Gaining Territory v. Possession: Part III (El Clasico thoughts)

If you watched El Clasico, you witnessed Barcelona concede a goal in the first 23 seconds.  Real Madrid decided to press high, knowing that Barcelona rarely hoofs the ball up the field.  In an effort to frustrate Barca's rhythm, Madrid pressed all the way to the keeper, disrupting Barca's attempts to play it out from the back.  In the first gasp of the game, the ball was played back to Valdes (Barca GK) who played it back to Puyol (Barca back) who played it right back to Valdez.  Then, Valdes tried to switch the field but angled the pass right to Di Maria for Madrid - 3 touches later, goal.

Some will point to this as evidence that Barca plays possession ball to its detriment.  Surely, when a team as skilled as Real Madrid decides on a course of pressing, including pressing the keeper, the keeper should just hoof it up the field.  Did Barca alter course after the Valdez mishap?  Were his teammates frustrated?  No and no.  I think Barca's response to the early hole showed its commitment to its system as well as a team spirit that Madrid lacked.

In regard to its system, after the game interviews revealed that Captain Puyol told Valdez immediately after the event to "Carry on, Victor."  Guardiola said:

The perfect image of this game was that after the goal Victor Valdes continued playing the ball. Real Madrid steamroll[ed] you. Most goalkeepers  would boot it. But Victor kept playing the ball. I prefer to lose the ball like that but give continuity to our play. 

Xavi called Victor's conduct as "brave."  Sid Lowe, writer for The Guardian, says "a brave player is the one who loses the ball three times and still wants it; who keeps attacking. The goalkeeper who makes the biggest mistake on earth -- and doesn't take the easy, if short term, way out. The team that have the courage of their convictions."

Lowe notes that Barcelona passes to their keeper more than any team in La Liga.  He also notes that Valdes attempts fewer long passes than any player in La Liga.  At the same time, Valdes has the highest league passing accuracy at 85%.  Lowe concludes:

So Valdes passed the ball. And so did Barcelona. Even as Madrid pressured high, Barcelona continued to take risks -- not taking them is riskier yet; for Barca, a big hoof just means the ball comes back again, at the opposition's feet...Valdes's mistake threatened to change everything but it changed nothing. On Saturday night, Barcelona did what Barcelona do. They won. (with emphasis)

Lowe doesn't mention attitude in his post, other than to say the Barca players supported Valdes after the error rather than blame or cuss.  Madrid, on the other hand, seemed to lack that team spirit.  I noticed several times during the match that players were upset with each other.  Go back and watch Di Maria's body language when Ronaldo attempted a shot well wide.  Di Maria was unmarked.  He was clearly, demonstratively upset.  There were other instances too.  On the other hand, Barca, playing from behind from the first minute on, rallied around each other.  Just something I noticed.

Information for this post was taken from a great post by Sid Lowe from The Guardian.  To read the post, click Victor Valdes epitomizes Barcelona's bravery as Real Madrid falter.

Barca Playing 3 Fullbacks?

After watching El Clasico, it appeared that Barcelona altered the shape of their defense.  One of my favorite soccer writers, Jonathan Wilson, wrote an article about the change to a 3-1-4-2 in an article for The Guardian.  He also writes for SI and has a similar piece there.  Here are the two links:

Is the 3-1-4-2 Formation on the Rise?

Guardiola's tactical switch swings clasico in favor of Barcelona

Wilson starts by stating that tactics do make a difference.  For those that think "the best players" win out all the time, the history of the game is replete with examples of tactical evolution and examples of advantage gained from the same.  Wilson is a student of the tactical changes in soccer and outlines them in his book Inverting the Pyramid.  I summarized some of his ideas on possession style football versus kick and rush in the blog post here on  Soccer Thoughts titled "Gaining Territory v. Possession: Part I."  

In El Clasico, the big change was Barca pushing their Right Back up (Alves -- who Wilson says is more comfortable in attack anyway) and pushing one center back to right back to cover (Puyol) while using a holding mid (Sergio Busquets) to drop as additional center back when need be.  Wilson calls this a back line of 3 1/2.  Puyol then was able to handle Ronaldo and Busquets could move up and back as holding mid/center back to mark Ozil.  

Wilson's book Inverting highlights every major shift in tactics all across the world.  Are we seeing another change now?  

Gaining Territory v. Possession: Part II

As outlined in the prior post, kick and rush soccer, which has infiltrated every layer of American soccer, had its beginnings in England and, though justified with faulty statistical analysis, has spread throughout the world.  While there are likely times when, because of the skill level of the respective teams (meaning, when there is large discrepancy in skill level of players on one team that is playing another), less possessive tactical strategies may be required, consider the following statements of soccer "Style and Principles of Play":


Style of Play-Specific
1.  Technical. Passing the ball on the ground with pace from different distances and receiving the ball while keeping it moving will be encourage in all age groups.
2.  Ball Control and Turning.  Players will be encouraged to keep close control of the ball and use different turning techniques to move away from a defender.  


Tactical
1.  Playing Out from the Back.  All teams must feel comfortable playing the ball from the back through the midfield and from there to the final quarter of the field. 
2.  Possession & Transition.  All teams must try to keep possession of the ball playing a one-two touch game. Players will be encouraged to support and move, thus creating passing options. Once the possession game is consolidated the team must learn how to transfer the ball in the most efficient way from one area of the field to another.  (I added emphasis here because it seems that they want us to develop ball control and possession passing before long ball).  


Principles of Play
1.  1,2, or 3 touch maximum. Minimizing the number of touches improves the speed of play.
2.  Keep the game simple. Do not force situations, over-dribble or be careless with the ball (kickball).  
3.  Keep the ball on the ground.  A ball on the ground is easier to control and can be moved more efficiently by the team.
4.  Accuracy and quality of the pass.  Passing must be firm and accurate, with the proper weight.
5.  First touch.  Make a clean, controlled first touch without stopping the ball. Take the touch away from pressure and into free space.
6.  Perception and awareness.  All players with or without the ball should constantly scan the field.
7.  1v1 situations.  Encourage determination to regain control of the ball in defense and keep it simple in attack by taking a touch to the side, at speed, to beat a defender.
8.  Individual transition.  Players must react quickly when possession change from offense to defense and vice-versa.
9.  Shooting.  Always keep an eye on the goal.  All players are encouraged to shoot.
10.  Take risks.  Soccer is an error prone sport and mistakes are part of the game and learning process.  Players are encouraged to take risks in training session to increase the speed of play.  1
(U.S. Soccer Curriculum, Style and Principles of Play, p.2-3)


You may think from the style and principles outlined, that those are guidelines for Spain, not the U.S.  But these are our new youth coaching guidelines.  Why are these our guidelines?  As Spain demonstrated in the World Cup, possession soccer isn't just cute, it wins.  


But in my experience, most youth soccer locally, from recreation to competitive to high school, is based on the kick and rush model rather than the style described above.  Why?  I think one of the problems is that we focus too much on the result at young ages when we should be focused on player development.  In desperate attempts to win matches, players are pigeon-holed into specific positions and assignments, like winning the ball and kicking up to a fast forward.  It works.  With little or no change, kids develop habits and, later on, are then asked to change them.  That is not so easy.  


I appreciate and respect all of the time that coaches give for youth sports.  But, is it helpful to a 8 year old to play fullback all season with the instruction to kick it as hard as he can to a fast forward?  While that does work and should be a part of the game, it should not be the only part of the game.  One of our local coaches that I admire (Chris Carter), who was previously a basketball coach, puts it this way:  "You need to be able to fast break, but you don't fast break an entire game."  To finish the basketball analogy, you also need a half-court offense.  Or, to put it in soccer speak, a soccer team should be able to play an over-the-top through style (long ball), but it should not be their only style.  


Most of the objections come from people who believe that the system described above is too hard for kids. But, as noted on the principles above, a ball on the ground played to a young player is easier to handle than a lofted ball from longer distance.  


Here's hoping we embrace the paradigm shift from U.S. Youth Soccer in Southeast Texas.  

Gaining Territory v. Possession: Part I

There exist in soccer talking circles and coaching philosophy a tug of war between maintaining possession with short, grounded passing versus gaining territory with long, lofted kicks up the field.  Debate has raged beginning in the 1860s when the Scots used a passing approach to get around the heavier English players, through the 20th century (Reep's English kick and rush versus Hogan-Meisl-Lobanovsky-Cruyff's possession).  In youth soccer, the kick and rush approach, referred to as "lumping" the ball up the field,  predominates. 


In the book Inverting the Pyramid: The History of Football Tactics (Orion, 2008) Jonathan Wilson details the evolution of soccer formations, offside theories, attacking theories (and defensive), as well as rule changes effecting those tactics.  In the first international, he notes England played a 1-2-7 while the more diminutive Scots played a 2-2-6.  Of course, we are most accustomed to 4-4-2 (although 4-5-1 becoming increasingly common).  Player sizes were more relevant to the press than skill.  Because the Scots were smaller, they employed a passing game to get around the larger Brits.  The press was more interested in size of the players than their skill.  The Scots' offside rule, last defender plus no offsides unless beyond 15 yard line, encouraged the development of a passing style. While it was generally rejected by the English, many of the early coaches who espoused the passing game had their beginning in Scotland.


In England, the advanced coaches of the day were ignored.  That is why Jimmy Hogan, considered "the most influential coach there has ever been" had to travel outside of England to find work.  He was the first to incorporate use of the ball during training -- prior to him, training was focused on running distance and sprints.  "Give a player a ball during the week, ran the reasoning, and he would not be so hungry for it on Saturday."  (Inverting, p.27).  Hogan, on the other hand, felt the key to success was ball control.  The only way to acquire ball control was to practice with the ball.  


Hogan's views were spread through Continental Europe through coaching stints in Holland and Austria. In Austria, hired by Meisl in 1912, Hogan taught "that swift combinations of passes were preferable to dribbling, and that individual technique was crucial."  (Inverting, p. 30).  "Hogan was also keen to express the value of the long pass to unsettle opposing defenses, provided it were well-directed and not an aimless upfield punt...He was not an evangelist for the passing game through any quixotic notion of what was right; he simply believed that the best way to win matches was to retain possession."  (Inverting, p. 30).  Meisl used Hogan's ideas to develop the Austrian Wunderteam.  Valerie Lobanovsky used science to develop a system of interchanging players at Dynamo Kyiv.


In Holland, TOTAL football emerged in the late 60s and early 70s at Ajax.  The term "total football" came later and symbolized an understanding of the relationship of all the players to each other.  TOTAL football developed with systemic interchanging of positions in the course of attack.  Attack, though, was at its core.  "Attack is and remains, the best form of defense."  Vic Buckingham, the Ajax coach prior to Michaels, stated:

Possession football is the thing, no kick and rush. Long ball football is too risky. Most of the time what pays off is educated skills. If you've got the ball, keep it. The other side cannot score.  Brilliant Orange: The Neurotic Genius of Dutch Football, David Winner, 2000, p. 11.

The staple of the Ajax system was fluid player movement, allowing everyone the right of attack, combined with an aggressive offside trap (making the field smaller while on defense) and pressing on defense. 


As the possession game blossomed in Continental Europe, England lagged behind with "fast, spirited attacks."  Meisl noted that their passing was "swift and high" and lacking in precision.  (Inverting, 63). Meisl's ideas were transferred to Hungary and formed the basis of their 1950s domination, including the 1953 6-3 defeat of England in London that demoralized the English fans.  For once, the English started to realize the limits of their system of play.  


Nevertheless, England won the World Cup in 1966 utilizing a kick and rush system that relished the counter attack.  Some say it was that victory that set England back decades.  Two of the most influential English minds on "territory football" were Stan Cullis, manager at Wolverhampton, and Charles Reep.  They turned the Hungary defeat on its head to develop the core of the English footballing philosophy persisted into the mid-1990s (and still exists in areas today).  The basic principle of territory football is set out by Stan Cullis in this statement:

The number of scoring chances which will arrive during the course of a match is in direct proportion to the amount of time the ball spends in front of the goal. If the defenders in the Wolves team delay their clearances, the ball will be in front of our goal for too long a period and the scoring chances will go to the other side. If too much time is spent in building up our own attacks, the ball will spend less time in the other team's penalty area and, of course, we shall score fewer goals.  Inverting, p. 138.

He concluded that long passes into the other team's penalty area is the quickest way to move the ball there, thus improving the odds of scoring a goal (based on the theory above).  Reeps coupled that with the notion that, according to a crude statistical survey he conducted, 91.5% of moves in a soccer game are done in 3 passes or less, and, correspondingly, 80% of all goals are scored with 3 passes or less.  He then concludes that it is inefficient to make more than 3 passes to obtain a goal, hence the emphasis on long balls (what I call gaining territory).  


His theories were accepted throughout England. The 1966 World Cup victory justified their acceptance. Reeps played a major role in the F.A. and determining the training and philosophy of the national team.  It wasn't until years later, as noted in Inverting, was actual science applied to his theories.  For example, if 91.5 % of all moves are done in 3 passes or less, and if 80% of all goals are scored in 3 passes or less, then there is evidence that passing 3 or more times is more efficient at producing goals, not less.  Since only 8.5% of moves are done in 3 passes or more, 8.5% of the soccer moves are producing 20% of the goals.  Wilson concludes:

It is, frankly, horrifying that a philosophy founded on such a basic misinterpretation of figures could have been allowed to become a cornerstone of English coaching. Anti-intellectualism is one thing, but faith in wrong-headed pseudo-intellectualism is far worse. Inverting, p. 141.

So, therein lies the rub.  Do you opt for more territory via long passing, or do you set up your scoring opportunities with short passes, mainly on the ground.  Having coached youth for a while, one of the hardest things to control are the parents.  While I may be emphasizing short passing and control, parents are telling their kid to boot it up the field.  In a playoff game, after repeatedly losing possession off of goal kicks, I instructed my keeper to play the ball short to a handler who moved it up the field.  I received an earful from an "informed" parent -- the same parent that wanted every kickoff to be booted as far down the field as possible.  In Part II, the discussion will continue with a look at how these competing philosophies play out in youth soccer (the Reeps model seems to be the most prevalent here).  Cheers.   

"Go on son, take him on"

As I noted in a prior post, I think over-emphasizing the pass at young ages can retard development of a soccer player.  Kids at young ages need to have time with the ball.  Opportunities to create must be allowed.  If we over-emphasize the pass, kids will lose the opportunities and time to create with the ball, especially in "competitive" formats (i.e., games) that are necessary to build confidence with the ball.  


At the same time, I am in love with with the possession game and encourage my players to make shorter passes with the ball on the ground rather than longer balls.  However, even then, I am working hard to allow the boys time on the ball and not to stifle their creativity.  


Our new US Youth technical director, Claudio Reyna, says we focus too much on the result of weekly games -- that they are "do or die."  He continued, 

“At Barcelona, they are about educating players, and winning takes care of itself. I believe it makes an impact when players can develop in a calm and proper environment, not being judged on whether you win games all the time. They are just looking for players with soccer brains.”  

When I reviewed the curriculum for the new US Youth Coaching Paradigm, it started de-emphasizing dribbling at age 7.  That is too young.   I included this quote from a trainer at La Masia, Barcelona's renown youth training academy:  

"Their (Barcelona) Academy coach Carlos Rexach reveals ... 'Above all what we are after is a boy who is good with the ball and then we hope he becomes strong physically. Other academies tend to look for athletes they can turn into footballers. Most coaches, when they see a kid who dribbles a lot they tell him to stop and pass the ball.  Here (Barcelona) they do the opposite. We tell them to continue so that they get even better at dribbling.  It's only when the kid develops that we start teaching them the passing game.'"  (Arsenal: The Making of a Modern Superclub, Page 68).

One of the, if not the, most successful youth academy in England is near Newcastle.  The Wallsend junior football club has produced 67 professional players, five of whom have represented their country.  The current club president, Peter Kirkley, who has been with the program for 40 years, noted that the junior club was not formed to create professional players but to "give local lads and lasses a game of football, help them grow and love the sport."    The club emphasizes punctuality, politeness, and discipline.  And, what they teach has been referred to as the Wallsend Way -- love of the ball.


Rather than focus on kick and rush, the club emphasizes adventure and skill.  Kirkley had this to say about the current teaching model at other academies: 

"I was involved in Newcastle's youth set-up for years, and I don't think any kid they signed at eight has ever made it through to 16, never mind the first team. I go to academy matches and all I hear from the coaches is 'pass, pass, pass'. I long to hear someone say: 'go on son, take him on.'

My worry is that academies are producing automatons. That's why they come here and get our lads later. They need players who are still in love with the game. Who have a bit of imagination. That's what we do.  We don't manufacture pros. We help people love the game."

I love his comments about helping kids love the game.  I think the early ages, up to early teens, are the best times for kids to learn to "love the ball."  They pick up things quickly at that age.  I am now having to go back and re-focus on dribbling with a son who I overemphasized passing.  I can now see the beauty of the US Youth setup - 3v3, then 4v4, then 6v6...11v11.  The idea is to give kids touches on the ball.  But, training and games are not enough.


With some kids, I have to remind them to take the 1v1 opportunities.  Whatever quality that a player can make on a pass in front of the defense is magnified if that player, rather than passing at the first sign of pressure, beats a defender and then serves a ball to the teammate.  By that time, covering defenders are required to move to the attacker creating gaps in the defensive line.  I had the luxury of coaching a girl (Macy Chilton) that excelled at 1v1 match-ups and, as a result, lead our squad in assists.  While many people see her obvious talent at goal scoring, her ability to beat defenders opens defenses creating opportunities for her teammates to score with less pressure.  


Just imagine:  Attacker with ball makes pass in front of defensive line.  The quality (depth, pace, angle, height) of the pass must be perfect.  Contrast that scenario with one where the attacker beats the marking defender, getting behind the defense, then delivers a pass.  The danger to the defending team in the latter example is heightened; the quality of the service by the attacker usually requires less precision (as it did before the defensive line) as openings have been created by the defense to cover the beat defender.  Keith Barrow, Nederland HS girls soccer  coach, reminded me that "soccer is all about the 1v1 situations."  


So, while we teach and encourage players to play short, keep the ball on the ground, use 2v1 passing, etc., let's also remember to tell players to "go on son (or daughter), take him on."  


Quotes form Kirkley taken from The Daily Telegraph,  26 Oct. 2011,  No End in Sight for Wallsend Production Line.  Quotes from Claudio Reyna were taken from The New York Times, May 26, 2011, La Masia, a Model for Cultivating Soccer Players.

It's Not the Trainer's Fault

One of the last conversations that I had with Jan van Beveren was about misplaced expectations.  A parent approached him regarding their child who was training at SSSC where Jan was Director of Training.  Jan was asked what he was going to do to get this talented 9 year old a college scholarship.  Of course, Jan being Jan, he likely avoided telling the parent that two training sessions per week will not get your child to college, the MLS, the national team, etc.  I am sure he smiled, encouraged the parent and saved the head scratching for later.  


The training model that we have in our country is a paid-for service.  As soccer becomes more and more popular, I would anticipate that our Academies become more European where players, even at a young age, are seen as assets, not customers.  Once the demand raise to justify that sort of position, then training will not be a paid for service, but a service for youth who fit the training models (asset-based).  MLS teams have been doing this with Pre-Academy and Academy teams.  


In England, a player's acceptance into a training club is skill based (at the professional clubs).  If you are good enough, then they will train you.  If you are not, you are out.  There is no cost to you.  In any event, it is not the training sessions per se that make great players.  Here, because parents are required to pay large sums of money to have their child "professionally trained," the assumption seems to be that if we spend enough, then our kids will become stars.  


But soccer is a muscle memory activity.  The only way to master soccer is to put the appropriate amount of time training your brain to communicate with your muscles in the soccer-appropriate manner.  In the book Outliers, Malcolm Gladwell cites a report from a neurologist that expertise in an event requires ten thousand hours of practice.  Since his book, this is referred to as the "10,000 Hour Rule."  Citing the neologists report, he states:

The emerging picture from such studies is that ten thousand hours of practice is required to achieve the level of mastery associated with being a world-class expert--in anything.  In study after study, of composers, basketball players, fiction writers, ice skaters, concert pianists, chess players, master criminals, and what have you, this number comes up again and again. Of course, this doesn't address why some people get more out of their practice time than others do. But no one has yet found a case in which true world-class expertise was accomplished in less time. It seems that it takes the brain this long to assimilate all this it needs to know to achieve true mastery.  Outliers, M. Gladwell 2008 (page 40)(with emphasis).  

Gladwell also cites a study by psychologist K. Anders Ericsson at Berlin's elite Academy of Music.    In comparing amateur pianists to professional pianists, they found that the amateurs never practiced more than about three hours per week over the course of their childhood, and "by the age of twenty had totaled two thousand hours of practice. The professionals, on the other hand, steadily increased their practice time every year..."  Outliers, page 38-39.  In the study, they were unable to identify even one musician who floated to the top on natural ability.  "Their research suggests that once a musician has enough ability to get into a top music school, the thing that distinguished one performer from another is how hard he or she works."   Id.

The same rules apply to soccer players.  In Soccernomics, Simon Kuper and Stefan Szymanski cite Gladwell's "10,000 hour rule" and apply it to professional soccer players. They state:

In soccer, it is the poorest European boys who are most likely to reach the ten-thousand-hour mark. They tend to live in small apartments, which forces them to spend time outdoors. There they meet a ready supply of local boys equally keen to get out of their apartments and play soccer. Their parents are less likely than middle-class parents to force them to waste precious time doing their homework. And they have less money for leisure pursuits. A constant in soccer players' ghost written autobiographies is the monomaniacal childhood spent playing nonstop soccer and, in a classic story, sleeping with a ball.  Soccernomics, S. Kuper & S. Szymanski (2009), page 272.  

Now, it may be that world-class mastery is not what you desire for your child.  But, the ten-thousand-hour rule portends to prove also that the more time spent practicing an activity, the better you will be.  Maybe you are interested in the five thousand hour rule.  In any case, two ninety-minute sessions per week is not enough to develop the type of mastery that will result in a level of competency required by college scouts.  So, we should encourage our children to touch the ball more often -- on days they are not training -- if they want to.  Don't ask the trainers what they are going to do to get your kid to college, a starting spot on the local varsity team, etc.; rather, ask yourself, "how am I going to give my child the opportunities to develop the mastery necessary to succeed."  


It should be noted that Gladwell says as much.  In addition to luck, month of birth date (in league play, it is August; for ODP, January), access to instruction (again, luck), timing (again, luck), as well as parents willing to support, encourage, and assist in the accumulation of hours.  He notes:

The other thing about that ten thousand hours, of course, is that ten thousand hours is an enormous amount of time.  It's all but impossible to reach that number all by yourself by the time you're an adult. You have to have parents who encourage and support you..."  Outliers, p. 42.  

Finally, and probably more important that the number of hours practicing, the kid must desire the greatness.  At young ages, my philosophy is that children lack the ability to choose whether or not they like a sport.  How can a 7 YO decide she does not like tennis if she has not learned to hit a ball over the net.  But, at some age, the athlete must have their own desire, apart from the parent, to excel.  Today on The Football Show (11-11-11) hosted by Giorgio Chinaglia and Charlie Stillitano and they added these additional ingredients for great players:  (1) some god-given talent, (2)  opportunity, and (3) desire to be great.  While parents may desire their children to be great soccer players, at some point the youth needs to desire it too. 


So, it's not the trainer's fault.  Rather than criticize trainers, let's facilitate mastery over the ball by giving our kids more time with it to create and play. 

More Thoughts on Long Balls off Restarts (GKs, DFKs & IDFKs)

I watched a replay of the great Champions League match between Napoli and Bayern Munich ("BM").  Both are wonderful teams.  I think BM balances possession with attacking nicely. I kept notes in the first half and this is what I discovered (please note, if I say they "played short" I mean a short pass and I assume you know they kept possession -- if they play short and lose possession immediately, I will note it):

1.   Goal Kicks:  BM took 3 GKs that I observed and played long each time.  They won 1, lost one, and gained territory on the other (out of bounds on Napoli).  Napoli had 5 GKs, played 3 short and of the 2 long.  Of the 2 long, they won 1 and lost 1.

2.    DFKs & IDFKs (BM):  BM had 9 free kicks.  Of the 9, 6 were in their half.  Of those 6, they played short 5 times and long once (near end of half – Napoli gained possession).  Two of the remaining 3 free kicks were taken at midfield – BM played short both times – and 1 was within 30 yards for which they played the ball into the goal.  They also played back to their keeper 3 times for which he played long every time.  Napoli gained possession all three times.   The keeper also saved 2 balls – he punted long once (lost possession) and rolled short the other.

3.    DFKs & IDFKs (Napoli):  Napoli had 5 free kicks.  Of the 5, the played short every time.  The closest they were to the BM goal was about 50 yards.  

I find this interesting.  BM is playing some of the best soccer in the world right now or, as the Brits would say, are in "top form."  So is Napoli.  Napoli played with less risk - opting to play short more times than naught and preserving possession without regard to territorial gain on a 50/50 ball.  BM, on the other hand, mixed up their set piece strategy.  

If you read my review of the Arsenal v Marseille game Aresnal v Marseille Match Review, I thought Arsenal was dreadfully ineffective within 40 yards of goal--too clever with the ball.  BM seems to strike a nicer balance, although the percentages of success on their long plays would suggest that the territorial advantage won was not worth it.  Giving BM credit for the OOB ball off the GK, they "won" territory 2/8 times or a 1/4 of the time.  So, they gave up 100% possession hoping to keep the ball + territory.  Since they had a 25% success rate, seems like the better play would be to play short unless you are within 40 yards or so of the goal.  Seems like the risk you are adding to the defense by placing a ball into the box and the potential reward are high enough to justify the risk of losing possession.  Just my two cents.  Cheers.

An Argument against Long Goal Kicks and Adventurous Punts

Before I post this, I must confess that I love the possession game of soccer.  I applaud the U.S. for adopting new coaching standards emphasizing ball control, quick ball movement with the ball mainly played on the ground.  Even as a youth coach, the youth are better able to handle short, rolling passes as opposed to long, bounding ones.  The temptation for youth coaches, of course, is to play it long and place a fast kid up front who can get behind the defense and score to win a meaningless 10 YO game.  I think it is poor form.  While there is a time for a well-placed long ball, its overuse is preventing development of a more controlled game.  


The same is true for punting.  In youth leagues, the booming punt is a magnificent event that usually leads to possession deep in the opponent's territory.  The reason is the inability of the back line of the defending team to stop of control the punt.  As a result, with the emphasis so often on winning at the cost of education and development, the punt is over-used at the younger levels.


Lastly, I detest long balls into crowded areas, whether from a free kick or gained possession at the back line.  It just doesn't make sense to me.  In all of the above scenarios, you go from 100% possession to 50/50% at best.  The only time it makes sense to me is if the fee kick is inside the midfield and a ball can be sent into the box.  Lofted balls into the box may indeed net a chance on goal and, even if it doesn't, the gains in territory into the attacking third is worth the 50/50 risk of losing possession.  I do not have a formula for it, but I recognize the risk-reward of lofted balls played into the box.  


A short word on crosses too -- sometimes, like Jenkinson's game for Arsenal against Marseille -- they are simply wasted balls.  Good defensive units track backwards and are aware of the cross.  The deeper the crosser gets, the worse his angle to provide service.  In many instances, wingers or backs moving up cross without purpose or thought -- sending in lofted crosses when there are 4 defenders in the box and only 1 attacker.  To me, that is another waste.   Here is Djourou's (Jenkinson's replacement) cross -- notice how deep he was on the cross, the bend of the ball (keeps his players onside), and the angle.  Also, Ramsey did a great job of setting up his shot.  

So, I watched Arsenal v Sunderland on Sunday, October 16 and kept track of all long ball opportunities (I will call them LBOs).  What I discovered was that Arsenal played short on almost all LBOs while Sunderland almost always played long.  Here is a breakdown (my numbers may be a little off -- kids interrupting):


1.  Of the 6 goal kicks I mapped for Arsenal, they played 3 short and 3 long.  Of the three long, they maintained possession only once.  
2.  Of the 7 goal kicks I mapped for Sunderland, they played long all 7 times.  They lost possession six times and once gained a throw in near the landing area.
3.  Of Free kicks (and there were a lot in this game), I counted 19 direct and indirect kicks for Arsenal.  Of those, Arsenal played short 16 times with the remaining 3 being shots on goal (25 yards and in).  Robbie van Persie scored one from 30 yards to win the match.  Interestingly, Arsenal had approximately 8 DFKs from inside 40 yards and only managed one attempt on goal (and it scored) that was threatening.  In fact, around the 51st minute, they had a DFK from around 30 yards and played it as an IFK with a short touch.  This is where I believe Arsenal was being too clever.  
4.  For Sunderland, as you can tell from the GKs, they used their DFKs to gain territory, but mostly lost possession.  I counted 7 DFKs for which they played long.  If they were within range of the goal, they would, of course play it into the box.  Of the long passes, only the one in the 56th minute seemed to be productive.  They parlayed that service into a chance at goal.  Similarly, their GK gained possession several times and, consistent with their strategy, punted deep into the field to nil effect.  In the 45th minute, they were able to penetrate deep off of a punt to create a potential chance.  Otherwise, the punts usually netted nothing.


My perceptions in this game is consistent with what I normally see.  Arsenal seldom squanders possession or dilutes a 100% ball by 50%.  At the same time, inside of 40 yards, they need to be more productive at creating chances to score.  Since they are loathe to release that ball into a crowd, they lacked production on several free kicks inside the danger area.  


Maybe it is that Sunderland felt that long ball was their best strategy.  Santos, Koscielny, and Mertesacker did a good job of preventing opportunities on the long approaches.  In any event, I do not see the justification for playing a goal kick long, or punting a ball into a crowd, or taking a DFK long into a crowd.  I do think inside of 40 yards, the ball should sometimes be played up for a chance at a header or even a rebound shot.  Just my two cents.


I have asked a couple old professional players why so many professional teams continue to do this.  I have yet to get a satisfactory answer.  Seems like there is a lot of "that's the way it is always done" mentality to it.  Otherwise, they seem to prefer the Arsenal way.  Cheers.  

Arsenal v. Olympique Marseille Game Review

The Day 3 Champions league match between Arsenal and Olympique Marseille was, for long stretches, sloppy.  Here are some of the links:

Slogging Arsenal Snag First

Arsene Wenger Salutes Ramsey

Most of the press write up is positive.  Trecker, on Fox, is negative and off-base.  His criticism and praise both seem misplaced.  To his credit, I do think the first half was sloppy for Arsenal as they were not in possession as much as they would have liked -- and when they were, they were pushed back.  Arsenal has had a rough go at it since Summer after losing Fabregas and Nasri.  They struggled in early fixtures in the Premier League but are in the process of rebounding.

Wendy and I at Emirates on 9/23/11 (Arsenal v Olympiacos)

In the match yesterday, Jenkinson started at right back in place of injured Sagna.  Santos started at left back in place of injured Gibbs.  Sagna, more seriously hurt, is out for a few months so the right back position is one that needs sorting out.  Gibbs strained a stomach muscle in the last fixture against Sunderland.  

While the Santos transitions evenly for Gibbs, Jenkinson is a major downgrade at right back.  He must be a training monster because his play on the field has been unsteady.  Yesterday, he seemed to only have one thought -- sprint with every ball played to him down the right line and cross, no matter the number of defenders in the box (or attackers).  His crosses were ineffectual.  He does add defensive energy, but lacks the tactical understanding of other options with the ball.  When Djourou subbed in, Arsenal upgraded their attack.  In fact, the lone goal was from a cross served with a good angle for which Gervinho played off (accidentally) and Ramsey finished.  Jenkinson would not have been able to play the ball as Djourou did because he would have robbed himself of the angle with the depth of his drive.  Djourou's timing on the service provided a dangerous angle and options for the Arsenal attack.  

My critique of Jenkinson is that he is too one-dimensional in attack.  As a result, he pulls all of his teammates into his run and reduces the angles for scoring altogether.  It was clear the OM's defenders knew what he was going to do with the ball too -- as they happily accepted service time and again from him.  

I thought Song was great.  He did give up some balls with some poor decisions on angles and passing ideas, but his defensive presence was fantastic as usual.  Van Persie was not much of a factor and went long stretches without the ball.   He seemed frustrated at times (once even throwing up his hands when he was not served the ball while he was in the defensive line).  Truth is, he did not have a great match.  He was caught offsides in key moments and, when he did have the ball late near the top of the box, opted for a desperate shot rather than a more patient attempt.  

The center backs were stout and Koscielny impressive anticipating balls and disrupting passing angles.  Per Mertesacker gets lots of criticism for his lack of speed but I think, but years end, he will have a loyal following.  He has big game experience and has presence on the field.  

I am not sure what to think about Ramsey.  He seems to give the ball up a lot in the middle, but he has a knack for scoring.  He did it again here with a great strike in the 92nd minute.  

Great result away for the Gunners.  Anytime you can get 3 points in a Champions League match away from home is fantastic.  

Possession, Possession, Possession: New US Youth Soccer Guidelines

It's about time.  Claudia Reyna, US Youth Soccer Technical Director, has been hired by Jurgen Klinsman to develop a new training system for US Youth coaches and players emphasizing possession and short passing with the ball staying on the ground as much as possible.  On April 21, 2011, Reyna unveiled the new system in a presentation at a Player Development Summit.  The material he used includes training guidelines all the way down to U6.  The documents are as follows:


New Us Youth Soccer Curriculum


You can watch his presentation here:  Reyna Presents New Curriculum


There are literally hundreds of pages of instructions, some drills (not a lot), and concepts generally and broken down for each age level.  Each age has a section for Tactical, Technical, Physical, and Psychosocial; these are referred to as the 4 Pillars of Soccer Coaching.  The main ideas are summarized in the U.S. Soccer Curriculum (first pdf).  It states that the "Style of Play" is an offensive style where "all teams will be encouraged to display an offensive style of play based on keeping possession and quick movement of the ball."  (Curriculum, page 1).  It goes on to instruct coaches to instruct their players to "avoid over-dribbling."  While positions are taught, players will be expected to "look for spaces and movements to support forward when attacking by moving away from their original positions."  Id.  


The Curriculum also specifies formations.  It instructs coaches to teach the 4-3-3 and its varieties (4-2-3-1 or 4-1-2-3) as opposed to 4-4-2 (reserved for older, more advanced youth).  If teams want to utilize a 4-4-2, they encourage a 4-1-2-1-2 instead (diamond in the middle).  Importantly, all 11v11 should utilize 4 defensive backs.  


Like the style currently used by Spain, Barcelona, Arsenal, and even Ajax, the new U.S. model encourages teaching the ability to play the ball out from the back with short passes rather than long, lofted balls.  (Curriculum, 2).  The Curriculum outlines the following "Principles of Play" for coaches to use:


1.  1,2, or 3 touch maximum.  
2.  Keep the game simple.  (Avoid over-dribbling or long balls without targets)
3.  Keep the ball on the ground.
4.  Accuracy and quality of the pass.
5.  First touch.  (Do not stop the ball)
6.  Perception and Awareness. (scan the field)
7.  1v1 situations.  (still encouraged for players to bear defenders)
8.  Individual Transition. (from offense to defense and vice versa)
9.  Shooting.  (always keep eye on goal)
10.  Take risks.  
(Curriculum, 3)


In line with those principles, skills are outlined to develop at each age down to 5.  According to the plans, dribbling starts getting less priority at age 7.  I think that is a big mistake.  I think it is great that the US is finally implementing what the Dutch started in 1970 and exported to Barcelona.  We all owe a big thank you to Ajax, Cruyff, Michaels and their cutting edge concept of space.  Spain has taken the TOTAL football model from the Dutch, improved it, and won the World Cup demonstrating the virtues of short passing and keeping the ball on the ground--something the Dutch never did (they were runners up in 1974 and 1978 -- the 1974 loss was considered by many to be a major upset by the West Germans).  If Klinsman never wins another game, his vision in implementing this at the US Youth level will be worth every penny he earns from us.  


Going back to dribbling, it is a skill that needs continued work until early teens.  If you over-emphasize the pass at 9, you will get players later on who will never take the opportunity and will lack the skill to beat someone 1v1.  For all of the 2v1 and 3v1 sequences of Barcelona, you still need to be able to take a defender 1v1 -- it will make the subsequent pass that much more deadly.  So, to that regard, I disagree with the de-emphasis on dribbling starting at age 7.  


It is widely noted that Arsene Wenger altered the playing style of Arsenal to what it is today.  Before Wenger, George Graham's boys were physical and, like a lot of the EPL competitors, played a lot of long ball; hence, the chant "Boring, boring Arsenal" or "One-nil to the Arsenal."  When Wenger entered Arsenal, he altered the style of play to a more possession based, short passing approach.  They were taught and trained to play the ball from back to front, and vice-versa.  Width and depth should be explored while in possession of the ball.  But, they did not de-emphasize dribbling.  Rather, they imported ideas from Barcelona's Academy.  


We should be wary of advice to de-emphasize dribbling at age 7.  Here is quote from the book Arsenal: The Making of a Modern Superclub: "Their (Barcelona) Academy coach Carlos Rexach reveals ... 'Above all what we are after is a boy who is good with the ball and then we hope he becomes strong physically. Other academies tend to look for athletes they can turn into footballers. Most coaches, when they see a kid who dribbles a lot they tell him to stop and pass the ball.  Here (Barcelona) they do the opposite. We tell them to continue so that they get even better at dribbling.  It's only when the kid develops that we start teaching them the passing game.'"  (Page 68).  


I know firsthand that over-emphasizing passing early will retard dribbling and creativity with the ball.  When coaching and teaching youngsters, encourage them to touch the ball as much as they can.  Allow them opportunities to be creative.  As a result, they will also develop ball control skills that will lead to passing and creative use of space. 


Also, it is recommended that at U8, players progress to 7v7 from 4v4.  At U9-10, it is 9v9, and at U11 up to 11v11.  This is counter to the current recommendations of small-sided games.  Depending on the Association, some use 4v4 for U7-U8, 6v6 for U9-10, 8v8 for U11-12, and 11v11 starting at U13.  I do think the 4v4 at U8 is a wasted year currently.  


To sum it up, I was ecstatic to see this change in US Youth Soccer philosophy.  As Reyna says, "it has never been done" in the U.S.  We are late in the day to finally get away from the physical back line, great GK, and fast forward kick and run approach U.S. normally plays, but it is never too late to add some Johan Cruyff magic.  Hopefully it will stick.  I know some coaches in Southeast Texas that are committed to it and have been for a while.  Cheers.  

Welcome & Introduction

I think the most difficult thing to write is the first sentence of the first entry.  I have labored over this in my head -- have told myself for months to do it (even years), but I finally decided to start.  So, why am I doing this?  Why is a trial lawyer from Southeast Texas, whose participation in soccer only began 6 years ago, blogging about soccer?


It all started with a uniform.  My oldest child, who was 8 at the time, decided she wanted to have a neighborhood soccer team.  A purple team (with some highlights).  She and her her friend decided the uniform first, then the idea.  They needed a coach.  I grew up playing the basic football (American), Basketball, Baseball, and not so basic Tennis.  I always loved coaching -- my basketball coach in high school allowed me freedoms there.  I like organizing too -- and have organized flag football in my hometown, at law school, etc.  More than anything else, I like to participate, measure, evaluate, and improve.  Soccer provided a great outlet and lab for such a personality.  The kids were willing participants.


So, here I am 6 years later, having coached-trained, at times, 5 teams in the same season.  All of the teams I organized, I trained and coached as our home town lacked a soccer club. When we started, I was aware of one other team from Vidor, by year 2, we added 3 more, then more the next and the next, etc.  

2010 Nike Rush Champs - U13G

In the beginning, the sessions were dreadfully inefficient.  I was learning the game along with the kids.  In our first game, we allowed a goal in under a minute.  In our first season, we scored 7 goals and won two matches.  In our second season, we scored 70, allowed 5 and were undefeated.  A lot of effort and examination occurred along the way (and still does).  My belief is that you can and should learn from those around you.  Two of the challenges to that impede most little league coaches are either (1) apathy (sometimes I wish I had it), or, more commonly in competitive sports, (2) a belief that you already know everything.  


In regard to (2), I once helped organize a coaching clinic with Kyle Green, head baseball coach at Vidor High School and a wonderful teacher of the game.  I encouraged all of the little league coaches to attend.  Most of them informed me that it was a waste of time.  At the same time, Coach Green told me the biggest problem for boys entering high school is a lack of basic fundamentals, including how to throw a baseball.  So, on one hand, you have father-coaches convinced they know enough that they do not need help, while on the other a professional coach saying that the kids have not been taught the basics.  Something has to give.


Back to soccer.  I do not look at my lack of playing time or relatively short experience as a disadvantage.  Rather, it works in my favor.  I was (and still am) effectively a blank slate.  I got in the trenches with the kids and learned the game form the ground up.  Along the way, I asked questions, read books, watched videos and games, watched other coaches train, or whatever else I could do to help the kids.  I learn something new every time I watch a game or coach a practice.  While I wish I could have played growing up, I do not see that as a disadvantage coaching or teaching the game.  Obviously, people that grew up and played the game their whole life can skip the growing pains I experienced, but, at the same time, those growing pains help me understand the game at a very basic level that makes it easy for me to talk to youth about.  


I learned early on that the basics of coaching are (1) paying attention to your team and evaluating their strengths and weaknesses (as well as your own), (2) being flexible ("blessed are the flexible, for they won't be bent out of shape"), and (3) develop communication channels that are understandable by your team -- no sense talking over their head with a bunch of pre-packaged coach-isms.  More on that later.


I look forward to posting ideas on the beautiful game and hope that it is of some interest to someone other than me.  Cheers.