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


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 6      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next
thoughtsoc

Registered:
Posts: 6,536
Reply with quote  #41 

Kev, I'm not sure what you're addressing exactly.  Some of it seems communicational, some of it seems like "russ bashing", a term evidentally in need of definition so that it can begin appearing in dictionaries.  I'll let you take a stab at the definition. 

 

It's been challenging figuring out why people act as they do sometimes, and if it's in part or all because I'm perceived as trying to sell a book, that's a more understandable thing than me just thinking people are angry, dishonest jerks.  As I said, if a policy is established that anyone who has written a soccer book isn't welcome here, then I can live with that.  I don't think it would work to say, "If you've written a soccer book, you can post here but if your ideas are too much like the ideas in your book you'll live to regret it."  I know the forum members have been hostile to the idea of rules, but some guidelines for new posters might be a very useful thing.  It's a matter of: what kind of a climate to you want to establish here?

thoughtsoc

Registered:
Posts: 6,536
Reply with quote  #42 

ANY coach that has the bare faced cheek to pass off work completed by others AS there OWN by changing the name or moving a cone etc has REAL problems with their own principles.

 

I guess that's the issue, Kev.  You seem to think that I've done this with one or more of the activities or scrimmages I include at my website.  I'm hoping this thread will establish that it's not true.  Giving credit where I could is something I've been very careful about.  I've also been extremely honest about such things.  In part because honesty is an important value to me, but in part because I can't afford to be otherwise.  That's why I made a conscious decision to be open about being passed over for the C license.  So, if proof can be provided that an activity existed such that a) it is in writing somewhere, or b) we can otherwise clearly identify the origination of the activity, I'll include this in the revisions I want the publisher to make next time (if there is a next time).  Where the whole thing loses credibilit with me is when a) "open season" is announced on anyone who has written a book and is talking about it, to the point of suspending honesty and other rules  b) people on a hunting spree then provide hearsay evidence that they've used the activity for years.

thoughtsoc

Registered:
Posts: 6,536
Reply with quote  #43 

Sorry I have so much to say on this.  The other strange thing is that the same activity that is bashed in one moment is later classified as being stolen.  From my humble viewpoint, it seems to be that anything with actual value must have been stolen while anything that goes against the grain must have been a bizarre invention.  The side-to-side scrimmage is an example, the scrimmage where the ball must reach one side and then the other before a team can score.  Is it a useful scrimmage or a harmful one?  Was it invented or pilfered?

JimN

Registered:
Posts: 3,944
Reply with quote  #44 
Russ - your invention claims are quite humorous.  There is no doubt in my mind that you have come up with games on your own - even if some of them have been used by many others for years and years.  You are a creative guy, no question.

However, the fact that you either have, or believe that you have, come up with all of the games you mention on your own is telling.  It seems that for you there is not value in an idea that you learn from others; there is only value in ideas that you come up with on your own.  This has led you to either spend your life "inventing" things, or convincing yourself that you have invented these games and ideas.

CB mentioned home design, and I can relate to that.  I once did home and remodeling design as a job.  One of the things I learned early is that while I can spend time inventing ideas for design, it is much easier to be effectively creative after establishing a foundation of knowledge based upon what others have done.  Once one learns basic ideas and principles, and studies and learns what others have done creatively, ideas just start to flow.

I have tons of games that I, too, have invented for training in soccer.  I used to struggle to "invent" a training game or activity to accomplish something, but I found that as I studied the game more, I could become much more effective at coming up with the activities and ideas I needed to acheive my goals in training my teams.

I, like you, am just shocked that others may be using, or have already used, the games I have invented to train my teams. :tonguefirmlyincheek:


__________________
players are not possessions
develop the individual

about my job
other ramblings
MrSoccer

Registered:
Posts: 9,198
Reply with quote  #45 

Didn't feel like reading this crap why are we rehashing this all over again? Are you inventing more shit Russ that we have already used since forever?

 

Russ you invented the "V" passing right? So you can still pass when opponents get into the square passing lanes verticle and horizontal passing right?

 

Are we bored?

---------------------------

I just got an Italian Musical album I originally had in the 1960's I didn't invent it :-) it was lost.

 

It's called "Giglio Melodies" all the music and marches from the Giglio Feast.

 

I have wanted it back all my life. My daughter finds the record on e-bay some how. I get the record last one made was in 1979 and only 200 made back then. The record was never played.

 

Friend of mine put it on audio tape for me. I had someone put the audio tape on Audio CD.

 

The audio CD came out a lot better then the audio tape.

 

Played it brought me back in time 46 years. If I could have cried I would have cried hearing it again but can't cry so I didn't.

 

Love this music. I made a bunch of copies that I will give away to people who would appreciate hearing it which unfortunately is none of you. :-)

 

Love this stuff especially the song that was invented by someonwe other then Russ title "106th Street" and of cource "O'Giglio e Paradise"

 

 


__________________
Only the unloved hate
thoughtsoc

Registered:
Posts: 6,536
Reply with quote  #46 

However, the fact that you either have, or believe that you have, come up with all of the games you mention on your own is telling.  It seems that for you there is not value in an idea that you learn from others; there is only value in ideas that you come up with on your own.  This has led you to either spend your life "inventing" things, or convincing yourself that you have invented these games and ideas.

 

Jim, you're changing the topic a bit here.  The topic is essentially one regarding plagiarism.  The question being: Did Russ Carrington actually invent this or that activity?  If the answer is no, did he knowingly borrow it from somewhere and claim credit for it?  From this, the issue is changed slightly to my apparent need to invent things while eschewing what other people have to offer.

 

As a therapist, I've invented very little.  Almost everything I use was a result of learning some new model or another, with a few exceptions.  Therapists go through many such though revolutions as the models change.

 

In soccer, though, I found that the things I was looking for, for the most part, didn't exist.  That's why I felt justified in giving them a name: High Impact Skill Activities, obnoxiously changed to HISA for short (you can blame my sister for that idea).  These are like sports unto themselves, with very detailed rules and boundaries.  They are workable for players of all levels.  And yes, it's even theoretically possible that professionals could compete at them in front of a crowd.  They're never fully mastered, they never become boring to the participants any more than some other sport becomes boring.

 

It is these kinds of activities that I believe in and advocate; whether I've invented them or someone else has is irrelevant to me (except for the plagiarism accusations).  If someone comes to me with what I consider to be a genuine HISA, I'll give them credit for it, add it to my website with their permission, and note it in my next revisions.

 

Going to take the C course, the year before my book was published, was a bit of a risk for me.  What if I learned ideas and activities that I genuinely felt were better than what I was using?  Or activities so similar to mine that mine were just redundant.  That would have been four years spent writing that really had no purpose.  What I realized, though, was that in looking for these "sports unto themselves" I was barking up a completely different tree.  The USSF model was instead looking for activities that could be used as part of a logical progression for a particular skill or tactic.  As such, they could have more of a disposable quality.  I don't mean that in a demeaning or condescending sense.  But these were not the kinds of activities that could be used in every practice.  And that's what I was looking for.  Stand-alone activities that would be quick and high impact within a multiple-theme practice.  That's why the sport-unto-itself quality was so important.  Otherwise, players would react, "Not that stupid game again!"

 

I'm as happy to borrow as the next guy, if it meets my needs.  I've done that in many other endeavors.  This soccer stuff is just one of those strange experiences where I preferred my own stuff.  Sensing that my own stuff was a bit different, I felt a responsibility to share it.  For anyone to develop anything useful, or even just potentially useful, and to not share it as much as possible during their lifetime, is a sad thing. 

 

 


thoughtsoc

Registered:
Posts: 6,536
Reply with quote  #47 

By the way Jim, what would have to happen for someone in soccer to believe he/she had "invented" something?  Obviously, one can't do an exhaustive search through every nook and cranny of the soccer world to find if anyone anywhere has done something similar.  A complete review of the soccer literature doesn't seem realistic.  The best one can do is:  A) Remember the exact moment in time when you first began using the activity, and the thought process that went into it, and that "Eureka!" feeling you got when what you invented seemed to work  B) Acknowledge that someone, somewhere else, could very likely have stumbled upon a similar activity independently.  Regardless of the person's personality, that's the only way it can be handled.

thoughtsoc

Registered:
Posts: 6,536
Reply with quote  #48 

I'm very interested in hearing if someone has heard anything remotely similar to Space Cowboy.  It's a wierd one, and my hunch is that anyone who gave it a quick look might have trouble visualizing or evaluating it.  Offside lines are everywhere, depending on the direction in which the ball is taken.  All these cool through passes, combinations, and runs at the offside line are invited.  Of course, someone will probably now say, "Been doing that one since 1972."

 

Perplexed by my pathetic existence, God gave me these activities on stone tablets.

MrSoccer

Registered:
Posts: 9,198
Reply with quote  #49 

"God gave me these activities on stone tablets."

 

In the Mel Brooks movie "The History of the world" Moses came down from the mountain with three tablets not two and said "Children of israel here are these 15 comand then droped one of the tablets and continued "These ten, ten comandments"

 

Then what if someone else came up with those missing 5 commandments 2000 years later? Did he invent them?


__________________
Only the unloved hate
thoughtsoc

Registered:
Posts: 6,536
Reply with quote  #50 

In the Mel Brooks movie "The History of the world" Moses came down from the mountain with three tablets not two and said "Children of israel here are these 15 comand then droped one of the tablets and continued "These ten, ten comandments"

 

Then what if someone else came up with those missing 5 commandments 2000 years later? Did he invent them?

 

That's a very good question, Mr. Soccer, again validating your nickname.  We'd have to know a little more about the situation.  Did the person who came up with the missing 5 commandments 2000 years later do so independently?  If so, we could probably say he "invented" them or "discovered" them but, since it's an idea we're talking about, we'd more likely say he"formulated" them or something.  For example, Sigmund Freud was the first person to speak about the id, the ego, and the superego.  We wouldn't say he "invented" or "discovered" these, although I once had a professor who said that and found it irritating. Rather, we'd say that he "formulated" these or "postulated their presence."  Most people now agree he was creative and clever, but that his postulations were very shakey if not complete rubbish.  Penal envy?  Give me a break!

 

In the Mel Brooks example, we'd also want to know the process that led to the postulation of the missing five commandments 2000 years later.  Did God inspire him, as he had Moses and me?  Had Moses passed on knowledge of the missing five commandments by word of mouth, spawning a secret sect of some kind, only for our person 2000 years later to claim credit?  Or did the person just think them up on his own?  I'd want to know these things before answering your question.

TomK

Registered:
Posts: 1,875
Reply with quote  #51 
Quote:
Originally Posted by thoughtsoc

....

  Did God inspire him, as he had Moses and me? 

 

I hope you're kidding, but the tone of this statement is almost as worrying as your suspicion that AFB is coordinating his and others "attacks" on you.

 

I've wisely stayed out of this so far, but...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thoughtsoc

There is only one other person who I know might have used Run the Gauntlet prior to its publication, which was 2001 I believe.  A gentleman at a soccer camp I worked at was very much in the critic's camp, so I gave him the draft of my book.  It wouldn't surprise me if he copied it that night.  I'm trying to recall the year I began using the game, and I believe it was my son's freshman year of high school which would have been 1995 I believe.  I would be very surprised, though, if anyone anywhere in the universe independently stumbled upon this game in the form I use it: similar course dimensions, similar rules.  The odds of that seem so remote that I'd have to see it in writing to believe it.

 

Are you saying that people here who claim that they have used something very similar prior to that time are lying?  I think you give much too much weight to the name of your exercise, which I do believe that you have come up with on your own, and possibly to minor differences in the rules you apply.

 

From Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass

If you have trouble with the difference between objects and pointers to objects, have sympathy for Alice.

. . .
'You are sad,' the Knight said in an anxious tone: 'let me sing you a song to comfort you.'

'Is it very long?' Alice asked, for she had heard a good deal of poetry that day.

'It's long,' said the Knight, 'but very, VERY beautiful. Everybody that hears me sing it--either it brings the TEARS into their eyes, or else--'

'Or else what?' said Alice, for the Knight had made a sudden pause.

'Or else it doesn't, you know. The name of the song is called "HADDOCKS' EYES."'

'Oh, that's the name of the song, is it?' Alice said, trying to feel interested.

'No, you don't understand,' the Knight said, looking a little vexed. 'That's what the name is CALLED. The name really IS "THE AGED AGED MAN."'

'Then I ought to have said "That's what the SONG is called"?' Alice corrected herself.

'No, you oughtn't: that's quite another thing! The SONG is called "WAYS AND MEANS": but that's only what it's CALLED, you know!'

'Well, what IS the song, then?' said Alice, who was by this time completely bewildered.

'I was coming to that,' the Knight said. 'The song really IS "A-SITTING ON A GATE": and the tune's my own invention.'

 

This forum, "Coaching Forum", is one of several underneath "Forums".  Perhaps Greg can add a "Bash Russ" forum next to it for all of these sort of posts.  Russ will no doubt get a kick of the notoriety of a forum "dedicated" to him.   

coachkev

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 14,607
Reply with quote  #52 
Quote:
Originally Posted by thoughtsoc

In the Mel Brooks movie "The History of the world" Moses came down from the mountain with three tablets not two and said "Children of israel here are these 15 comand then droped one of the tablets and continued "These ten, ten comandments"

 

Then what if someone else came up with those missing 5 commandments 2000 years later? Did he invent them?

 

That's a very good question, Mr. Soccer, again validating your nickname.  We'd have to know a little more about the situation.  Did the person who came up with the missing 5 commandments 2000 years later do so independently?  If so, we could probably say he "invented" them or "discovered" them but, since it's an idea we're talking about, we'd more likely say he"formulated" them or something.  For example, Sigmund Freud was the first person to speak about the id, the ego, and the superego.  We wouldn't say he "invented" or "discovered" these, although I once had a professor who said that and found it irritating. Rather, we'd say that he "formulated" these or "postulated their presence."  Most people now agree he was creative and clever, but that his postulations were very shakey if not complete rubbish.  Penal envy?  Give me a break!

 

In the Mel Brooks example, we'd also want to know the process that led to the postulation of the missing five commandments 2000 years later.  Did God inspire him, as he had Moses and me?  Had Moses passed on knowledge of the missing five commandments by word of mouth, spawning a secret sect of some kind, only for our person 2000 years later to claim credit?  Or did the person just think them up on his own?  I'd want to know these things before answering your question.

 

Jesuuuusss Its like watching a movie of Skakespeares Richard 111


"A horse! a horse! my kingdom for a horse!" --From King Richard III - 1592 - Act V. - Scene 4. - Rows: 7

King Carrington has been tortured by dreams of conscience in his tent on the battlefield (soccer pitch). He goes off to fight but his *horse* (credibility) is killed, and now Carrington fights on the ground. Rhetorically offering his kingdom for a *horse*, he continues to battle but it is hopeless. This scene reflects the pathetic and doomed figure that Carrington has become. He knows that he has been beaten, and that fate has turned against him. He gained the crown in a ruthless, brutal manner; and now in order to save his life, he offers to give the crown away. Staggering off, he enters his last combat where he will be slain by The Forum, who become the new God-fearing, compassionate way.

 

You REALLY do bring this on yourself Russ.

GA_Coach

Registered:
Posts: 261
Reply with quote  #53 

Mr Carrington, I don't think I have ever commented on any of the topics concerning you, one of the reasons for this is that I have never read your book. My folks always taught me to speak as I find, meaning that if I did not have enough information that I was in no position to judge anyone.

 

So with this in mind the only thing I am going to comment on is the run the gauntlet topic. As other people have said this is a very old drill, I am 42 years old and an old coach of mine called Dickie Miller, (I know the names irrelevant, but he deserves a mention) when I was 14 years old used this drill and the progressions of this drill to teach a few things, mainly it was used to teach P.C.B. as a defensive session and he also used it to teach the midfield and forward players how to break through a layered defensive. I always admired how Coach Miller showed his players both sides of the coin and he could use one type of drill and its progressions to teach numerous objectives and how to overcome them.


__________________

thoughtsoc

Registered:
Posts: 6,536
Reply with quote  #54 

So with this in mind the only thing I am going to comment on is the run the gauntlet topic. As other people have said this is a very old drill, I am 42 years old and an old coach of mine called Dickie Miller, (I know the names irrelevant, but he deserves a mention) when I was 14 years old used this drill and the progressions of this drill to teach a few things, mainly it was used to teach P.C.B. as a defensive session and he also used it to teach the midfield and forward players how to break through a layered defensive. I always admired how Coach Miller showed his players both sides of the coin and he could use one type of drill and its progressions to teach numerous objectives and how to overcome them.

 

GA Coach, thanks for your input.  This also replies to you, TomK.

 

On a particular date in time, sometime around 1995 or 96, I was looking for a dribbling game that would provide constant practice in dribbling past defenders.  I wanted the game to have a few ingredients:

 

1) The dribbler should have the frequent experience of pushing the ball past a defender in some fashion, and gathering the ball on the other side

 

2) Because of #1 above, the defender would have to be prevented from backpedaling to some degree, which goes against the grain of good defending somewhat.

 

3) The dribbler's push past the defender would have to be controlled somewhat.  It couldn't just be an aimless boot, as anyone could pull this off.  Therefore, a neutral zone followed by a second defender would have to be included.

 

4) I didn't want the players to have to come all the way back to the start for their next tries.  So, the feature of having the short line start from either end of the course was desirable.

 

5) I wanted the game to be useful for coaches who, like me at the time, weren't particularly good at teaching specific dribbling moves.

 

It was factors such as these that led me to try the defensive zones, the dimensions of the different zones, and so on, and these worked out pretty much as I had hoped the very first time and haven't changed.

 

It is the rather idiosyncratic nature of the thought process that would make me very surprised if someone else somewhere has actually used the game in this fashion, with these dimensions and rules.  If someone states they have, I wouldn't immediately accuse them of lieing.  I don't think most people risk lieing at a soccer forum.  But I would want further clarification:

 

1) Are you sure you clearly understand the game as I use it?  Just to be sure, could you put back to me in your own words how my game works?

 

2)  Now, could you tell me exactly how your game works so that we can assess how close the games really are?

 

3) Where did you learn your game?  Who taught it to you?  Is it possible that we can trace this down to some book or something?  Is it even possible that it could be traced back to me, as I've been using the game since 1995 and other people who now are coaching have learned it from me?  For example, I taught the exercise in coaching workshops and team trainings long before the book was published.

 

If all these factors are addressed, and indeed someone else invented an almost identical activity independently, I'd want to find that person and learn their other activities.  I'd be amazed, but I realize it's possible.

thoughtsoc

Registered:
Posts: 6,536
Reply with quote  #55 

GA Coach, my hunch from what you're saying is that our activities are a bit different.  Mine wouldn't be used to teach pressure/cover, normally, although a variation is used to teach cover ("One Layer Two" and "Distant Layers", both described at my website).  Nor would it be used to teach a team to break through a layered defense.  Mine is a 1 v 1 activity in its pure form.

 

Run the Gauntlet as I use it also has some very useful variations.  So, this should probably be added to the discussion.  If someone has used this game themselves, what variations are possible?

 

I'm still waiting for some feedback on Space Cowboy, and I hope someone will give feedback on this.

newsocdad

Registered:
Posts: 1,578
Reply with quote  #56 

With the exception of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, there has been not much completely new revolutionary thought out there in the world.  Maybe the triangle defense qualifies.

 

The reality is that for general concepts like soccer games/drills -- there are no "new" ideas that one can say with any certainty that they and only they invented.  Most coaches don't write the darn things down (and I greatly appreciate those that do so I can use them -- thank you).  Second, all of  them are based on some earlier game/drill.  I suspect that I am not unique when I look at games/drills on this and other sites, and tweak them in a manner that I hope will adapt well to my players.  Sometimes you can go with game/drill simply as described, but more often than not, I find I must adjust things on the fly to fit my kids at that particular practice.  Do my adjustments mean I have invented a new game/drill?  It depends on your view.  My thought would be no, but I could see the other side of the argument.  On the other hand -- How would I ever know if mine was the first attempt (and why would I care)?

 

By the way, I also stole the Einstein argument.  That appears in a book I am reading by Bill Bryson on Science.  A pretty good read -- kind of a summary of current scientific thought in different areas (physics, evolution, geology, etc.) written for non-sciencetific people with some interesting background on the people involved.

 

 

Allez_Arsenal

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,100
Reply with quote  #57 

What is the book called?


__________________
C'est Tout
newsocdad

Registered:
Posts: 1,578
Reply with quote  #58 

I was trying to remember as I wrote the post -- I think it is something like A Short History of Nearly Everything.  It is a couple of years old now.

GA_Coach

Registered:
Posts: 261
Reply with quote  #59 

Sorry Mr. Carrington,

As I think I stated the PCB and Layered defense was just part of the progressions. The idea of the zones were used in many ways, such as how to take players on 1v1, how to defend 1v1. I could go on about progressing using the same zones how to defend 1v2 progressing to 2v2. In-fact I could go on about so many progressions from these zones it would become boring.

 

What I am trying to say is that the zones you use have been used for a very long time. The dimensions may be different, as I have never read your book I don't know the dimensions you use, however, in the coaching sessions I had as a teenager Coach Miller changed the dimensions to suit whatever "drill" and theme he intended to teach. Such as making it larger to suit the novice attacker. making it  smaller to suit the more skilled player. This also worked for the defender, obviously in the reverse, making it smaller for the novice defender and larger for the more experienced.


__________________

ErikB

Registered:
Posts: 695
Reply with quote  #60 

Russ-


Give it up on this one.  Your "Run the Gauntlet" invention (wait,that should be Run the Gauntlet "invention") has been around for years prior to 1995.  Any number of 10 yd squares, defender in every other one.  And no, adding the return line is not some great innovation.  If I didnt' have enough cones we went one way with some activity on the way back, otherwise both ways.  It was used for offense and defense.  And, btw, the only thing you'd have to change to make it a P/C defensive tactic is put two defender squares in a row before having an open square.  OMG, I just "invented" a new drill!  Oh, crap, better think of a name before someone else tries to steal my idea!

 

Actually, maybe that was in one of the 70's coaching books that were all I had to reference my first year of coaching.

 

For someone who so glorifies semantics in all his postings, you obviously picked that word on purpose as opposed to something like "formulated" which has a similar meaning but doesn't have the same strong exclusive connotations.

 

Erik

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

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