Soccer coaching forum
and-again soccer forum
Register  |   |   |  Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
scoachd

Registered:
Posts: 2,811
Reply with quote  #1 

I seem to recall people siting different numbers of amount of repetitions it took to acquire a soccer skill (or more generally athletic skill as opposed to reading or putting a puzzle together) along with the amount of increased repetitions it took to correct a skill that was performed incorrectly.  Can anyone here point me to any research on the subject.

AFB

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 6,406
Reply with quote  #2 

Dave,

 

I cannot give you the cite; however, a read a study conducted by Manchester University a number of years ago that gave the following numbers (based on my recall):

 

600 correct reps to learn a skill

 

1,000 correct reps to remedy an incorrect technique

 

10,000 correct reps to achieve mastery in a game

 

100,000 correct reps to achieve the level of skill expected of a young player entering the professional ranks


__________________
Some wisdom from Winston Churchill:

"Once in a while you will stumble upon the truth but most of us manage to pick ourselves up and hurry along as if nothing had happened."

"You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life."

"You can always count on Americans to do the right thing—after they’ve tried everything else."
MrSoccer

Registered:
Posts: 9,198
Reply with quote  #3 

I kept certain game satisitics I found useful.

 

Never kept any on repitions. I think the repitions needed to learn a skill depends on the player, and how they are presented to the player. Like in game form where it is fun to do will make a kid want to do repitions. Most kids find repitions boring especially if they are not have success and it wasn't in game form. If you can make them have success they will want to do them if it is fun.

 

Even the ones who can pick up a skill fast needs to practice and refine those skills outside of practice time at home.

 

The ones that are having a tough time with a skill must practice it at home. These players will say they get it when they don't get it. How do you know when they don't? You will never see them do the skill in a game.

 

A lot of coaches don't touch on that skill again when most of the players have it. What about the few that don't have it. You have to keep track of who doesn't have what and go over it in other practices and when you break up the team to play. Then when you see them do it in a game you know they finally got it. You can't forget about them. You can move on to new things but you have to hit the things that the ones who don't have it so they can get it eventually.

 

I have a terrible memory but player weakness in what skill I can remember but I take notes any way just in case.

 

I tell you what's cool when you see a kid do a skill you taught him that he did not know before over and over in game play. That is a big reason why we do what we do.


__________________
Only the unloved hate
coachkev

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 14,607
Reply with quote  #4 

If we consider that assessing skill rep correctness is determined by the successful outcome of the decision to use that particular skill, then isnt it a subjective exercise and therefore can be one thing to one person and totally different to another?.

 

In this case, who determines whether or not the skill WAS successful.?

Are there formats to assess these skills against?

skuramoto

Registered:
Posts: 502
Reply with quote  #5 
Reminds me of a funny story. Several years ago, I took my youngest daughter to her first winter clinic (she as 11 at the time - first time having someone other than me). As we get to the car she has this look on her face, so I ask her what's wrong. She say's "the trainer said we have to practice a million times. How am I gonna do that?". I told her, I think he means, by the time you reach HS or college. She said, "oh, that's good, I thought he wanted it all done by next week". Her sister laughed at her, and my youngest replied, "hey, how was I supposed to know!".
scoachd

Registered:
Posts: 2,811
Reply with quote  #6 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AFB

Dave,

 

I cannot give you the cite; however, a read a study conducted by Manchester University a number of years ago that gave the following numbers (based on my recall):

 

600 correct reps to learn a skill

 

1,000 correct reps to remedy an incorrect technique

 

10,000 correct reps to achieve mastery in a game

 

100,000 correct reps to achieve the level of skill expected of a young player entering the professional ranks

The one thing that surprises me is the number to remedy incorrect technique is not much greater than without a bad habit.  I recall it being worse.  But my google skills have let me down and the question is not burning enough to actually pay to read papers that might actually have some good data.

JimN

Registered:
Posts: 3,944
Reply with quote  #7 
I appreciate those numbers, Alan.  I may steal those to send out to my players.

I am also surprised at what scoachd mentions - that it does not take more reps (sorry, for those of you in Leonardstown, that is tries) to overcome initial bad habits.  I guess it is probably a matter of degree of the poor technique.

I worked for about 45 minutes Monday night with one of our guys, who strikes the ball well in a couple of ways, but struggles in several others.  Wow, does he have some ingrained habits.  Good kid, worked hard, and we made significant progress.  Although we have done sessions with the team specifically on what he and I trained on Monday, it is clear that it has not taken hold with him yet.

The question is, how the hell does the team coach find time to spend individually with each and every one?

It sounds like bragging, but the answer lies in how my son has done it.  Little by little, since he started playing, we have asked him to learn to do things the proper way - demanded it at times, but were slack at others to let him experiment - and he has spent a great deal of time on his own.  I guess that shows when he was shaping the ball when he was 8 or 9,  and could strike the ball pretty much on demand as a chip, low drive, high drive, or bend it with the inside or out at the same age.  Any wonder that he is one of our set piece takers?

With all of the techniques that a good player needs to have in his arsenal, I ask again, how do you really deal with that as a team coach?

I think the answer lies in motivating them to seek excellence on their own, combined with quality instruction that helps them not only learn what they are doing but also how to coach themselves.

__________________
players are not possessions
develop the individual

about my job
other ramblings
thoughtsoc

Registered:
Posts: 6,536
Reply with quote  #8 

I'm sure you're dieing for my input on this.  The distinction between "reps" and "attempts" ("tries" if you want to reduce the letters) is important.

 

If a player is repeating the same thing over and over, the word "reps" applies.  If the player is responding to a particular challenge, for which a number of creative elements and thoughts can be added, and at which he might succeed or fail, the word "attempts" is more fitting.

 

If I'm trying out a particular move in the backyard, or repeating that move over and over in practice, the word "reps" applies.  If I'm attempting to dribble past a defender in any way I want, the word "attempts" is more fitting.

 

If we're watching a player take reps, we can analyze the precise body movements and determine if they're correct or not.  If we're observing attempts, the proof tends to be more in the putting (is that the phrase, or is it pudding?).  The shot goes in the net.  The chip arrives precisely at someone's head.  The defender is beaten.  And so on.  If the result is consistently successful, in a competitive situation that easily transfers to real soccer, nobody will quibble over the technique.

 

When coaches present players with the right challenges, and provide a lot of attempts at overcoming these challenges, the development of effective technique is accelerated.

JimN

Registered:
Posts: 3,944
Reply with quote  #9 
yeah, that sound you heard was me dying for your input.

On your phraseology, Russ, I am all for you choosing words necessary for you to organize yourself.  I think we all do this to a degree.  Just remember that your players will hear the rest of the world doing things a certain way, and it would benefit them to learn in a way that is compatible with where they may go in the future.

I don't think this is one that is a problem, but others you have suggested are.  I am guessing that you do not use the word attempts or tries with your players, just as I would rarely use the word reps with mine.


__________________
players are not possessions
develop the individual

about my job
other ramblings
brian41

Registered:
Posts: 1,285
Reply with quote  #10 
Quote:
Originally Posted by thoughtsoc

I'm sure you're dieing for my input on this.  The distinction between "reps" and "attempts" ("tries" if you want to reduce the letters) is important.

 

If a player is repeating the same thing over and over, the word "reps" applies.  If the player is responding to a particular challenge, for which a number of creative elements and thoughts can be added, and at which he might succeed or fail, the word "attempts" is more fitting.

 

If I'm trying out a particular move in the backyard, or repeating that move over and over in practice, the word "reps" applies.  If I'm attempting to dribble past a defender in any way I want, the word "attempts" is more fitting.

 

If we're watching a player take reps, we can analyze the precise body movements and determine if they're correct or not.  If we're observing attempts, the proof tends to be more in the putting (is that the phrase, or is it pudding?).  The shot goes in the net.  The chip arrives precisely at someone's head.  The defender is beaten.  And so on.  If the result is consistently successful, in a competitive situation that easily transfers to real soccer, nobody will quibble over the technique.

 

When coaches present players with the right challenges, and provide a lot of attempts at overcoming these challenges, the development of effective technique is accelerated.

 

Russ:

 

I have never bashed you on any forum and feel sorry for you (at times) when you get gang tackled and piled on.  However, were the kid in gym class that got "saliva yo yo 'd" in the locker room? 

 

It mystifies me why you wind people up (reps, attempts, tries?) 

coachkev

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 14,607
Reply with quote  #11 

I seem to remember the following from somewhere...

 

SECTION 1: All passes on ground

 

PHASE A : In Pairs:

1 first time pass each (inside foot), first passer stops ball.

Then repeat with 2 first time passes each then first passer stops the ball

Then 3 passes each first passer stops the ball

Then 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and finally 12 passes each and the first passer stops the ball.

 

Each 'SET' has each player having 78 touches/passes

 

PHASE B : Now each 'sequence' counts 1

Both touch outside of foot and pass inside of same foot (once each)

Then twice before stopping, 3 times, 4 times etc up to 12

 

Each 'SET' has each player having 78 touches/78 passes

 

PHASE C: Each 'sequence' counts 1

Both touch inside of one foot, touch with outside of opposite foot, pass with that foot.

 

Each 'SET' has each player having 156 touches/78 passes

 

PHASE D: Each 'sequence' counts 1

Both touch inside of one foot across the body, touch with outside of same back across the body, pass with that foot. (Alternate left and right foot on first touch)

 

Each 'SET' has each player having 156 touches/78 passes

 

SECTION 2: All passes in the air

 

Repeat Phases A to-D but now all return passes are lofted.

Recievers have to use designated first touch to control the ball to ground

 

PHASE A : In Pairs:

1 first time pass each (inside foot), first passer stops ball.

Then repeat with 2 first time passes each then first passer stops the ball

Then 3 passes each - first passer stops the ball

Then 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and finally 12 passes each and the first passer stops the ball.

 

Each 'SET' has each player having 78 touches/passes

 

PHASE B : Now each 'sequence' counts 1

Both touch outside of foot and pass inside of same foot (once each)

Then twice before stopping, 3 times, 4 times etc up to 12

 

Each 'SET' has each player having 78 touches/78 passes

 

PHASE C: Each 'sequence' counts 1

Both touch inside of one foot, touch with outside of opposite foot, pass with that foot.

 

Each 'SET' has each player having 156 touches/78 passes

 

PHASE D: Each 'sequence' counts 1

Both touch inside of one foot across the body, touch with outside of same back across the body, pass with that foot. (Alternate left and right foot on first touch)

 

Each 'SET' has each player having 156 touches/78 passes

 

 

In my opinion this is a great way to improve lots of different skills

 

 

Kev

coachkev

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 14,607
Reply with quote  #12 

bump

 

scoachd

Registered:
Posts: 2,811
Reply with quote  #13 

I kept searching and found this:

How Long Does Autonomous Learning Take?

Gymnasts practice daily for about eight years to become proficient.

Motor learning researchers studied the manual (hand) skills of cigar-makers. Beginner cigar-makers worked three times slower than experienced cigar-makers. Becoming fully skilled required making three million cigars.[1]

Three million repetitions were also needed for Japanese pearl handlers to become proficient. The Suzuki method of teaching violin to children requires the production of about 2.5 million notes. Basketball, football, and baseball throws require about a million practice throws.

This suggests that making fluent speech automatic and effortless requires saying about three million syllables. At five syllables per second, talking four hours a day (just your time talking, not combined talking and listening), you could produce three million syllables in six weeks.

If you got a job answering telephone calls, and you did your stuttering therapy skills on every call, and you connected a biofeedback device into your telephone to alert you when you missed a therapy target, and you spent your free time at Toastmasters clubs making speeches or volunteering at a hospital's information desk, fluent speech might become automatic for you in six weeks.

But most stutterers practice between ten minutes and one hour per day. If they were silent the rest of the day, they'd say three million syllables somewhere between six months and three years.

No one has studied whether using undesirable motor skills cancels out on-target practice. I.e., does a half-hour of on-target practice get cancelled out by not using fluency skills the rest of the day? Such a practice schedule might take years to produce automatic fluent speech—or might never work.

 

 

  1. ^ Kottke, F.J., Halpern, D., Easton, J.K.M., Ozel, A.T., Burrill, C.A. "The Training of Coordination." Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Vol 59, December 1978, 567-572.
coachkev

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 14,607
Reply with quote  #14 

This is from a previous thread I posted last year

What IS Skill?

Author  coachkev

Okay, weve had the 'Whats a good pass' debate.
Lets come to another lip biter:
What is YOUR definition of Skill?
For me,
Skill is about the acquisition of learned effectiveness and efficiency in the 4 key elements:
1. The achievement of a well defined aim or objective
2. The maximisation of consistently being successful
3. The minimising of errors in order to maintain the physical and mental energy demands
4. The reduction of time required by taking the minmum time to execute the action
What is YOUR definition??
 
 mbiyenm
Prefer to think in terms of "execution" rather than "acquisition".
 
 coachkev
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbiyenm
Prefer to think in terms of "execution" rather than "acquisition".

Actually mb, I toyed with the idea of using execution as well because 'Skill' can only be viewed in terms of RESULT of ACTION OF LEARNED TECHNIQUES taken, but I felt that acquisition is the INITIAL stage of ability to utilise (execute ) learned technique responses in the desired and correct way. So yes, correct execution of learned responses is another way of interpreting Skill
 
 Doublerunner
Skill is the ability to make the proper play at the proper time. This requires an abundance of the 4 phases of the game
Technical
Tactical
physical
mental
We all know how much work goes into developing this.
I would also use the word "efficient" to describe a player that has all the "skill".
 
 mbiyenm
I'd rather not have learning (acquisition) in the definition.   Learning is a skill of its own right: some people are quick learners others are slow learners.  However, the soccer skills of interest do not depend on the speed of learning.
 
 first_touch
Quote:
Originally Posted by coachkev
Okay, weve had the 'Whats a good pass' debate.
Lets come to another lip biter:
What is YOUR definition of Skill?
For me,
Skill is about the acquisition of learned effectiveness and efficiency in the 4 key elements:
1. The achievement of a well defined aim or objective
2. The maximisation of consistently being successful
3. The minimising of errors in order to maintain the physical and mental energy demands
4. The reduction of time required by taking the minmum time to execute the action
What is YOUR definition??

skill is the application of proper technique under pressure
quoted from my D license instructor, Dan Smith.

 
 KeiththeKoach
first touch. Agreed and I learned that at my first English FA course back in the 60s.  It is also Allen Wade's definition.  Heading, kicking, whatever are techniques. Skill is making the right decision whether you accomplish the technique or not. (As in - right decision to shoot, pity you hit the post).
Not sure why you want to embellish the simple Kev.

SammyP
skill is the application of proper technique for the maximum benefit of the team......

 ceecee
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeiththeKoach
first touch. Agreed and I learned that at my first English FA course back in the 60s.  It is also Allen Wade's definition.  Heading, kicking, whatever are techniques. Skill is making the right decision whether you accomplish the technique or not. (As in - right decision to shoot, pity you hit the post).
Not sure why you want to embellish the simple Kev.

How then do we know if it was the right decision if you hit the post. Perhaps another decision might have ended with a goal?
 
 iceman
Keep it simple.
A 'technique' is how to carry out an action, such as kicking a ball. The technique becomes a 'skill' when it is successfully carried out under realistic pressures of a game situation.
 
 first_touch
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceecee
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeiththeKoach
first touch. Agreed and I learned that at my first English FA course back in the 60s.  It is also Allen Wade's definition.  Heading, kicking, whatever are techniques. Skill is making the right decision whether you accomplish the technique or not. (As in - right decision to shoot, pity you hit the post).
Not sure why you want to embellish the simple Kev.

How then do we know if it was the right decision if you hit the post. Perhaps another decision might have ended with a goal?


if it was a reasonable decision to shoot, call it a good player
if there was a more open shot for another player, and the pass was made, call it a great player
the most skilled player is the one which makes the most correct decisions as to which skill to apply in whatever situation comes up.

 better question what is FUN?
fun is being presented with a challenge and working with others to overcome that challenge.

 MrSoccer
Better question "what is love" :-)
On skill "mastery of the ball under pressure" being able to do anything your mind tells you to with the ball. Plus being a good decision maker.
 
 gregm
Is there really a "right decision" in every given situation in a soccer match? I think not.  The definition of skill is really not that important if you teach good technique and good decision making...is it?
 
 MrSoccer
You can try difficult low percentage things in games. Things that can lead to goals and be more then just a good decision maker you can be a genius player. You see things that even a very good players just doesn't see.
Good desicion making is not oassing into pressure when there is open space for example. Like not forcing a shot when the keeper is all over you instead  making that little square pass to an open team mate. Things like that.
 
 mbiyenm
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregm
Is there really a "right decision" in every given situation in a soccer match? I think not.
 

Actually there is.
Think about it for a moment.
 
 GHMANEGER
for me skill is:
 1.the success to do what you want to do
and 
 2. to want to do the best thing you can want
that is skill as far as I concern, and it takes a lot of time and practice and patience and hard work and courage and crap to make this only 2 things. that is what make the greatest greatest they wanted to do a great play and they did it.

 (as about to preforming under pressure issue. i think you can get used to it if you train well and it goes anyway inside 1. at "success".) of course you can differentiate the term into left kick right kick and so  on and on but i think this 2 sentences make a good definition.
p.s. I like to dedicate this to George Best a Great player, I didn't know him too much, only from stories but I think coaches should be more open to him and help him with his problems.no doubt he was a skillful player.
 
 GHMANEGER
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbiyenm
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregm
Is there really a "right decision" in every given situation in a soccer match? I think not. 
Actually there is.
Think about it for a moment.

when you think about it logically if there are 2 or 3 so called "good decisions" you can only know for sure what happened with the 1 have been taken. even that 1 would go out of every time to a different play, so  i thought about it and im with greg here. players and coaches that see a only good one right decision make a huge mistake. you have to be open for the unexpected.

 bytheshore8
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregm
The definition of skill is really not that important if you teach good technique and good decision making...is it?

No the definition is not that important.  But teaching good technique and good decision making doesn't equate to a hill of beans unless they can be accomplished quickly under pressure of time, space and opponents which = SKILL.
 
 first_touch
Quote:
Originally Posted by bytheshore8
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregm
The definition of skill is really not that important if you teach good technique and good decision making...is it?
No the definition is not that important.  But teaching good technique and good decision making doesn't equate to a hill of beans unless they can be accomplished quickly under pressure of time, space and opponents which = SKILL.

 I explain to prospective players and parents " the team plays with skill", and they suggest their kid has skill.  I would ask them to tell me what type of skill their kid has which will help us, and I get blank stares.
if you ever need to sell or advertise skill, having a definition is important.

 KeiththeKoach
The whole point of DEVELOPING definitions as Allen Wade did in his 'Principles of Play' was to provide a common language to avoid confusion.  (Such a good coaching philosophy).  Some of the answers here are torturous beyond belief.  If I learned anything from Wade it was to be clear and concise in communication. All that matters is that Wade found a way of separating skill from technique.
If you apply the same definitions to tennis it could be said that Henri Laconte had wonderful technique and could play every shot in the book.  He never reached the heights because he couldn't decide which shot to play when.
Maradonna and Best had technique to burn and despite making bad decisions could always get out of trouble and produce a result because of technique that could only be described as genius.  I would hazard a guess that these players were not burdened with brains as players but simply played by instinct.  Not surprisingly their decision making in real life left them floundering.
And now I must sign off and pack this connection to the wider world.  Thanks for listening folks - catch you all later.
 
 coachkev
Quote:
Originally Posted by first_touch
Quote:
Originally Posted by coachkev
Okay, weve had the 'Whats a good pass' debate.
Lets come to another lip biter:
What is YOUR definition of Skill?
For me,
Skill is about the acquisition of learned effectiveness and efficiency in the 4 key elements:
1. The achievement of a well defined aim or objective
2. The maximisation of consistently being successful
3. The minimising of errors in order to maintain the physical and mental energy demands
4. The reduction of time required by taking the minmum time to execute the action

What is YOUR definition??
skill is the application of proper technique under pressure
quoted from my D license instructor, Dan Smith.

"skill is the application of proper technique under pressure"
I would agree with this if the word " successful" is inserted between the words " THE and APPLICATION".
You cant fully define skill as just the completion of proper technique under pressure unless there is some assessment of the outcome of that skill.
 
 gordonn
For me Skill is the successfull application of an action.
Whether the technique is correct or not is immaterial in my view, success is the important thing.
 
 GHMANEGER
I have another POV
Technic is to do the proper act in a vacum with 0% resistanse
Skill is to apply technic in the real game enviroment and high resistance

  GHMANEGER
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeiththeKoach
The whole point of DEVELOPING definitions as Allen Wade did in his 'Principles of Play' was to provide a common language to avoid confusion.  (Such a good coaching philosophy).  Some of the answers here are torturous beyond belief.  If I learned anything from Wade it was to be clear and concise in communication. All that matters is that Wade found a way of separating skill from technique.
If you apply the same definitions to tennis it could be said that Henri Laconte had wonderful technique and could play every shot in the book.  He never reached the heights because he couldn't decide which shot to play when.

Maradonna and Best had technique to burn and despite making bad decisions could always get out of trouble and produce a result because of technique that could only be described as genius.  I would hazard a guess that these players were not burdened with brains as players but simply played by instinct.  Not surprisingly their decision making in real life left them floundering.
And now I must sign off and pack this connection to the wider world.  Thanks for listening folks - catch you all later.

Hey Kieth good points here. what is Wade's definitions of technic and skill than?
there are more obstacles than "the right decision" at the right time to be called "skillful'
i don't think that the great technic of Best and Maradona pull them of from bad decision, it was rather their great technic and skill that made them spectacle.
about the life outside the field the conclusion that because they play good technic they were stupid ... i do not get it, sorry.
a lot of people from that age have to dill with a fast pressure and glory which is not fit to their personality and they crash sometimes like kurt kobain, the inability to cop with success is pshycologic more than anything else, keep in mind they came from a very unprivileged background.

i think the "football brain" of Maradona was great(i don't know Best all that much). a common mistake of footballers  to make the comparison between the brain game and the real life. the football game is much more simple isn't it?
peace GH

scoachd

Registered:
Posts: 2,811
Reply with quote  #15 

Here's they type of article I was looking for:

The brain and brawn of athletic performance

John Milton,

http://faculty.jsd.claremont.edu/jmilton/reprints/chicago_05.pdf

 

If you interested in the subject, I think its a pretty good article.  For the level of information its written in pretty plain english.

 

FYI - the numbers on repetition are not surprisingly fairly in line with what AFB provided:

 

"One mechanism for skill acquisition is repetition. However, by itself, repetition is a very slow and inefficient method to perfect a motor skill. Estimates of the numbers of repetitions to acquire elite levels of performance are in the range of 1-3 x 10 6 repetitions (Fitts and Posner, 1973). Thus, attainment of expert skill levels requires years of practice. There is also a dark side to repetition as a method to refine motor skills. Repetition of stereotyped movements with poor techniques and improperly designed equipment leads to the development of overuse injuries, such as back pain and entrapment neuropathies (Sahrmann, 2002)."

 

Author suggests the importance of early skill aquisition, variability in practice, visualization, goal setting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

JohnR

Registered:
Posts: 6,793
Reply with quote  #16 

Well, that's a lot.

 

100,000 repetitions is 30 per day, 365 days per year, for 10 years straight.

 

How many kids you know hit 30 crosses per day for 10 years? Chest trap or head 30 balls? Strike 30 volleys?

 

Left out receiving the ball in several different ways with the foot & leg, a variety of dribble moves, and chipping, striking the ball with the outside of the foot, the driven pass. Oh yeah, gotta do everything with each foot, too. 

 

If you tried to get 30 reps of each skill that you needed for soccer each day, that would probably be about 2 hours before you did anything else, namely actually play the game.

 

 

JimN

Registered:
Posts: 3,944
Reply with quote  #17 
John - I have been considering the 100,000 number, too.

I think that probably we are talking about similar motions for many techniques.  Laces drive, flighted ball, volley a ball with the laces are all quite similar, and I do not believe that one needs the full qty of each one to reach that level.  One builds on the other.

We see that in teaching ball moves - start with a Matthews type move, and add other options to the end of it,  same story, it does not require the full amount.

However, if you take the most basic of components of technique - balance, footwork, basic ball striking ideas, the foundation of moving with the ball, etc... a player will likely reach that 100,000 touches in these areas earlier than most would think.  I bet mine and yours have reached it in some aspects of their game, or are at least close.  Surely they will reach it before the end of their HS days.

Then, it will come down to their S and P whether they make it or not.


__________________
players are not possessions
develop the individual

about my job
other ramblings
Bird1812

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 4,898
Reply with quote  #18 

I came across the following and wondered how anyone could possibly end up a professional soccer player:

 

Quote:

It is estimated that it takes 10,000 hours to become an expert sport performer. For a young person beginning to play soccer at age five, this equates to 20 years @ 500 hours per year, or 11 hours per week for 45 weeks.


__________________
"It's the quality of your effort that counts most and offers the greatest and most long-lasting satisfaction." - John Wooden
JohnR

Registered:
Posts: 6,793
Reply with quote  #19 

Bird -

 

Yup.

 

Does make you wonder, particularly since it's pretty obvious upon reading a few bios that many American pros never put in remotely that amount of time. Carlos Bocanegra played football seriously through his high school years as well as soccer. Taylor Twellman was offered a professional baseball contract by the KC Royals. Man U's Jonathan Spector played basketball & baseball before settling down to concentrate on soccer during his teenage years. Etc.

 

On the other hand, you saw Thierry Henry's info. Practicing 5x weekly by age 13. Practicing 6x to 9x weekly by age 16. At least with the younger-age practices, the focus was skill acquisition through high repetition. So in the case of somebody like Thierry, as well as Brazilians, Argentinians, and other countries that still have a slum/street soccer culture, yeah I could see those kinds of numbers being achieved.

JimN

Registered:
Posts: 3,944
Reply with quote  #20 
It really doesn't make me wonder John.  It seems to me that the difference in time spent between Henry and the Americans you mention may be correlated in their level of technical ability.


__________________
players are not possessions
develop the individual

about my job
other ramblings
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

COPYRIGHT @ 2004 - 2016 AND-AGAIN, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED