this question the rest seemed to dissolve away.

What I wanted to offer the kids was a kind of free range exploration of the game. Something that I myself felt I'd benefited from and was largely missing from the coaching landscape.

I'd have loved my Level One course to have been "Hey, calm down, don't sweat it they're 7!"

It was all about DNA, session plans and learning objectives. All fine but not exactly what attracts a kid to a ball.

Recently those very same coach developers have all told me that just playing loads of footy is pretty much all that's needed at that age.

What a missed opportunity.

Pretty much every coach I know laments the fact that kids don't play enough football these days. Lots of esteemed professionals insist that whatever the age they joined a club, they learned the game on the streets. No coaches, just hothouses of bliss and competition.

If we truly believe this, why is it that when we have the opportunity to let them play we break it up into a session with a learning objective and possibly a big game if they behave well?

Why not give them what they crave?

Give them what we feel they don't do enough?

Give them what Cryuff, Bergkamp and so many others insist is what formed their game?

Be brave, think about what you want to offer. Have confidence because at some point, you or someone else will ask "are the kids really learning?"

This is were you can really undermine yourself but here's what you need to remember:

There's no rush. Just because you may have a game on Saturday doesn't mean your kids need to play like Barca... by Saturday.

If you feel confident enough to place the enjoyment of just playing above learning the intricacies of the game you'll start to see Saturday differently. It becomes less about applying your well taught lessons and more about kids finding ways to solve problems while having a brilliant time.

Everyone seems to agree that kids can, and do learn in lots of ways. Direct instruction, Guided Discovery and immersive exploration are all different ways that kids can find out about the game and what they can bring to it.

Aren't you tired of trying to build the next Messi? Why not find out what it is that your kids will bring to the game.

I want them to be the next Johnny or Jenny not the next Messi. He's been done!

At some point, a parent is going to ask "what's going on? I can't see any coaching!"

Be brave, tell them what you're doing and why. They can choose to go elsewhere. That's up to them. Tell them about the Class of 92. Tell them about Glynn.

Just don't feel you have to bow to their opinions.

Each approach has its benefits and costs and none is better or worse. I've yet to find an academic who will insist they've found the answer so be open minded, put the kids first and think about what YOU want to offer.

If that has to be a rondo then fine. If it has to be Englands DNA then fine but guess what, it can also be none of those. It can just be turn up, play for an hour and go home with a great big smile.

If you decide that the above resonates with you, here are a bunch of ideas that will keep the kids and yourself happy without their football having to be about lessons.

Firstly, I'd urge you to take a look at @salisburyrovers.

This club decided that it wanted to offer a different football experience for it's kids

They believed that the race to get kids into kits, in teams, in leagues drives a lot of behaviours that kids shouldn't need to experience when playing football.

So they left the league so they could truly control their football environment.

Less explicit teaching and coaching and more fun and child appropriate games.

It's a shinning beacon of what can be achieved if you just think outside the normal. Think what could be possible if you step outside the given format?

This however may be a step too far. You may not be able to do this so just think about your sessions.

This is where I start:

"Why will a series of games not be enough for them tonight?"

If I can't find a bloody good reason then that's where I stick. This doesn't mean a simple 8v8 or however many turn up. But a series of differing formats the will give the kids exactly what they want from the first minute they arrive and drives the competition that challenges them to find answers in the game.

Here's a few tips:

Is there a goal?
Do the teams always have to be equal in numbers or quality of player?
Is there a keeper?
Is there a scoring system?
Can the game be adapted on the fly if need be?
Can I devise a tournament or round robin?

The games that kids used to create on the streets would all look similar to the above. For example the best form of 1v1 development is still a game of 3 and In. No coach required.

There are loads of resources that explain these street games but my favourites are:

3 and In
60 seconds
Headers and volleys
Panna
Wembley or Cuppy doubles.
Footvolley
Squarey

Let the kids pick. They'll thank you!

For those wanting more structure so that you can fool the parents and look like there's loads going on, I'd suggest getting hold of the following books:

Weeks and weeks of small sided games with differing themes. It really doesn't need to be more complicated than this.

Finally, for those of you who want an Ultimate Guide I'd suggest getting Horst Weins book.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0736069488/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=paulgoodwin-21&camp=1634&creative=6738&linkCode=as2&creativeASIN=0736069488&linkId=5f6f8b4a1c0dca5ffb3c2d92634ee0b2

This will give you everything you need to ensure the kids are playing, having fun, competing and getting better.

Taking this route is not easy. You'll need to be brave.

Go on, I dare you...

Be brave.

Developing at all Costs 3 -Mercy!

2018-04-29T17:18:00.000+01:00

It's 10:30 on a Saturday morning and already your beloved angels are down 5:0.

What is a coach to do?

Should referees and leagues have plans in place to save young children from large score lines or should the game be allowed to find its own winners and losers?

I've seen some coaches advocate that the team that is currently winning should be asked/forced to play in ways that make the game "fairer" for the sake of the other players. You know the sort of thing, twenty passes before scoring, play with weaker foot etc.

This seems like a noble attempt to spare some children's blushes but sometimes I wonder if all it actually does is coddle the ego of the watching parents.

The nature of club and league football at really young ages seems to create the problem not over zealous coaches. Although I've seen that also.

One thing I'm sure about though is this issue is not about DEVELOPMENT. It gets mixed up with "well this is a great opportunity for the kids to learn" with this argument being used, strangely by both sides.

I'm going to try to explain firstly why trying to add development into the mix is a doomed idea and then show where the issue truly lies.

Development and Scorelines

Most coaches will quickly insist that the score in Foundation level football tells you little if anything about which team is playing football well, correctly or in a modern, forward thinking way. ( whatever that means)

And yet some are also just as quick to insist that things must be equalled up if the score gets too out of kilter. Wouldn't a better idea be to ensure parents and children all know the score isn't reflective of how hard they are trying, how far they have come or how they are playing?

Wouldn't it be better to make sure children knew how to walk off the pitch full of confidence without it being based on the score?

After all, leagues are banned from keeping scores at this level and we all know that the kids forget very quickly.

So, if the kids couldn't care less after lunch who are we trying to appease?

Let's look at the scenarios that could crop up and see if altering the game improves development.

Two teams are playing and team a has been coached well for a few years and is progressing nicely. They play modern football and try their best.

Team b has been put together over the last two years and only includes the biggest strongest players around. They do not play modern football and their coach has not really tried to help them. The score is his only concern.

Team b is winning 6-0.

What do you want to happen in this scenario?

Team a is already playing football correctly and will go back to being coached well at training next week.

Why on earth do they need things altering? What exactly would improve their development?

They are already doing everything correctly!

What about this one?

Team a and b are both good footballing teams who play in a modern way, they have good coaches and games are normally very competitive.

However, today team b is winning 4-0 after 20 minutes.

Both continue to play in the way they've been taught but team a is going to struggle to make up ground.

If they are already both playing decent football what on earth are you going to do to improve development during this game?

What about this one?

Team a and b are seen as pretty poor teams but both try really hard and have great fun.

Team a is winning 5-0 at half time.

What the hell can you do during this game that the coach hasn't bothered doing at any other time that would effect the development of the players?

Both teams need to start playing football differently which means they need coaching differently.

So let's put this argument to bed.

Altering the rules of a game for a player is not about developing them. Feel free to say it is, but it isn't.

What it's actually about is FAIRNESS.

So let's look at this different scenario.

Team a is better in every definable way than team b. They are winning 6-0 at half time and team b is clearly a mismatch for them.

This isn't the coaches fault, not the parents or the players. Its the leagues fault and is a symptom of how football is for kids today.

Sometimes this is actually unavoidable due to small leagues or age groups and yes there is a way of dealing with it.

We need to understand the reason why this inequality could arise and why it didn't in the past.

Up to about 25 years ago, kids were not really playing league football aged 7,8,9,10.

What they did do was get together and pick teams between themselves. Two captains picking equally through the group that wanted to play. This happened every break time in every school across the country.

Teams were chosen fairly.

If a score became too one sided alterations were made but not always! If there was a sense that everything was fair when teams were chosen, they'd play on.

Skip forward and we now have teams and clubs choosing kids how they want to. Some with trials beforehand, some with an open door policy, some poaching kids from other teams and some kids being hawked around by parents.

This leads to a huge differential in what a team looks like. However, it has zero bearing on how well they are being developed. None at all.

If you are lucky, a decent league will attempt to equal this out with a number of divisions but this isn't always possible. Most leagues will also try to rearrange teams mid season to help.

So leagues do see, accept and try to deal with this unfairness. But guess what, some games as we can see form the scenarios above will just look unfair.

Some coaches will want to deal with this unfairness and that's fine, good on you. The scenarios show though that coaches pretending they can cite development as a reason for altering the game is a smokescreen. It's actually punishing the kids that are trying to do the right thing for the benefit of kids who, are also doing the right thing so what's the point, are not interested in doing the right thing so what's the point or are being chosen specifically to do the wrong thing so who cares?

A coach should, before a game starts have worked out how best to challenge his team to build on their development. If they aren't doing this then what's the point of pretending to do it when a scoreline looks unfair? Its a con.

My belief is that kids turn up to games wanting to play because its the best part of their week. I want them to love the game for what it is and dream about it all week until Saturday comes. I do not then want to alter that game for them by giving out the message that winning by too many is wrong.

By saying "ok, these guys are playing great football but we are playing even better so I'm going to punish you" we are messing with those dreams. We are messing with the game and we are wrapping it up falsely if we pretend its to aid development.

What we should be doing is building better environments for young kids to turn up and enjoy football without a league structure. Large hubs where kids turn up in the dozens and pick teams themselves, fairly and just get on with it. Then, when they move to league football we wont pretend that being 6-0 up is a bad thing and the game needs altering to take account of it.

Salisbury Rovers have led with this approach and should be applauded for trying to replicate environments that young children really enjoy and flourish in. Coaches shouldn't be looking to artificially alter the outcome of games when they could actually try to build similar environments.

I believe its clear what causes skewed scorelines in football. I'm also clear that messing with the game under the smokescreen of development has no effect.

What do you think?

Developing at all costs 2

2017-06-14T20:33:00.000+01:00

In a previous blog, Developing at all Costs, I described a scenario that made me wonder if Win at all costs had been hidden by some coaches and simply morphed into " I must be developing these players at all costs"

It was a strange occurrence but as time has gone on, I've seen it time and time again.

A more recent discussion with various coaches on Twitter has left me wondering how far we've come down this road and whether "development" has turned into something just as extreme.

Disclaimer*

Developing footballers is a noble pursuit that I actively encourage and partake in.

I am a strong believer that Football is for everyone. It encompasses a wide spectrum of opinions and outlooks. This is healthy. The game is too valuable to belong to one school of thought.

I've written previously about how a coach should work out their philosophy based on their values and principles. There is nothing inherently wrong with setting up your team to win the league and cup double, beat every opponent win trophies galore.

Likewise, there is nothing wrong with seeing football as a fun, social activity where everyone can join and results are never even thought about.

In between are a myriad of different options and views. That's all fine.

All that really matters is that the coach has been open about his approach, has communicated it well, and players and parents have been able to choose with their eyes wide open.

Some will be attracted by a certain approach while others may run a mile. We surely just want coaches to be open, honest and then to provide an environment that makes kids want to come back.

Also, how a coach may wish to develop his players will again fit into a wide spectrum. Drills, SSG's, one on one, technical, tactical, positional, hands on or just bringing a ball and getting drinks half way through.

As the person who stepped up, it's the coaches right to decide on their input and how they see success or failure.

Parents can and will vote with their feet. Some will be attracted by an approach and others wont. A coach must also be willing to address any criticisms parents may have by
re communicating their philosophy and being open to learning.

Coaches should also be open to criticism from other coaches. Open discussion about how and why things can be done is healthy and should be encouraged. However, I'd suggest it is not a coaches job to say "you are wrong".

Your philosophy may differ greatly but so do you. So does your club, your parents, your players and what you are trying to achieve. To try to impose YOUR philosophy on others is nothing but disrespectful.

Differences in approach should be appreciated and commended not fought over and ridiculed. The first attempt should always be to try to understand an approach not belittle it.

I now see some attempts by coaches to insist that players are constantly "developed" as nothing more than the same fool hardy attempts to "win at all costs".

Yes kids can be developed but what if your kids aren't there for that? What if they genuinely just want to meet up with friends, have fun and not worry about "are they getting better"?

Some kids equate fun with mastery and love the challenge of moving forward. Some don't. Some see fun in different ways and some are a mixture of both on any given day.

Also, its easily argued that if you want the young ones to truly develop or to have as much fun as possible, you should get the hell out of the way!

Good luck explaining that to the parents who may have differing views to you or to their own children.

Football, development and fun are all too complicated for any coach to feel they have it sorted.

So, if this is true, how dare we go around criticising other well meaning coaches with different philosophies to ours. How dare we say "I'm right, you're wrong"

Here's a recent example:

Coach A: I won a tournament game at weekend 18-2. Part way through I'd rearranged my team, put weaker players on and out of position but we were still too strong. I asked the opposition to bring another player on. He refused saying " no chance, you aren't that good"

Coach B: This is a disgrace, there is no way you should be winning games 18-2. Tell them not to score, tell them just to defend, tell them to use weak foot all the time!

Now to me, Coach B has completely missed the point. Not once did they say well done for the changes made weakening the team. Not once did they focus on the coach who refused to help.

Ridiculing Coach A is a pathetic attempt at virtue signalling and saying "I am right and you are wrong"

Part of my philosophy is that game day is for the kids. They've done their learning and now its time to play. Because I believe this, I also think the game should be manipulated only via the rules of the game. I don't think I should manipulate game day for my team only to defend or play 17 passes in midfield before they score or to score only with their head, blindfolded with their legs tied together.

Game day is theirs. I accept and allow Power Plays if the score line gets too stretched, in fact I feel it should be automatic. The ref should just call for another player thus taking it out of a coaches hands ( ego ).

I also make sure everyone plays. In fact I give weaker players more time because they need it. I also play kids in positions they don't like because its a great way to learn. However, I see these as natural to the game. Saying " don't score" isn't.

It's not playing the game, and on game day, the kids come to play.

Now, I'm quite aware that some coaches may disagree with this approach but guess what? Tough.

My players and parents signed up to this approach, it the one I've thought long and hard about and suits my values.

Guess what else? I'm also fine with your approach and am interested in how you go about it but we should all agree that unless you want to take over my responsibilities, you should let me get on with it.

You can pretend that you are limiting the score on game day to save face, or help your team develop at all costs but the game is the game. It will find its winners and losers. It can't not do. Otherwise, we may just as well all give up on the game we so clearly love.

Let's not do that. Let's work together.

Why do Coaches do what they do? Part 2

2016-12-15T18:56:00.003+00:00

This blog could easily look like a criticism of a fellow coach but it isn't. It's closer to a personal criticism and a reminder for similar future situations.

At the start of this season I was approached by a parent from another club asking if I had space for their son. I did, so I signed him on to my Under 10 team.

The lad is very keen, well behaved and of a decent footballing standard. He's also an exceptional athlete.

However, after watching him play for a few games I noticed he just pretty much stood still or dropped deeper and deeper from his centre midfield position. This puzzled me so I set him a goal of being more forward thinking and expecting him to contribute more in an attacking sense.

I'd observed the player, identified what I thought was an issue and put plans in place to help. All sound ok?

No, not really. Whatever I did with him had little impact.

Why couldn't I coax this powerful, athletic player to be more forward thinking?

Anyone guessed it yet?

This week's training was about passing and receiving and I was watching the kids simply knock the ball to each other, control it and knock it back. As simple as it gets.

Out of the blue, the player in question told another player he shouldn't control the ball with the sole of his foot. The other kids stopped and looked at me.

After playing futsal for a year we are used to controlling it however we want.

"We can NEVER do that" insisted the player.

I asked him why and he said his previous coach had banned it.

Penny drops.

"What else are you NOT allowed to do?"

"I can't pass to the left hand side of the pitch"

"Anything else?"

"Yeah I can't go over half way"

"What? ever?"

"No never"

In my haste to provide a solution I'd not even had a chat with him about why he just stands around inside our half. I'd spotted an issue and put plans in place to help. However, none of that mattered. Id forgotten the player!

Now I have no idea why a coach would condition a nine year old like that but like I said at the beginning, I'm not bothered about him. How he run's his team is up to him. I try to only deal with what's in my influence.

The player is in my team and I'd forgot to centre the coaching on him. Also, if I had done, I'd have had a bloody simple solution.

We chatted, and to their credit, the other players reinforced that in this team he can try anything. Anything he wants to do!

In the open game at the end of the session he was incredible. Picking the ball up deep, dribbling as far as he could, popping off one-twos and scoring twice.

Spotting issues is easy. Sessions to help are all over the place. But if we don't start with the player we are missing the point.

Looking back, I know I know this. I know where I should start but I didn't. I wonder if it's an easy trap?

Please don't condition young kids to play football how you want them to but also, when you want to help, start with them.

Why do coaches do what they do?

2016-11-28T14:33:00.001+00:00

Johan Cryuff insisted that despite joining Ajax at a relatively young age, he learned to play football on the streets.

This made me ask this simple question:

As a Grassroots coach why are you doing anything except putting on a game to aid development?

The very best players the world has seen all seem to agree, playing the game from a young age is what taught them the most.

Even as Grassroots coaches we tend to agree and lament the fact that kids just don't play the game enough anymore.

This begs another very simple, logical question.

If we believe that playing (normally in small sided games) is so important to a players development why aren't we allowing them to do just that?

I can ask that question differently:

What evidence do you have as a coach that shows that your shooting drill, your Rondo, your whole part whole session accelerates the learning experience faster than playing a game does?

Think about this. The average Grassroots Coach sees their kids for one session of an hour a week on top of the game day. Everyone agrees that kids just don't play the game as much any more. Nowhere near as much as the generation before. We also agree that not playing as much has impacted on their development.

Then why, when we get hold of them, don't we give them this opportunity?

Why on earth wouldn't we? What is it that we are doing in our sessions that is so much better than a carefully designed, relevant game?

If we cant be sure that our interventions accelerate their learning, why are we intervening?

Is it pride or ego or pressure from Clubs and Parents?

If a parent walked up to you and asked why you run that Rondo rather than play a 3v3 game, could you answer?

Please take some time to think about the questions above and let me know your answers.

Dribbling

2016-11-18T13:10:00.000+00:00

Everyone can name a Dribbler. They are such a memorable part of the game we love. The reason we remember them is the excitement they bring. They literally drag us off our seats and onto our feet. Few kids want to be the next Xavi or Scholes but thousands want to emulate Messi and Ronaldo, Ronaldinio and DeBruyne.

Recently it's been commented that dribbling is a dying art and England in particular have stopped producing this type of player. I wasn't so sure.

With help from the stats guys at Whoscored.com I've taken a closer look to see if we can find out what's going on.

In this blog I've simply asked a number of questions and tried to find the answers. In part two of the blog I'm going to try to look at the development of Dribblers.

So, what can we find out?

Is Dribbling a Dying Art?

Here's the first stumbling block. No one in the Sixties or Seventies ever thought about keeping statistics on successful dribbles. It seems they were too busy taking mind bending substances and enjoying Free Love.

So, we only have anecdote to go on and this creates a huge problem. As dribbling is such a memorable part of the game, it sticks out and becomes the bit we hark back to. I asked older players and family members and they feel that dribbling was much more prevalent in days gone by. In fact, most tell me they feel it was an important part of the game. Almost a tactical tool.

These comments led me back to one of my favourite books on Football. Inverting the Pyramid by Jonathan Wilson. This excellent book tracks the evolution of Football tactics so I scanned it for any clues to the prevalence of Dribbling.

Unfortunately, there is nothing specific but the tactical set ups of the past do allude to the possibility of more Dribbling. Mainly because these systems of yore used width and wingers much more and as we know, the wide areas of the pitch is where most Dribblers like to hang out.

Many more teams employed players that would "hug the touchline" or "get white on their boots" which would in turn lead to many more 1V1 encounters between them and the opposition. These Wide men were tasked with getting to the byline as often as possible and crossing into the box for swarthy centre forwards to head home. This requires a certain type of player with who can beat his opponent and retain the ball.

Does this mean dribbling was more prevalent in the past? I'm happy to say yes but I can only deduce this and don't have any empirical data. The playing systems encouraged wide play which necessitated players skilled in this way of playing.

As we all know, the use of "traditional" wide men has reduced to the extent were we lament its demise leaving us with a feeling that Dribbling has died out. I think a better description would be it has evolved and altered.

To see how its altered I think we need to look at how a fan sees Dribbling and how its used now in current football.

When I asked people to describe Dribbling most came up with a romantic, evocative description of a long mazy run with a player (usually in a wide position) beating not one, not two but numerous opponents with pure skill, trickery and pace. Of course they'd describe it like this. We can all describe the outstanding moments we see. Rooney's overhead kick, Scholes' volley, Beckham's free kick and Owen's run against Argentina. We remember them because they are memorable. They take us off our seat and tie themselves to us emotionally.

One thing that can't be argued is that we see that type of dribble less and less. However, I'd argue that the Dribble has just altered. Rather than three or more players being beaten, the Dribbler will now beat one or two then move the ball on rather than retain it themselves and go again. This again will be dictated by tactical changes over the years.

The main tactical change here is that Wide Players are now playing as Inside Forwards and even if they start out wide they are asked to drive inside. This is because very few teams now play with static Centre Forwards that require an aerial cross.

Dribblers are no longer required to go outside a full back to deliver a cross from close to the byline. They need to move in field to try to break defensive lines with a Dribble or to combine with a team mate. Think Iniesta, DeBruyne and Hazard not Giggs, Waddle or Coppell.

As the Dribblers are now running into far more congested areas, the chances of beating three, four or five reduces. Space is at a premium and the opposition is more compact and organised.

So, the Dribbling we see is different now. The mazy run still happens but not nearly as often. Just watch what its been replaced by though. Dribblers with just as much skill, flair and pace making different decisions due the different tactical requirements they need to fulfil.

The Dribbler will always be a sought after player. The Dribbler isn't dying, its evolving to find a niche in a game that has changed drastically in the last thirty years.

Do we see as much Dribbling in the Premier League as elsewhere?

Short answer: yes!

But it wasn't always this way. I looked at the stats for 2010 and 2016 for the Premier League, Bundesliga and La Ligue.

In 2010, the Top Ten Dribblers in those leagues Dribbled much less than they do now.

PL: 2.18 Dribbles per game

BL: 2.89 Dribbles per game

LL: 2.54 Dribbles per game

The Premier League sees its best Dribblers doing what they do much more often than the other leagues. The Premier League has also seen the biggest shift.

I also wondered how things would look in Brasil. The country famed for Dribblers.

2010: 1.6 Dribbles per game

2016: 2.2 Dribbles per game.

They are rubbish!

The Premier League sees more Dribbling from its top Dribblers than La Ligue, the Bundesliga or the Brazilian Premier League. I'd love to have been able to see how many George Best was doing per game or Stanley Matthews but like I said statisticians were busy back in the day.

The number of Dribbles also seems to go up as the Competition get keener. Look at these numbers for the last World Cup and Champions League:

2010 CL: 3.64

2016 CL: 3.7

WC 2014: 4.6

So, if you want to see lots of Dribbling don't go to League Two games, get to a World Cup game.

Do English Players Dribble as Much as Others?

Here we go, this is what we've all been waiting for. For years English players have been much criticised in this area. So, is it just the Foreign Imports that are doing the Dribbling we all love to see. Or do our boys get involved as well?

At last count English players account for about 32% of players starting Premier League games. So, you'd expect 32% of the top Dribblers to be English. Let's take a look:

2010: 31% of top 100 Dribblers were English. What?!

2016: 30% of top 100 Dribblers were English. What? What?!

Read that again. English players are Dribbling just as much as anyone. We love it.

In fact, for this season, 4 of the top 10 Dribblers are English.

Don't let anyone tell you we don't produce Dribblers. In fact, here's a whole England team made up of our top Dribblers

What Happens When England Get Together?

OK, I'm fine with that. English players Dribble just as much as other players and the Premier League has more Dribbling than other Leagues but what happens when we get these English players together?

Surely our Dribbling just fades away and becomes as ineffective as the rest of our game?

Well no.

In the last World Cup 2014 when England were abject in their performance, they were the fifth highest Dribblers with 13.7 Dribbles per game. Fifth!

In the 2016 European Championships when England were, blah, blah, blah, they were the top Dribblers in the competition. Bloody Top with 19 Dribbles per game.

As with everything its not what you do but the way you do it. We all saw England dominate against Iceland and fail to create chances to score but we still completed more successful Dribbles than anyone else in that tournament.

In the end, my eyes have been opened. I can't confirm that football today has less dribbling that it used to but I have a nagging feeling that evolving tactics mean it has.

We can see that in today's game the Premier League sees more Dribbling than other leagues but it may look different than it did to our grandfathers. We can also see that English Players in the Premier League contribute as much dribbling as other do. We have no shortage of players with skill and pace to beat a man and retain the ball.

We can also start to wonder why these Dribblers don't create clean cut chances for our forwards when they step up to International Competition. No one Dribbles as much as we do yet it's not leading to a positive outcome.

Dribbling is exciting. Its exciting to do and exciting to watch. When it has an end result, its mesmerising just like the back heel, the overhead and the screamer. The reason we crave it is because 5 seconds of a wonderful dribble is endlessly more exciting than a 20 pass move. Its the beautiful game in its simplest form. Glorious, imaginative and breath taking.

Dribbling should never be allowed to disappear from our game and I don't believe it ever will. Its why we go to the game, why we roar till hoarse and what we talk about endlessly after the game.

In the next part of this blog I'll try to find out how you develop a Dribbler.

Seven Habits of Highly Effective Coaches

2016-08-10T17:56:00.001+01:00

Seven Habits of Highly Effective Coaches

About twenty years ago I was promoted from a Financial Adviser to a Sales Manager immediately becoming responsible for helping a team get the best out of their working day. Overnight my whole outlook on work altered.

I'd gone from being responsible solely for myself to having to put the needs of the team first. I had to try to work out how to best help them. However, I'd never really understood how to best help myself let alone a disparate group of Sales people.

I decided to look for help and was introduced by a mentor to The Seven Habits Of Highly Effective People by Stephen R. Covey. Despite clearly sitting on the Self Help shelf, one I tend to avoid, this book helped shape my thinking as a Manager and a person.

Recently, I've revisited the work as I often do and tried to apply it to my Football Coaching. I really cant recommend this book highly enough.

The Seven Habits.

For his Doctorate, Stephen Covey reviewed 200 years worth of material on Success. This eventually formed itself into his now famous book. He believed that this writing fell into one of two camps:

1. Character Ethic - Older Writing

Were basic foundations such as Integrity, Patience and Loyalty drove an individuals success.

2. Personality Ethic - More modern writing

Here, traits, skills and personal techniques are the key to success. Essentially, if you just copied the skill you should have the same results.

Covey decided that both are required for success to be long term and repeatable. He believed that simply changing your outward behaviour was not enough if those behaviours were not rooted in solid basic foundations.

He explained this simply:

"You may have fantastic map reading skills ( Personality Ethic ) but these are useless if you've got the wrong map" ( Character Ethic )

So his work is an amalgamation of these two Paradigms. You need the skills to play out the game, but you need the Character to understand what the game is and why you are playing it.

As he believes that success begins from the Inside - Out, you can see he is trying to move the writing back towards the Character Ethic.

Three Stages

Covey's Habits move us through three stages:

Dependance
Independence
Interdependance

Most writing on success focuses on Independence. Being able to cope on our own but Covey realised that success, if built on the Character Ethic, can not stop there, it must reach out to others and be inclusive. So his Habits are formulated as such:

Habits 1,2,3 will help us win the personal battle and become truly Independent and 4,5,6 will help us become Interdependant. Habit 7 reminds us that success is built on continual improvement.

The Seven Habits and Football Coaching.

Moving from Dependance to Independance

Habit 1 - Be Proactive

Proactive people are driven by values and goals that are independent of whatever else is going on. They do not get buffeted around by events outside of their control.

Proactive people are resourcesful and focus on solutions not problems. They are very clear on what they can control and what they can't and only deal with things appropriately.

As a coach, I have a clear idea of what is inside my control. How we coach, where, how we play etc. I'm clear I am in control of these things and can answer these questions if anyone asks. I'm also clear that they are my responsibility and no one elses.

I'm also clear that I have to play 7 aside, use a size 4 ball, have 10 players in my squad. I can't control any of this so I don't even try. Why would I?

I have far too much to do with the things I can control. Why fight it? Accept it and get to work.

Essentially everything you are wanting to do, trying to do, will begin with yourself.

Habit 2 - Begin with the end in mind

I've written before about a Footballing Philosophy. This is were it all starts. What are your Principles? What do you value?

Remember these are your Principles and your Values don't be swayed or knocked off course by others. Be clear on what you want the end to look like.

Is it as many kids as possible playing football each week or are you striving to win a league and cup double?

This really does not matter. Just make sure it sits well with your values and be as clear as possible.

Once you've worked this out, can you find a way of writing it down simply and communicating it to everyone who needs to hear?

After all, if you've no idea what youre trying to achieve, how will you know when you've got there?

Habit 3 - Put First Things First

Ok, so you're clear on what it is you're wanting to achieve, you have a clear idea of what success will look like. You've also decided it just starts with you. No one else is going to help, you need to be Independent. What do you do?

Firstly, you don't do anything that isn't in your control. Just don't let it bother you. Work backwards from your vision and list all the things that need to be done to achieve it. Write a Syllabus for your coaching over the next 3 months or the whole season. What are you going to coach and when and how?

Don't continually rush around trying to firefight things that look urgent but aren't crucial. Just stick with the plan.

Below is Covey's Time Management grid. Probably the most important lesson in the book. Where do you spend your time?

Write it down and make it happen. You control this 100% so make it happen.

Embedding these habits will move you from being dependant on others. Parents, Club Officials, League Officials or players and towards Independence.

Habit 4 - Think Win/Win

As your vision and goal is based on your values and principles, you should never lose sight of the fact that Win/Win is better than Win/Lose.

Its better to try to find ways of achieving your goals without trampling over everyone elses. Yes this is sport and someone will win and someone will lose. But that's the game. The game finds its own winners and losers. We don't have to go around creating more.

Have you sought out people with similar goals to you? Can you work together so that you both achieve your goals?

I've seen coaches refuse to offer advice to others because they think everything is a zero sum game. "The only way I can win is if you don't. Why would I help you?"

This is clearly ridiculous and is mixing up the game result with Success.

Habit 5 - Seek First to Understand, then to be Understood

You may have a very clear philosophy and understand it completely. You may be striving to be Proactive and make things happen.

But, you don't live a bubble.

The key to relations with Parents, Officials and importantly Players, is to take time to Understand others. I see this as the essence of coaching.

Are you clear on what others are saying and why? Or, are you more concerned with just getting your point across? How about, for a moment we just slow down and put ourselves in someone elses shoes?

Genuinely try to UNDERSTAND.

How can you coach someone if you don't understand? How can you be looking for Win/Win solutions if you don't even know what a win looks like for someone else?

I had a coach who said all he wanted for his team was to not get beaten heavily every week. As he'd explained I realised we a chance to both win here. I rearranged my team and made it difficult for my players. We drew 2-2. My players got a great development opportunity and they enjoyed a rare result.

If all you're doing is going around trying to get people to understand you, you are not a coach.

Habit 6 - Synergise

This is about finding solutions that you may never have come up with on your own. Your players are all different. We should celebrate this and not look to sheep dip our players through a process.

Go to the local FA CPD workshops, take more qualifications if you can, go and watch other sports coaches and maybe even get them to take a few sessions?

Its also about seeing your team as greater than the sum of its individuals. Football is a team game and we should look for solutions to improve the team not just the individual.

Would the team be better if your best player wasn't always played as the attacker? What could happen if he played as a defender?

Have we at least tried?

Habit 7 - Sharpen the Saw

All the above habits can drive us towards success. However, there is a danger that we do nothing but saw away.

Every coach needs to take time out to Sharpen the Saw and work on making themselves better when they get back to work.

This isn't just learning and developing oneself but also making sure we are healthy and not neglecting important relationships. Its no use being a great dedicated coach of a football team if your marriage or your relationship with your kids is falling to pieces. Eventually something will give and this could effect everything.

What are the key relationships in your life?

Worker
Business Partner
Husband
Father
Son
Coach

Make sure you are applying the habits equally to all these areas and don't forget YOURSELF.

Stephen Covey's book was an eye opener for me and I have returned to it many times. It applies to all our lives and can help us be more successful as coaches.

If you haven't got it, get it!

3 Coaching Dilemnas

2016-07-20T12:29:00.000+01:00

In my last piece, I talked about the importance of having a very simple Philosophy that can be used to help inform all your decisions as a Grassroots Coach. I also introduced Three Fundamental Coaching Dilemnas that have troubled me from day one.

These Dilemnas struck a chord with readers and I received many questions about them. So today I'm going to expand on the issue and try to answer.

First a bit of background. After taking up a role as a Grassroots coach for a local team I quickly realised that I was constantly battling against differing opinions and options available to me as a coach.

There is no lack of resources for an aspiring football coach. Sessions, drills, and ideas are easy to get hold of and integrate into your team. These cover a myriad of subjects from ball mastery, fitness and diet to tactics, Psychology and motivation. Having the tools for my coaching was never going to be a problem.

However, I found myself constantly asking myself why I had chosen the resources I had and to what extant I was trying to implement them.

This is when I became aware of the three Dilemnas. Every time I reviewed what I was trying to achieve these three, very basic, very fundamental issues reared their head. I found it impossible to address the subject of what I was trying to do without first having a very clear idea of where I stood on these issues.

They are:

1. How many players do I need and of what ability?

2. How much playing time do they get?

2. How much involvement do you want to have in the players development?

I suggest that prior to attempting any lengthy Philosophy you have a clear answer to these. Once tackled, they can be used to guide your thoughts on the resources you need. Without an answer, you may still find yourself bounced around by whatever takes your fancy.

A nice side benefit from being clear here is the way parents engage with you. Once they understand how you have set your stall out, its easy to decide if that's what they want to be involved with.

Let's look at each Dilemna...

Number and type of player

This is contentious and divisive. However, I insist there is no "correct" answer. Opinions will cover a wide spectrum and so they should.

For instance:

Is it ok to sign just 7 players for a 7 aside team?

Do you want to offer footy to as many as possible and sign on 14?

Is your team open to anyone. With widely varying standards?

Do you only accept players of a certain quality?

Do not be pressured into thinking there is a right way to answer here. There isn't. Some will say " why on earth are you only signing 7?" "Well its because I believe they learn more by playing every minute available to them" could be the reply.

Playing Time.

Why is playing time important?

Well, your players and parents will be very interested in how you intend to approach this. They will want to know how they are going to be involved and its best to manage expectations upfront with this.

In my opinion, this can be the biggest source of frustration for a coach, player and parent. FA Chartered Clubs should have a very clear policy on this and it may be a good idea to make sure you understand it as it may actually go against how you wish to run things.

Can you imagine trying to sort that issue out mid season?

Playing time also has a big impact on how you manage the team.

For example:

Do you feel everyone should get equal time?

If so, do you limit the squad size to get as much time as possible for everyone?

Have you decided that you want the best players to play more or maybe the weaker players so they develop quicker?

The answer is, it doesn't matter!

Football is for everyone and what matters is that you've thought about it and decided which way YOU want to go.

Some will disagree with you. Some will go elsewhere but I guarantee you that some will join you because of your stance. The point is, there is no right or wrong way to answer this question only opinion, and as the team coach, its your opinion that matters.

Coaching Involvement.

This is where things can get messy as many coaches are wedded to their approach and see it as "the right way". In reality its just another spectrum of opinion. Let's forget about how to be involved or what resources or techniques we should be using. Let's just keep it simple.

The spectrum can be as wide as:

I'll just turn up with a ball and let them get on with it.

My sessions are tailored to included specific exercises to improve aspects of play.

And everything in between.

Many coaches will say this choice is down to a level of expertise and I'd agree that this can certainly be true. However, this is incorrect in many cases as lots of great coaches keep their involvement to a minimum. How you decide will be impacted by the players you have, their stage of development and your goals but mainly by your opinion on how you wish to be involved.

Thinking about these dilemnas and being clear on how to proceed will then have a bearing on what resources you go hunting for, what learning you undertake and what skills you try to hone. Without these answers you are taking a stab in the dark.

So, as an aspiring grassroots coach, one who has recently taken the plunge or one who wants to revisit their approach, why not take a bit of time to think about the three dilemnas and jot down your opinions on the matter.

Don't be afraid to share your views, discuss them with others and listen to opposing points of view. There's little point in arguing approaches but discussion is valuable.

Remember, Football is for everyone and your place in Football is as important as anyone else's.

Seven Deadly Sins of Coaching

2016-02-11T14:56:00.004+00:00

Seven Deadly Sins of Coaching

Coaching is a noble pursuit. Everyone who takes up the role is offering help. That offer should be welcomed, recognised and celebrated.

Yet everyone who ends up with the role of Coach is doing it for different reasons. They may want to help their sons and daughters progress in a sport they love, they may want to give back to a sport that offered them so much or they simply be generous and want to volunteer for a great cause.

Some, we have seen, do it for themselves. It's about rewarding themselves or being seen in a certain light or emulating people they believe are role models.

So as we all come to the role of coach for different reasons, we can all fall for the obvious traps when circumstances allow. We can't avoid them altogether, we're only human. However, we can be more aware of them and try to swerve them when possible.

Mainly as a prompt for myself but also for anyone else reading, here are the Seven Deadly Sins of Coaching.

Lust

Most see lust as just a sexual thing but it isn't. It can be described as an overwhelming desire. Whether that's for Power or Fame or whatever, it begins to engulf us.

Who are these coaches? You know the guy, the one that's there simply to rule over the team he's involved with. He'll be trying to control everything the players do, their every move, how they train, how they dress and how they behave.

He'll also be the one fighting for his power back when his serfs step out of line. Expect Sergeant Major like bellowing and lots of drilling. Players with their heads down and minimal social interaction.

Most important though will be his lack of respect for any outside suggestions. Unless of course he already agrees with them.

If it's not Power he's lusting after it could be Fame. Watch him muscle his way into any photo opportunity and rush to write his match report for the press unless he lost!

What's the solution? Well for sexual lust it's Chastity, but here simple humility is what's required. A realisation that we are serving them and not the other way around.

Gluttony

This isn't simply overeating, it's the over consumption of anything. In a way, it's about selfishness.

You'll spot him. He's the one demanding more of everybody. More off the club, "sort these pitches out", more of the League, "can't you squeeze me in a friendly when I've got that free date?" more of the parents, "who wants to pay for training tops? can you get your lads down to train three times a week?" and most importantly more from the players.

It doesn't matter if they're 6 or 26. He'll want it all. Can you defend? good. Now, can you attack?

How about a Maradona turn, then a Cryuff and a twenty yard worldy to finish it off.

Don't be surprised if you overhear snippets of Total Football being discussed with his Under NInes!

This guy needs some Temperance, just a little bit of self - restraint. No player can offer you everything you want so back off, maybe ask them what they want to work on?

Greed

Similar to Gluttony but I see this as hoarding. This guy wants everything for himself.

Picture this.

Parent: Hi Coach its Jimmy's Dad, I'm really sorry but Jimmy can't train tonight it's his grandma's 80th Birthday party.

Coach: Wow, that's not very good. I only get them once a week and we have a big match on Saturday. He's important for my session. How am I ever going to teach him about communicating with his team mates if he's not here?

Parent: Yes I know, it's really unfortunate.

Coach: What time is the Party? Can't it be delayed a bit? How old is she? Will she even miss him? I mean communication is really important.

Parent: Nah, he's going to have to miss I'm afraid.

Coach: Oh Ok, Well I can't guarantee to play him on Saturday. Try and help him work on his communication.

Phone goes dead...

Greed can only be overcome by Generosity and Charity. We give our time and guard it ferociously but what else are we giving? How about a bit of kindness or understanding or flexibility?

Sloth

Are we always prepared? Have we always put in the effort before our sessions? Have we done what we can to create the best environment we can?

It's easy to see Sloth as being just a bit lazy but its much more than that. It's about not using our talents and gifts.

This guy knows what he should be doing but for some reason, he just doesn't bother. Maybe he did bother but he doesn't now. Time has jaded him and taken all his enthusiasm.

He runs his sessions, they work quite well but they could be so much better. You see, he's actually very talented. He used to throw himself into it but now, for whatever reason he's just not as bothered anymore.

Diligence is required here. A plan and a promise to see that plan through. Make it happen!

Wrath

You can find this guy every single week on a pitch near you.

My advice is to stay away.

Remember Jimmy? He went to his Grandma's birthday party and saw her face light up but the Coach isn't finished yet. He wants payback. He's going to have a word with Jimmy, Jimmy's parent's and Jimmy's Gran if he can find her.

Everything seems to make them angry. The ref, the weather, a passing flock of birds, everything.

He's impatient and takes offense at even well meant comments.

His players fear him. They play within themselves to make sure they don't upset him. But no matter how hard they try there will always be something.

Solution? Stay away. He needs to find some patience and a self reliance that he can call upon when things vary from his plan.

Envy

This is very similar to greed except with the added bonus that he's seen something he wants and will not stop until he's got it.

This is the guy secretly tapping up that 10 year old who he thinks will be a great centre half!

Also, its the guy who's watched Barcelona and wants what they have. He'll insist on his youngsters playing Tika Taka. Everyone must pass it. Everyone except for his son who he's anointed as the next Messi. He can dribble but everyone else must be passing it. Not once, not for a reason but just pass it.

Watch out if you've got a good one. Hell be speaking to their parents at full time in the car park.

Pride

Apparently , the deadliest off all the sins and one we are all guilty of.

You've met this guy. He's the one writing blogs and posting them on Twitter. He is 100% sure that his system works and nothing else possibly could. He'll tell you this and defend his position to the death.

In the end, its not the system he's defending but himself. He's defending the fact that he believes he has it sussed and is better than everyone else.

It's usually accompanied by a playing career that's tragically cut short as medical science wasn't what it is now.

As you meet for the Respect handshake he'll already be telling you how many trophies he's won and what club he's moving to next year.

It's just me, me, me.

A quiet Pride is always good but we should aim it away from ourselves not suck it towards us like a hurricane.

Humility is required here. Let's not seek to put our fellow coaches down, even when we disagree. Let's help raise them up so we can all feel good about the amazing role we undertake.

You can't avoid the Seven Deadly Sins altogether but keep a look out and you may just swerve a few!

Developing at all costs

2016-02-10T14:54:00.000+00:00

These words were inspired by a recent touchline conversation I had with an opposition coach. It was so weird it started me thinking, has the pernicious "win at all costs" approach been replaced by a "develop at all costs" approach?

Let me try and set the scene:

Its a blustery Saturday morning about 10:30 am at my home pitch on the Fylde coast.

The under 9's are engaged in a very competitive, close encounter and the score is 2:2.

Stood 3 metres away is the opposition coach bellowing out commandments to his team. Few, if any are responding and he seems to be getting more and more frustrated. He asks if he can leave his area and stand level with his back line and coach them mechanically.

"Matt, two yards back. Joe, five to your left and watch their number 7"

Matt and Joe, start to follow his every word. Until, one of my team breaks through directly on goal with just Matt and Joe in the way. He bears down on goal and both defenders move towards him to engage. My player knocks it past them both and sprints in on goal, the keeper stays on his line so my guy knocks it calmly into the corner.

Now, I know what you're thinking, where was the communication, why didn't one of them engage and one drop off?

This is also what the opposition coach thought and boy did he make it clear. Not to his players, well not immediately. No, he made it clear to me.

He made it clear he'd told them this a thousand times, that he'd coached it lots of different ways and he'd even showed them videos of what they should have done. I stood, open mouthed wondering what he wanted me to say.

Thankfully, he turned away and continued to bark his coaching instructions before taking Joe and Matt off and making it clear it was because they'd, in his eyes, made a mistake.

This as I've said, got me thinking. Was he concerned about the score, or was it his coaching he was worried about?

We all have an ego. The "win at all costs" approach is driven by the ego. It's created by our own desire for achievement to, in turn, create self worth.

It's good that these days this approach is reducing. By no means disappearing but definitely reducing. However, our ego is still there. Pecking away and looking for ways to make us feel good or bad about ourselves. So, has win at all costs really started to disappear or has it been replaced by a desire to look like a brilliant coach?

It's easily argued that one approach is more desirable than the other but is the outcome any different? In both approaches the child is experiencing the adult's wants, needs and desires. Adult expectations, whether its to win or to play as they've been coached are just as damaging.

I give instructions from the sideline, but I have limited expectations of them and I am trying to reduce them all the time. However, I still feel the burden that maybe the parents are expecting more. Something else.

As coaches, we all feel like we should be able to influence the game. We see our counterparts on TV prowling the technical areas and yelling orders incessantly. Yet we wont accept this from parents.

We feel that their input, however correct or useful it may be at any given time is not required. Again, I feel this could be our ego being hurt. We want our instructions to be heard, our skills to be valued.

The very same coach told me he'd never heard any single parent, anywhere shout anything of worth yet I know that two years ago he was one of these parents and he always gave his pennyworth.

Where this leads me to is this. The game is not the ideal time for coaching. The kids want to play and the coach is not really in any position to initiate learning. Bring kids off by all means and coach then or let them watch to learn but yelling our expectations or suggestions is probably not helpful.

I'm going to try to be quiet, to take notes for half time or coaching sessions and enjoy what's going on

Our ego can't really be left at home but we can find ways of shutting it up.

Futsal and Youth Development

2016-01-21T17:18:00.000+00:00

Futsal and Youth Football

I've hesitated in writing this for a few months now but after spending sometime mulling the subject over, I thought I'd bite the bullet and suffer the flak that will inevitably find itself my way.

Twitter is my University of choice. It's where I find ideas and swap opinions with like minded fellow Football Coaches. It's amazing, I am constantly surprised at the level of resources out there and more importantly the generosity of many of the people I come across.

It's also chock full of people determined to see every exchange as a battle that must be won.

This is why I've hesitated. For months now I've been engaged in exchanges about Futsal and in particular why it's a great development tool. Throughout these discussions, I've asked one simple question: Why?

Now some have taken this innocuous enquiry at face value and tried to explain the reasons why they feel it works so well, some have just trotted well used phrases without much understanding and others have taken it as a personal affront to their world view, calling me and idiot, unqualified, inexperienced and more besides.

It's probably my fault. I'm genuinely interested in what shapes Football Development and like everyone, I have my own views. However, I'm not easily swayed by blasé statements and poorly thought out clichés. I like to see and question the evidence if possible.

So, I did.

For the last month, my Under Nine team have had training indoors. This was a great opportunity to test different approaches and In my way, work out what is going on.

Now, as my Twitter mates have pointed out, I am no expert. I have no expensive tools, just me and my mate keen to see what's happening.

We arranged our sessions as Whole, Part, Whole with 30 minutes traditional 5 aside, 20 minutes SSG with a theme and 30 minutes Futsal. We asked ourselves one question only. "How does Futsal differ to 5 aside in terms of player requirements"

This is the ball we used and what we found.

Time Restrictions

Futsal imposes time restrictions on goal keeper possession that 5 aside doesn't. This in itself requires the goalkeeper and outfield players to react quicker to the goalkeeper. Although both formats saw the keeper being used as a safety, Futsal kept the keeper and outfield players more alert. Fitness and decision making requirements were increased.

The Ball

My Under Nines hate the Futsal ball. When I asked them why, it was because they couldn't boot it the way they could a normal ball. Now this has some obvious impact on requirements. The ball rewards technical players who are comfortable with it at their feet. It punishes the players who boot it away or try wild speculative shots. Tactically, it rewards the team that can manipulate the ball through possession into better scoring areas. However, we also noticed that the players found it easier to control in certain situations.

It could also be argued that as the kids were not shooting from longer distances, this could negatively affect this technique.

Side lines

The pitch markings and side lines had a definite impact on requirements. Lots of the players suddenly found that their misplaced passes (out of play) and poor attempts just to get rid came back to punish them. A poorly placed pass quickly became an attacking opportunity for the opposition whereas in 5 aside, the boards are more forgiving of poor passes.

There was also a bigger requirement for wide players to keep the ball better and dribble better. A poor dribble in 5's could easily be made into a winning move. A poor one in Futsal meant you just lost the ball.

General

We found no difference in terms of creativity required in either format and sometimes found that 5 aside encouraged creativity via the use of the boards.

So, in our own little way, we did find some differences in Futsal. In summary, you seem to be rewarded better for mastering the ball. The ball encourages mastery, the time and side line restrictions reward the player with better control, decision making and team engagement.

Futsal is definitely not an individual game as some Youtube videos try to make out. It's also not full of flash tricks. The successful Futsal team will have mastered the ball, be disciplined, patient and fit and have a tactical fluidity and flexibility to manipulate the ball into great areas. These things translate into modern football.

These are the attributes a modern footballer needs and the England DNA Project is desperate to instil into our Youth players. Should we abandon other methods for Futsal? Probably not but it should be part of a footballers education. How much so, is up to you.

5 Aside is still great and still encourages lots of those requirements but Futsal enhances them.

So, let the flak begin!

Publishing Football Results does not effect Competitiveness

2015-12-10T12:24:00.000+00:00

The Football Association recently asked local FA's not to publish the results of Child Friendly matches. This seems like a simple request but oh no, like everything the FA tries to do it was criticised as much as applauded. More evidence of the seemingly impossible job the games custodians have.

In an age when virtually everyone has acknowledged that our National Game needs to evolve it seems that some cant see the wood for the trees.

The FA's comments were published in the press and quickly picked up by pundits and ex players and predictably, I've yet to see one positive comment from them and yet coaches Online seem to agree its a good step.

So what's the issue?

Currently, most County FA's play two phases of fixtures for Under Eleven teams. One Phase is Competitive and one Phase is "Non Competitive". Games in Non Competitive phases can not have results published anywhere. You'll still see teams put their results on Twitter etc but they shouldn't.

Results from the Competitive games can be published and are just as they always have been.

Why did the FA do this?

Well it seems like a great compromise based on evidence from young players stating "results mattered very little to them" although "competing and trying their best did matter".

Ask any Youth coach and they'll tell you that young players have mostly forgotten the result by the time they get home. However, what is also obvious is that the result matters greatly to most parents and some coaches.

So, results are, to a large extent an adult requirement that can skew priorities and development requirements. They effect how kids are developed.

Its relatively easy to win youth football matches but this has nothing to do with developing good footballers.

The FA is trying to change how kids are developed and decided to partly remove this adult requirement. This seems perfectly reasonable and positive.

Why has it not been readily accepted?

Probably because adults still want or need the crutch of a result to rest upon. I have yet to see a single child come out and say "Hey FA where have my results gone?" This negative feedback is 100% adult driven.

Who cares what adults think about this initiative? Its the kid's game not theirs.

Secondly, some famous pundits and ex players ( Shearer and Ferdinand ) and others have come out to say it reduces Competitiveness. As yet, I have seen zero evidence that this is true. Kids have a largely inherent sense of competition and the outcome is quickly moved on from ( not for adults ).

"Little Johnny, why didn't you challenge for the ball? No point coach the results are never in the paper"

I'd ask any of these dissenters to watch a youth match and tell me they are not competitive. The kids still challenge for every ball and attack to win the match. Not because the result will be in the paper but because that's the game and they want to do well.

So, we agree youth football needs to evolve, we have evidence the result is an adult issue and has no effect on competition but does allow kids to play in an environment they prefer and can develop in.

I for one applaud the FA for putting the child at the centre of the youth game. Sorry "Grown ups"

Live4footy

See more of the game.

There is something very wrong at Manchester United

2014-08-21T17:27:00.000+01:00

How long can the despair continue?

There is something very wrong at Manchester United.

Following Sir Alex Ferguson at Manchester United was always going to be difficult. Whoever took over, under whatever circumstances would never be able to measure up to his 25 years of success.

We all knew that but what we didn't know was the level of incompetence Sir Alex was managing to paper over. His ability to coax the title back from City now looks nothing short of a miracle. It's only when Sir Alex surprised everyone and decided to leave that this incompetence has been laid bare for everyone to see.

It could even be argued that some of the blame must lie with Sir Alex but we can't really be sure.

For some time, this blog has bemoaned Ferguson's lack of quality signings towards the end of his tenure. This was particularly evident in Midfield.

A midfield that has looked lightweight and lacking quality for more than 5 years. Ferguson was never able to adequately replace Scholes or Keane and United have suffered ever since they left.

So after half a decade of mismanaging team requirements Ferguson handed over to Moyes. In hindsight, this looks like a huge mistake. The board seemed to allow Ferguson to appoint his successor without Due Diligence or regard for other more qualified candidates that would have been available.

If Van Gaal is the man to see United forward now, why was he not approached 2 years ago? Why was Mourinho not sought when he was available and why were many other far more qualified candidates not looked at?

Is it possible that Ferguson's mismanagement has ruined the club he did so much to build?

I believe some of the blame must rest with Sir Alex. Anyone who pays a fortune for Zaha and sees Jones and Smalling as heirs to Vidic and Ferdinand must have lost the plot.

However, the blame doesn't stop there. Overseeing all this are the Glazers. Forget the debt and forget their nationality. They just don't seem to be making very good "Football" decisions. Since they arrived, United's commercial earnings and ventures have sky rocketed but on the pitch matters have deteriorated.

Strangely, the problem hasn't been a lack of money. Oh no, take a look at this list of superstars to understand that its where its been spent that's the problem.

Bebe
Lindegaard
Jones
Smalling
Young
Powell
Buttner
Zaha
Varela - Who? look it up!
Fellaini

And Juan Mata for a record £37 million. Jury still out?

This is over a period when United chased and lost Fabregas, Thiago, Schneider, Lewandowski, Sweinsteiger, Kroos, Reus and Gareth Bale. Since Ronaldo left, United have not been able to attract any player of quality.

United's rivals on the other hand managed to attract the following: Fabregas, Suarez, Sturridge, Costa, Luis, Willian, Zouma, Oscar, Hazard, Aguero and Courtois.

At best United have hoped that signings with potential will come good. At worst they have been guilty of woeful neglect.

Ask yourselves which current United player would get a game every week at City or Chelsea or even Liverpool?

That's the crux of the matter. United as a squad and as a first team are not good enough. Their position in the league last year was about right for the squad. Fergie knew it, did nothing then left. Moyes knew it but couldn't attract quality and Van Gaal knows it but is 2 years behind everyone else and can't offer European Football.

Who's to blame is not really the point though. The issue is can it be rectified?

Not with United's current ownership and directors. A root and branch change is required like at Liverpool and Van Gaal is heading for a rocky ride. His attention to detail will help but the clubs incompetence with soon drive him mad.

Sparks will fly.

Frank Lampard Plays For England Shock!

2014-06-24T13:53:00.000+01:00

Frank Lampard

Frank Lampard Plays For England Shock!

With all that is wrong with England at the moment it seems strange that journalists and fan's have questioned Lampard playing against Costa Rica.

"England games shouldn't be seen as testimonials" cries one expert, "Play the kids" demands another. How ridiculous.

Despite England failing to live up to the lowest of expectations at this World Cup and being woeful in both games, the only thing we've got angry about is one of our established players being picked for the final game. unless this is a serious attempt to deflect any real blame from the current National set-up I'm confused by the commotion.

Firstly, no one complained when Lampard was picked for the squad.

In fact, I remember many fan's and experts insisting he should go to bring back up for Gerrard and guidance for the youngsters. He's Vice Captain for Christ's sake. So, if he is good enough for the squad, then he's good enough to play in a meaningless game against a team that has already qualified.

Secondly, who else are you going to play?

We've just spent the best part of two weeks complaining about Henderson's lack of quality and guess what, he's been dropped. So well done, you've got your way there. His club mate, Gerrard, the poor sod, has received so much criticism he looks a haunted and broken man. This years Premier League exertions have definitely taken a physical and it seems emotional toll. So, well done, he's been dropped as well.

So none of you wanted Henderson or Gerrard. Who did you want? Wilshire?

Jacks in, so you've got your way there as well.

So bearing in mind England have picked a 4231 system and are sticking with it who's the second midfielder?

Phil Jones?

Nope, he's needed at right back because we didn't bring a replacement for Glen Johnson. Oh and have you seen him in midfield for United this year?

Right, so we get to the point. Lampard was chosen in the squad as cover for Gerrard. Steve is not playing so surprise, surprise, Frank gets a game.

It's nothing to do Testimonials or saying good-bye. Its nothing to do with giving the kids a chance. The fact is that Frank Lampard is the best replacement in that position.

There will be plenty of time to have a pop at England's World Cup performance once the players scuttle off on holiday but let's not make up issues to try to paper over the cracks.

Live4footy.

See more of the game.

England Versus Uruguay Team Formation

2014-06-19T07:34:00.003+01:00

England versus Uruguay Formation

Its been nearly a week now since England fell to Italy in their first group match of the 2014 World Cup. We explained in our last edition Should England Drop Wayne Rooney? the real reasons England failed and today we show what the England Versus Uruguay Formation should look like.

It's a must win game for both teams so expect either a cagey affair with so much at stake or both teams slugging it out toe to toe. We've taken both situations into account and built a team to get the performance from the personnel available. Oh and yes, Rooney does start!

England Versus Uruguay Formation

As we showed last time, England's downfall was a ridiculous selection of four forwards who all gravitated to the centre of the pitch. This was a classic case of picking players and then worrying about a system. None of them had the discipline to do the job they were picked for and they ended up stifling each other.

So, what's the thinking behind the changes?

Well, firstly, we see no reason for two holding midfielders. Unless we are so worried about Gerrard that he needs extra protection himself. If that's the case, then don't play him. However, we feel he is more than able to protect the back four and intelligently dictate the play ahead of him.

The midfield and attack need a link though. We've replaced Henderson with Wilshire to introduce this player. Wilshire is far more creative and can coax the best out of the attacking options.

At right back, we've replaced Johnson with Jones. A bit harsh this one but we feel Jones gives more solidity and dynamism on the overlap. In front of Jones we bring in Milner for Welbeck. England do not need more attacking options if Wilshire is creating better openings, but discipline is required in ensuring we have the option of width. Neither Welbeck, Rooney, Sterling or Sturridge offered this against Italy.

Milner also provides defensive cover when required and can be switched with Sterling on either flank.

The final, much debated change is just swapping Rooney and Sterling. Wayne is by far a better number ten than Raheem and Raheem is a better winger than Wayne. It's a no brainier. Rooney scores goals for club and country when played down the middle. Let him go for it. Sterling will trouble any fullback with his pace and trickery and can drift inside whenever he wants.

So, we've added discipline, creativity, defensive stability and potency without taking anything away from the positives we all saw on Saturday.

The only other thing we need is Suarez's knee to fall to pieces!

What, would you change?

Live4footy.
See more of the game.

Should England Drop Wayne Rooney?

2014-06-16T17:18:00.000+01:00

Should England drop Wayne Rooney?

Predictably, as the final whistle blew on England' s defeat to Italy, Twitter exploded with abuse for Wayne Rooney.

In typical British fashion, the same press that has spent a decade building Rooney into England's talisman couldn't wait to join in and lay the blame for the whole sorry result at his feet.

Club allegiances surfaced and idiots on Social Media everywhere insisted Wayne didn't bring anything to the game and should be dropped.

We don't deal in knee-jerk reactions though so let's take a closer look at see if the criticism is worthwhile.

So, should England drop Wayne Rooney?

The arguments seem to revolve around the following issues:

Sterling deserves the Number Ten Role.

After such a fantastic season for Liverpool, Raheem Sterling deserves his place in the England squad. However, is he a better Number Ten than Rooney?

Well, there is no point comparing International careers so lets look at this years Premier League. A year when Liverpool were lauded as a potent attacking force and United had their worst Premier League season ever.

Sterling played 4 more games than Rooney but Wayne scored twice as many goals and created twice as many assists. Wayne also provided a third more crosses than Raheem did. Both players can and were played out wide for their teams but Wayne was obviously the most effective.

Raheem Sterling is not England's best Number Ten. Wayne Rooney is.

Sturridge is a better Number Nine.

Daniel Sturridge has had a wonderful season for Liverpool and Hodgson is correct to play the man in form. However, Sturridge does not stand head and shoulders above Rooney.

Both have played 29 games this season and Sturridge pips Wayne for scoring by only 4 goals. Four!

I thought Sturridge had been excellent in an exciting, pulsating team and Rooney had been awful in the worst United team for 25 years?

Wayne also provided more assists and more crosses.

You also need to remember that Wayne has a track record that made Chelsea offer £30 million for him yet Chelsea also offloaded Sturridge even when they were desperate for a striker.

Does one excellent season make Daniel a better Number Nine then Rooney?

These two points lead to the real issue England faced against Italy.

Wayne Rooney is his own worst enemy. He has committed to England like no other player for the last ten years. For club and country he will play anywhere he is asked regardless of how it makes him look. He will do the job required of him despite knowing he could do a better job elsewhere.

No one seems to have spotted the obvious problem that plagued England against Italy. Everyone kept asking should it be Rooney or Sturridge or Rooney or Sterling or even Rooney or Welbeck.

That in itself was the problem!

England played with two Centre Forwards and two Number Tens!

The only person at fault for this was Roy Hodgson.

England Average Position vs Italy

Just take a quick look at the above FIFA Average Position map and you will see just how ridiculous the formation was. All four Attacking options crowded a small area of the pitch. No doubt stifling each other. This lack of thinking was the main reason England failed.

Today I've listened to the likes of Henry Winter and Stan Collymore taking pride in how England attacked with pace and creativity but they both feel that this was down to Sturridge, Welbeck, Sterling and Barkley when he came on as substitute. Neither of them are happy to praise the contribution Rooney made. This is so unfair and grossly inaccurate.

No one covered more ground than Rooney at 11223 meters ran and only Sterling had more shots. Let's face it, despite being supposedly played out of position ( not true as you can see from the average formation ) Rooney played the one ball that was of sufficient quality to be converted. He also completed as many passes as any of the attacking four.

Rooney deserves to be played through the middle. Ideally as the number Nine. Let him have his go and see what happens. The coaching staff should be able to judge in training and games who merits the position. If Rooney doesn't deserve it then great. Just don't go trying to shoe horn him in somewhere else. Don't try fitting four attackers into two spaces. It won't work. Think of the team not the individuals.

Football changes and evolves constantly but take a look at history. Would we have played Shearer or Lineker or even Sheringham out on the left wing? No, your goalscorer goes up top through the middle.

Wayne Rooney should not be dropped. He should be played where he can effect the game.

So in the end, it wasn't the personnel but the strategy that led to England's downfall. Indeed, there were some positives to take from the game but the whole team made mistakes. Poor defensive cover, poor finishing, poor use of the attacking third, poor awareness to be sold a dummy on the edge of the box, oh and did anyone notice that neither of our defensive midfielders actually made a single tackle?

In football, it's usually the team that makes less mistakes that wins and when you lose, you lose as a team. It's time that we stopped singling out individuals and looked at the bigger picture.

When it comes to football you need to take a closer look.

Live4footy.

See more of the game.

The winner of The 2014 World Cup is...

2014-05-21T23:57:00.000+01:00

Psst. Do you want to know who's going to win the world Cup?

Would you like a sure fire way of beating the Bookies?

Read on you lucky man...

Every bookmaker currently has Brazil as their favourite to win the World Cup. You can get 3 to 1 if you hurry. Why are they favourites though? What makes them so special?

I've delved into the World Cup statistics to find the factors that really matter. The ones that over the last 19 World Cups have made a difference. They are fascinating and do lead you to a clear winner. Is it Brazil though?

From a statistical point of view the following factors provide the best indicator of a World
Cup Winner. The Continent where the tournament is played, FIFA Rankings from just before the tournament and the average age of the team.

Continent

By far, this has been the biggest indicator. you can pretty much guarantee that the winner will come from South America.

15 out of the 19 World Cups have been won by a team from the continent that the tournament was played in. That's nearly 79%

But that's not all.

All six tournaments that have been played in South America have been won by a South
American team. That's 100%

Also, of the 4 World Cups won outside of the continent, Brazil took 3.

FIFA Rankings

We only have rankings for the last 5 World Cups but there is a strong correlation here. In 1994, 2002 and 2010 the winners were placed no lower than 2nd in the previous months rankings. That's a 60% hit rate. Overall, its never gone to anyone outside the top 18.

Average Team Age

Much has been made of England's young squad but lets face it, this could mean nothing if Shaw and Barkley don't actually play. The squad age can mislead you as most wont get a game. The real indicator is the age of the final eleven.

In all World Cups, the average age of the winning eleven is 27.6 years. Remember this number.

So, we know its definitely going to be someone from South America, they are going to be highly placed in the rankings and probably peaking rather than falling. Finally their team will be about 27.6 years old.

The highest ranked South American team is, yes you guessed it, BRAZIL. Oh and their team's average age? 27.7 years!

Brazil are also the only team in the top twenty of the Rankings to have moved up in the last month. They are improving while others have stood still.

Add to that only 4 teams have competed for 34 out of the 38 final spots and one are Brazil and out of 12 finalists in 6 South American Finals 8 where from South America it all starts to look nailed on.

So how does 3 to 1 look now?

There is one glimmer of hope though. Brazil got to the final of the only previous World Cup played in Brazil... and lost!

The Best Football Fact Ever.

2014-05-21T20:47:00.001+01:00

Ryan Giggs has finally given up the ghost and hung up his Reeboks. Great news for defenders everywhere.

The announcement has thrown up stats galore. One stuck with me as probably the greatest stat I've ever seen. It's simply mind boggling.

Here it is:

Ryan Giggs has played at the top level for so long that if George Best had played for the same amount of time he'd have played under Alex Ferguson.

That is an amazing piece of information. Do you agree or can you top that?

Enjoy your retirement Ryan. Although I think you've got a very busy season around the corner.

Wilfred Zaha - an epilogue

2014-05-21T20:38:00.000+01:00

Things don't always turn out as you wish. It's a shame really. The boy with the world at his feet has taken more backward steps recently.

It just goes to show that pace, skill and a big head aren't all that's required to make it as a top level professional footballer.

After announcing to the world that he was the next great thing Wilfred Zaha has gone backwards. It was never meant to be this way...

After Fergie mindlessly blew £15 million on the self appointed teenage protege, Wilfred must have thought he'd made it. The biggest club in Britain wanted him.

Unfortunately, no one told him Fergie was retiring and handing over to Mr Moyes. After bit parts in early games Zaha was shipped off to lowly Cardiff.

This is the guy who wanted to show Premiership defenders how good he was. So, how did he do?

Well he only managed to play 15 games all season netting...never. This gives him an awesome career of 138 games in total and 18 goals. Yep 18. Defences everywhere must be quaking.

There is obviously something lacking or maybe he's had far too much too early. He's still young though and could still come good.

Thing is, I doubt it!

Mr Ibrahimovic's World Cup

2013-11-20T18:54:00.000+00:00

What will Zlatan be doing next summer?

So, after being beaten by Ronaldo in the World Cup Play-off, Zlatan Ibrahimovic reckons "the World Cup will be nothing without him."

Most impartial fans would probably agree and it's a shame that both Sweden and Portugal couldn't both be there next year. However, I think he's missed the point.

If he was that good we would be seeing him next year.

Ibrahimovic had the tag of "Flat Track Bully" way before Ronaldo did and his Portuguese counterpart seems to be doing all he can to ditch that tag.

Zlatan's scoring record is an impressive one in two but his career has a major glitch. He could have played in 3 World Cups already but Sweden only qualified for 2 and guess what. He failed to score at either of them. In fact, in one he was blamed for being greedy and missing when he could have squared the ball for a simple tap in. This led to Sweden's early elimination.

So, on the greatest of stages, he has failed to live up to his own hype.

True greats do light up the World Cup. You only need to think of Pele, Maradona, the original Ronaldo and Zico but Zlatan has had 2 goes and has failed miserably each time. Was he wishing for third time lucky?

Individuals never win tournaments, teams do.

Maybe he had his comments the wrong way around. Maybe Zlatan is nothing without the World Cup?

Enjoy your summer...

2 lessons for Mr Zaha

2012-11-15T09:48:00.001+00:00

Earlier this week I posted about how foolish Wilfried Zaha had been with his comments after being selected for the full England squad.

After watching the game last night I think Zaha should learn from 2 glaring lessons.

1. Take a good long look at Leon Osman. Although 31, he took his call up with humility, determination and a fair amount of capability.

No mouthing off from him. Osman applied himself well and was a plus point for England.

Will he get another game? Maybe not but you could tell he deserved his chance and was incredibly proud.

2. If you can't be humble and proud to represent England then you need to be able to back up your mouth.

Ibrahimovich has a massive ego but his brilliance matches it.

Zaha had a small cameo role but looked so out of place I felt sorry for him.

Time is on Zaha side and maybe not on Osman's so let's hope he can learn some lessons.

If he can't or won't, I'm more than happy for him to take his other option and chose the Ivory Coast.

Having said that, he's not good enough for them yet either...

Hodgson, we have a problem...

2012-11-13T14:35:00.003+00:00

Our new Saviour?

It's great to see Roy blooding some new talent in this weeks friendly against Sweden. Our "Golden Generation" needs replacing.

However, I have a couple of problems with one of those about to be blooded.

Step forward Mr Wilfried Zaha. Our new, self appointed saviour.

Zaha is indeed a very exciting prospect and one who I hope goes on to fulfil his potential and I love a player who is confident in his ability but who on earth does he think he is?

Rather than accepting his call up with humility, his first act is to let everyone know how good he feels he is.

"I want to come up against defenders who will properly test me," he said to the Guardian.

Well he already is being tested week in week out. After his 17 starts this season he's scored a measly 4 goals. Maybe he should try to test himself first.

"I'd never look at someone and think he's better than me, unless it's Cristiano Ronaldo or Lionel Messi. When I get on the pitch it's my time."

I love the confidence but this is typical of today's footballers. Superstars by the age of 20 and he doesn't even play in the Premier League.

All the above can be put down to youthful bravado and like I've already said, I hope he goes on to be a great.

However, here is my real problem.

"It's 50-50 at the moment, " he told the Daily Mail. "I've been with England Under-21s and now I will have to make a decision."

The guy doesn't even know if he wants to play for England in the future. I'm sorry Roy but this is the one reason to send his ass packing back to the Championship!

Fan's and Roy should want players to be desperate to represent their country not someone who's 50/50.

I have criticised Sir Alex Ferguson in the past for not bolstering his midfield with the likes of Van der Vaart and Ballack but Fergie made a great point. He will only sign players who are desperate to play for United. They, and their agents, need to be knocking down his door to get looked at.

Van Persie went to United because it was his boyhood dream. That's what managers need from their players commitment, desire and spirit. Zaha seems to possess none of this.

I hope he realises what an honour it is to play for England and I hope he shows us how good he is. But at the moment, I'm 50/50 as to whether he should ever be allowed near the team at all.

Am I being naive?