Soccer coaching forum

www.heskstat.com
Interested in advertising
on this website? Ask for
information here.
and-again soccer forum
Register  |   |   |  New Posts  | Chat
 
 
 


Reply
 
Author Comment
 
Walrus

Registered: 08/02/10
Posts: 557
Reply with quote  #1 
A little round table debate today with myself and 3 other coaches.  The topic was a practice session with a 4vs4 with U12's and it could only be 2 or 3 touch.  Coach Phil, says it's great for obvious reasons and it's OK to do once in a while.  Coach Dino, said he never does it because telling a U12 that he can only use 2 or 3 touch negates him being creative and an individual.  Coach Dino says a child might see an opening and may want to take a player on 1vs1 but cannot do so for fear of using more than 3 touches, thus not allowing him to be creative.  Coach Rahim says, 2-3 touch works for Barcelona and they've been trained that way from youth.  I said, Barcelona are not U12's
So I'm throwing this question out to you guys for some feedback.  Does 2-3 touch soccer in a practice 4vs4 session negative creativity and individuality?
coachkev

Avatar / Picture

Registered: 01/26/04
Posts: 13,363
Reply with quote  #2 
Walrus.... forget 2-3 touch condition....
Just Challenge players that good players need only 3 touches to move the ball on, while great players need only 2.

Then challenge them by saying:
Which player can play for 5 minutes in this SSG without taking more than 3 touches every time they are in possession??
Then its competition to back it up.
If a team plays no more than 3 touches per player and scores without opponents touching it then it counts treble.

By challenging them and then using competition, the players keep the Decision Making to themselves.
Condition is so negative as it sends the message that you are 'taking away' from their natural game and fabricating play which is NOT natural.
MrSoccer

Registered: 01/25/04
Posts: 8,522
Reply with quote  #3 
Do you really have to be great to two touch in the defensive and the middle third? I don't think so.

Yes, if you can two touch in the attacking third.

__________________
Only the unloved hate
edfordham

Registered: 05/30/05
Posts: 5,155
Reply with quote  #4 

Walrus, not sure if this will help but I teach my guys through an understanding of the different moments of soccer and different 3rds of the field and find that this has the effect of getting them to appreciate the differences in speed required in each.

 

The problem with conditioning them is that it doesn't relate to anything concrete and so therefore becomes confusing when they try to use info learned in a game.

 

For example, if you play 4v4 and are using goals or an end line, if you think about it, why would you want to have this 2-3 touch restriction? Since we are in the last third constantly ( when we attack ) should we not be allowed to use whatever is appropriate?

 

I think you can and should instead say "keep playing fast until a CHANCE comes but when it does come use as many touches as is necessary".

 

We talk about playing slow and deliberate at the back, when we are in moment 1 (we have the ball in posession), we play fast with 2-3 touch and constant changes of pace and direction in the middle third (still in moment 1)and we do anything we want/feel is appropriate to CREATE and EXECUTE CHANCES when we are in the final third.

 

If we are in moment 2, they had it and we won it back (counter) we try to play 1 and 2 touches in all 1/3rds until the final execution.

 

Working in this way, with the added knowledge of playing until a CHANCE comes and an understanding of what constitutes a chance (a chance to shoot, pass to someone who can shoot, dribble and chose either one of the above and finally cross) I feel the guys develop a better appreciation of what speed to play. Since we don't have these CHANCES available in the 1st 1/3rd it presupposes that our goal is different- to keep the ball.

 

So, I think, the reasons why you guys have so many conflicting opinions is that 1, the contexts of playing 4v4 or whatever are confusing because they have no moment or pitch orientation (as the game does), 2, Barcalona, pretty much only play in moment 1 in attack and consider all 1/3's pretty much equally, which is pretty hard to do for kids who play 11 v11 but train 4v4, 3, the CHANCES, regardless of the ones philosophy of how we create them must be seen as CONSTANT- this is the point of the game.

 

If all this is a given then we must seek as coaches to create CONTEXT BASED TRAINING.

 

So for example, for Kev and all the English boys, possession for possessions sake is soccer blasphemy but the only way to keep the players from thinking about going forward is to take away the goals and the rewards for goals. Do you remember that Kev always talks about the 3 G's? You will not get good technical football and a Barcelona style by teaching the 3 G's, but it is very hard to get guys who grew up with it to change.

 

Sorry, I have gone on a bit there. I hope you get my drift? Confusion comes for the kids because we as coaches ask one thing in one context and one in thing another. I think that rather than imposing conditions we can create an environment (Context Based) that will illicit correct decision making FOR THAT SPECIFIC CONTEXT. It is then up to us to explain what the different contexts are.

 

I could have explained this so much better!!!

 

I will leave you with this.

 

In the Dutch system, the 4v4 teaches the basic shape and is the smallest number of players that contains all the possibilities to play to the principles of attack and defence.

 

When they go to 7v7 the player who played at the bottom of the diamond will probably now be the player who plays the top of the same diamond. The developmental steps are based on this consistent but contextual change.

 

 

Adam32m

Registered: 07/21/10
Posts: 1,384
Reply with quote  #5 
When the focus is on passing or possession challenging players to use fewer touches is good, but you have to use 4+ when attacking players and taking the ball to goal. In the given situation, 4v4, I think it depends on the size of the field. If it is on a large playing area that allows for 1v1 situations, then limiting touches will limit creativity. However, if the field is small enough for no 1v1 situations to occur, limiting the touch will require creativity.


Fewer touches will be required to score:
*                                                         *
                         o                  o
.                  x                          x           .
                               o
.                                                   x      .
                   o
                                 x
*                                                          *


More opportunities for 1v1 and thus more touches required:
*                                                                              *
                  o
                                        o                   x


.                x                                                              .

.                                          o                                    .
                                                               x
 
                                                                o
                                x
*                                                                               *


Over the course of a session or week of sessions, the amount of times you use 1-2 touch only should equal the same as at least 4 touches. As Kev says, make it a challenge, not a condition. Sometimes the correct decision is to take more touches than allotted or less than the minimum, so that is another challenge within the challenge. Depending on the situation, what should they use? I think it was Ed who mentioned a toolbox earlier today; players should have multiple tools in their toolbox and awareness to use the correct one in a given context.

Players need to be comfortable holding onto the ball, shielding and maintaining possession just as much as being able to quickly receive and pass the ball 360°. 



Goal150

Registered: 08/14/09
Posts: 2,784
Reply with quote  #6 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walrus
A little round table debate today with myself and 3 other coaches.  The topic was a practice session with a 4vs4 with U12's and it could only be 2 or 3 touch.  Coach Phil, says it's great for obvious reasons and it's OK to do once in a while.  Coach Dino, said he never does it because telling a U12 that he can only use 2 or 3 touch negates him being creative and an individual.  Coach Dino says a child might see an opening and may want to take a player on 1vs1 but cannot do so for fear of using more than 3 touches, thus not allowing him to be creative.  Coach Rahim says, 2-3 touch works for Barcelona and they've been trained that way from youth.  I said, Barcelona are not U12's
So I'm throwing this question out to you guys for some feedback.  Does 2-3 touch soccer in a practice 4vs4 session negative creativity and individuality?


Dribbling can be creative, but it isn't the only way to be creative on the soccer field. A lot of people call dribbling creative when we break through the defense, but can't we also do it with unexpected passes?

Barcelona's "Alevins" certainly can play 2-3 touch. But it's apples to oranges, because IIRC you're in Canada so prob. the same level as American kids. Barca's kids come with much higher individual ability than your typical American kid.

A 2-3 touch requirement all the time certainly will inhibit your players' ability to solve problems with the dribble. It'll probably also inhibit your defending of good dribblers. From time to time, if my kids aren't getting a concept I do this thing I call "cycling" . . . I basically play un-restricted, limited touches, then back to un-restricted. So in a short period of time, they can see the benefits of playing a certain way. I ask them what is easier/harder with certain constraints.
Walrus

Registered: 08/02/10
Posts: 557
Reply with quote  #7 

It's interesting that even upon the opinions given there still isn't one concrete answers but a variety of opinions?

edfordham

Registered: 05/30/05
Posts: 5,155
Reply with quote  #8 

Walrus, I don't think the opinions are different.

 

The key is CONTEXT, I think?

EricMcGrath

Registered: 02/23/04
Posts: 7,792
Reply with quote  #9 
Restriction doesn't make creativity diminish - in fact it enhances it. Blues has only three chords in it's usual progression. That's some of the most creative stuff there is. A half-decent artist can come up with more creative things with 4 colors of paint than most people can with a rainbow of colors. Parameters enhance creativity because, to use a cliche, necessity is the mother of invention.

Having said that - a 2-3 touch restriction in one drill or game is nothing for anyone to get worked up about. If that's the only thing the players are exposed to, ever, then of course, that's something to look at.

Walrus

Registered: 08/02/10
Posts: 557
Reply with quote  #10 

One of the more successful youth coaches in our area uses this as a 4vs4 drill.  He places a number on the front of each players pinnie.  That is the number of touches he is allowed when he receives the ball. Numbers vary from 1, 2, 3 and X (multi touch).  Everyone can see the number so teammates can for example, come closer to a player that has #1 on his pinnie knowing he can only one time the ball when he receives it.  That coach told me players that quickly play the ball are given numbers like 3, while players that like to hold the ball more might be given a number like 1.  The coach attempts to put the players out of their usual comfort zone and make them try another option.  Not saying it's a good idea because the coach is successful, but throwing this game/drill out there for some opinions.

edfordham

Registered: 05/30/05
Posts: 5,155
Reply with quote  #11 

It makes them think, that is always a positive.

 

Technically, though, it is criminal for development.

 

If we are doing breakout....., so for instance, we first play 5 passes before we can get out against one defender, thus giving the context of a 1st 3rd this works.

We ask them whether we need to play fast or slow and play with a bigger space or smaller and they will hopefully make the right decisions and play with the correct/appropriate number of touches.

 

If we had no such conversation and insisted upon a certain number of touches or the otherway round, insisted on 5 passes when there was 3 defenders against us, in our own 1/3rd then this would be contextually inappropriate.

 

This is what I am talking about.

 

If the players were asked 1st to pass out in the same above breakout scenario and then dribble out this would also be appropriate against a single defender or maybe two but if they were told they could only dribble or pass when under pressure from two or more attackers this is again where we confuse the players I think?

 

In the example you give the coach offers them no learning opportunity because there is no decision, because their i no context of when and why.

EricMcGrath

Registered: 02/23/04
Posts: 7,792
Reply with quote  #12 
Again, though, as a stand alone idea in one session in every, what, 50? It has it's place - any kind of restriction does. If it's the only thing you do? It'll clearly have it's limitations.

In the real reality of it all though? All we're doing as coaches is exposing the players to ideas. It's up to them to develop the right feedback loop to digest the ideas and use them in the real game themselves, no?

benji

Avatar / Picture

Registered: 03/01/04
Posts: 2,861
Reply with quote  #13 
In the end, any restriction negates creativity--it forces the use of a particular option over others at any given instant.  Limited touches, enforced touches, use of a particular player, must dribble over the line to score, must go through a particular area of the field, etc. Doesn't matter; they are all "negating creativity" in some fashion.

Of course, we know why we include these restrictions--in order to teach.  Any teaching method simplifies things and isolates one variable at a time before opening things up to "word problems" or real-life examples.  SSG restrictions are no different. You let them understand how and why to execute something particular first, in a restricted environment, and then hope they can apply that to the real world.


__________________
"My Goal is to Deny Yours"
JB Goalkeeping : Comprehensive Information for Goalkeepers and Goalkeeper Coaches
edfordham

Registered: 05/30/05
Posts: 5,155
Reply with quote  #14 

 "in a restricted environment"

 

In a context!

 

We have to make sure that we know what that context is and that we communicate this clearly to our students. We also need to run the different contexts on top of each other in the correct order to best effect the kids' ability to assimimulate all of the information, I think?

 

That is why I believe in themes that can maybe run through different contexts. BUT, the principles of attack and defence, depending which you are working on, must still be present intact (or at least those that you are fast tracking).

 

For example, no directional possession is fast tracking width, length and depth (mobility and all then other modern tosh if you believe that). It does not need penetration cos the context would be paossession in the 1st and middle 1/3rds).

Dylan

Registered: 03/08/11
Posts: 166
Reply with quote  #15 
My opinion is that 1/2 touch play is a good tool to have and should be looked at but should be an option to use and not a necessity.....I do use a condition of1/2 touch but in an area of play not all over the area being use so I'll challenge the players to play quickly using minimum touches in a certain area set up....
coachkev

Avatar / Picture

Registered: 01/26/04
Posts: 13,363
Reply with quote  #16 
Ed, before you continue with your bible bashing of the 3G's, please tell me the difference between Tiki Taka (or whatever the cerebral pronounciation is from your parts) and what the 3G's promote.

I love coaches who denounce others thinking and trivially dismiss it as 'old school'.
I have tried and adapted to many different 'schools' from many different sports and have studied lots of top coaches methods.
When you have players who:
* Have the ability to play fast but pass accurately,
* Refuse to 'belt the ball' aimlessly even risking loss of possession,
* Can 'smell' the right moment to go from little angled passes to cobra like strikes at goal,
* Believe totally in the system of play, the coach's philosophy, each other...
...THEN you can immerse yourself in the luxury of possession play

Until then Tiki Taka has the same 3 moments as the 3G's...
GETTING THE BALL...
... is more of a collective philosophy and paramount to the effectiveness of TT
GETTING IT FORWARD AS QUICKLY AND AS SAFELY AS POSSIBLE...
...is where TT has the edge over less skillful teams in that getting it forward can mean playing back, keeping the ball until the right moment comes to strike.
GETTING A STRIKE ON GOAL...
...is where TT differs again as the 'strike on goal' is more of 'part of the possesion play sequence' rather than an end in itself.

TT is more about keeping possession to keep in control and scoring is merely part of that process.

So before you denounce without finding solutions to the criticism then really all you are doing is offering an opinion which is fine...as long as you dont expect us all to believe totally without proof.

I fully understand your distrust of the philosophy of the EFA...I have over the years had many a bust up with the 'old farts', but as one Bobby Robson once said to me..."You cannot fight outside the Boxing ring - you can only scream for or against"
Jordi

Registered: 04/13/10
Posts: 1,198
Reply with quote  #17 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walrus
A little round table debate today with myself and 3 other coaches.  The topic was a practice session with a 4vs4 with U12's and it could only be 2 or 3 touch.  Coach Phil, says it's great for obvious reasons and it's OK to do once in a while.  Coach Dino, said he never does it because telling a U12 that he can only use 2 or 3 touch negates him being creative and an individual So, if a player do a lot of 1v1 is creative; if this player is playing 1-2 touches, creating spaces, depth, with, etc. is not creative? .  Coach Dino says a child might see an opening and may want to take a player on 1vs1 but cannot do so for fear of using more than 3 touches, thus not allowing him to be creative.  Coach Rahim says, 2-3 touch works for Barcelona and they've been trained that way from youth.  I said, Barcelona are not U12's But they were U12 some years ago and they got a lot of passing games and drills with 1-2 touches. Also, does that meant that only if you go to Barcelona you can be trained in that way? Ergo, as I'm not in Barcelona and I do a lot of passing games/drills with 1-2 touches, my players are bad trained. Sure?
So I'm throwing this question out to you guys for some feedback.  Does 2-3 touch soccer in a practice 4vs4 session negative creativity and individuality? These are two different things. The question is when to pass or when to dribble.


Quote:
Originally Posted by coachkev
By challenging them and then using competition, the players keep the Decision Making to themselves.
Condition is so negative as it sends the message that you are 'taking away' from their natural game and fabricating play which is NOT natural.

I do not agree too much. You can put "restrictions" and keep the Decision-Making. Since the moment that the player must have the head up to recieve the ball and pass it to a right place, there's Decision-Making; there's also Decision-Making on the side of the other players of hi team; they have to create space, etc. to continue receiving and playing. So, a lot of Decision-Making there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by edfordham

We talk about playing slow and deliberate at the back, when we are in moment 1 (we have the ball in posession),Are you sure? I always want the ball as fast as possible; if your team is playing fast in the back, you have more options to take the other team out of its shape, not well organized, so, better to pass to midfielders and better to arrive to the final third with less players well positioned in front of you. When Cruyff arrived to Barça, one of the key points was "the ball never gets tired, so make the ball run as fast as possible" we play fast with 2-3 touch and constant changes of pace and direction in the middle third (still in moment 1)and we do anything we want/feel is appropriate to CREATE and EXECUTE CHANCES when we are in the final third.

 

If we are in moment 2, they had it and we won it back (counter) we try to play 1 and 2 touches in all 1/3rds until the final execution.

 

Working in this way, with the added knowledge of playing until a CHANCE comes and an understanding of what constitutes a chance (a chance to shoot, pass to someone who can shoot, dribble and chose either one of the above and finally cross) I feel the guys develop a better appreciation of what speed to play. Since we don't have these CHANCES available in the 1st 1/3rd it presupposes that our goal is different- to keep the ball. (to create spaces and chances; as faster the ball goes, more options)

 

So, I think, the reasons why you guys have so many conflicting opinions is that 1, the contexts of playing 4v4 or whatever are confusing because they have no moment or pitch orientation (as the game does), 2, Barcalona, pretty much only play in moment 1 in attack and consider all 1/3's pretty much equally, which is pretty hard to do for kids who play 11 v11 but train 4v4, 3, the CHANCES, regardless of the ones philosophy of how we create them must be seen as CONSTANT- this is the point of the game.

 

If all this is a given then we must seek as coaches to create CONTEXT BASED TRAINING. So, 4v4 is not CONTEXT BASED TRAINING? How many 3v3, 4v4, 4v2, 5v3, situations do we have in a match? A lot, really a lot. The problem, mostly of the times is that we do 4v4, or 4v2, or whatever, without putting the players in the right CONTEXT, in the right PLAYING SITUATION. That means, a 4v4 by itself, may be has no relation; when a team has RW, ST, LW, AM, and the other RB, CB, CB, LB, I think it's a lot of this Playing Situation. Now, in this 4v4, you put the players that you want, adapted to your way of playing, and, later, you'll see the "translation" in the full field.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Goal150
Barcelona's "Alevins" certainly can play 2-3 touch. But it's apples to oranges, because IIRC you're in Canada so prob. the same level as American kids. Barca's kids come with much higher individual ability than your typical American kid.

So, as I posted before only Barça's kids can play that? I don't believe it

Quote:
Originally Posted by benji
In the end, any restriction negates creativity--it forces the use of a particular option over others at any given instant.  Limited touches, enforced touches, use of a particular player, must dribble over the line to score, must go through a particular area of the field, etc. Doesn't matter; they are all "negating creativity" in some fashion. So, the only way to not negate creativity is that our sessions are full pitch playing matches (7v7 or 11v11, according to age)?

Of course, we know why we include these restrictions--in order to teach.  Any teaching method simplifies things and isolates one variable at a time before opening things up to "word problems" or real-life examples Only one variable? Absolutely, not; the number of variables are the one that the coach decides.  SSG restrictions are no different. You let them understand how and why to execute something particular first, in a restricted environment, and then hope they can apply that to the real world. You can do real parts of the real game, in the real space that they happen most of the times; then, we can say that we are isolating a part of the match, but not just one variable.


Quote:
Originally Posted by edfordham
Technically, though, it is criminal for development.

Ed, I can't see why

__________________
http://futbolpirineusenglish.blogspot.com
yarbles

Registered: 06/13/06
Posts: 323
Reply with quote  #18 
there's nothing wrong with putting 2/3 touch limits in an SSG when attempting to work on some key issues.  For example, putting this restriction forces players off the ball to work 100% to get into a supporting position in order to progress the ball up the field.  It also forces the player receiving the ball to have a plan (ie negative touch, positive touch, etc..).  it's like anything we do - the constraint has to be put in context of the big picture.  putting this constraint on the kids all the time would suck and practices would be lame but when the need arises - it's a great tool to use to help correct problems. 


GermanCoach

Avatar / Picture

Registered: 11/06/10
Posts: 1,111
Reply with quote  #19 
The discussion bores me.

My so highly considered 2002s do these things regularly:

- 5 minutes 2-3 touch restrictions
- 5 minutes every shot and pass with weak foot

and many other things like that.

If it has been harmful ... OH MY GOOD, WHAT HAVE I DONE!!!! ............ Maybe I could have had all 11 players in above-regional selection? 

__________________
"We absolutely annihilated England. It was a massacre. We beat them 5-4." -- Bill Shankly
coachkev

Avatar / Picture

Registered: 01/26/04
Posts: 13,363
Reply with quote  #20 

Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanCoach
The discussion bores me.

My so highly considered 2002s do these things regularly:

- 5 minutes 2-3 touch restrictions
- 5 minutes every shot and pass with weak foot

and many other things like that.

If it has been harmful ... OH MY GOOD, WHAT HAVE I DONE!!!! ............ Maybe I could have had all 11 players in above-regional selection? 

Its not so much as a discussion as opposing viewpoints German...you know, the stuff thats usually in forums
I'm sure that German coaches 'functionally debate' opposing views too?

The reason I detest Conditions is that we have a responsibility to develop a love of the game as well as develop the technical and tactical skills to play it.
When you restrict you are effectivelly taking away the decision making from them because its already been decided by you. Then its just a matter of making sure they dont fall foul of the 'restriction'.

Developing Decision Making in young players is just that- THEY make the decisions...and when they make the wrong decisions, you can coach the options and then see if they have understood and learned.

This method of conditioning is as much use as using cones all the time.
Where do players use cones in a match?
Where do players get restricted in a match, apart from positional responsibilities and the direction they play?

By substituting restrictions with Challenges and Competition you are (in Cruyffs words and the KNVB) TRAINING soccer like to be able to PLAY soccer like.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:























COPYRIGHT @ 2004 - 2014 AND-AGAIN, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Powered by Website Toolbox - Create a Website Forum Hosting, Guestbook Hosting, or Website Chat Room for your website.