the Raumdeuter.

Control
Is our addiction to control destroying our most creative players? It seems we may have strayed further than a simple need for control of the ball; we want to decide every single moment, every movement, every position, every thought.

We want to control the player and their every move. Only, controlling each player’s actions comes at a price. We lose their perception of the game and, therefore, their identity and creativity in the process.

But where does our cry for control come from? We’re going to explore if positional play is the answer to developing creative and unique footballers, what the alternatives are and how to train players to think for themselves and find unique solutions on the football pitch.

Positional Play
So let’s start here, what’s wrong with positional play (PP)?

Positional play decides what the players do and when they do it. You may hear that through PP we give the players freedom within the rules we enforce, however, this is no freedom at all, for we have predetermined the answers from which the players can choose. This is not freedom, but an illusion of such.

Essentially, positional play attempts to maximise efficiency by limiting the player. The player must stand and occupy spaces on the pitch to affect the opposition’s defensive system, and then after receiving the ball, the players have a set of options from which to choose.

And through the rule of occupying predetermined spaces, we remove freedom of movement and therefore the freedom to create spaces through creative, spontaneous play.

So, when it comes to development, what exactly is the problem? Well, a PP system is ultimately decided by the coach. The system comes before the individual. However, if we are so determined to develop unique individuals, individual development can’t come second.

Being part of such a rigid system has many drawbacks, especially within the paradigm of development. There is no freedom of expression for the player, no original thought. The players become robots, they lose themselves. We stop our players from developing a unique identity. They lose what makes them special. We make them like everyone else.

And what’s worse is, this style of football, which hinders a young player’s development, is rife within the academy system and is spreading to grassroots. We have to ask ourselves a fundamental question, when it comes to development, what do we want to see?

A system which shows off some of our knowledge as coaches and will limit our players?

Or, a system built around the individuals within the group, allowing them to make decisions on how to build, how to create and how to score. A style of play which will likely empower and encourage new and unique ideas.

I know which one I’m after. And through modern interpretations of practice, if we break free from the norm, there is another way.

Pawns
The honest truth, though we may not want to hear it is this; positional play is a style of play to show the ego of the coach. The coach picks when and where their team attacks, which actions the players can take and ultimately limits the player’s decisions. It’s to show the knowledge of the coach, not the knowledge of the players.

One of the many problems with this approach is these predetermined attacks are scripted and once another team has seen the script, it becomes easy to stop. And if this rigid plan is stopped, then the players look around not knowing what to do until the break when the coach can take over again and offer them a new solution.

This is not how we are going to develop creative, intelligent footballers and if this has been a player’s whole football education, they have no way to adapt, to find a new answer, to find a way to succeed. The honest truth is, we set them up to fail.

It’s becoming increasingly more frequent to hear the comparison between football and the game of chess. In chess, there is a chess player, who dictates the movement of the pieces. The pieces have fixed movements, and when can these pieces move? When the master decides.

But there’s a fundamental problem here, footballers are not chess pieces who can’t think for themselves and they do not need a chess master to govern their movements. In chess we give life to static objects by giving them purpose – rules in which they can move. In football, we’ve limited human expression into lifeless objects who are bound by the limits we enforce.

We limit our players into behaving one way, that suits the system and through this we lose individual character and creativity. This stems from two things, Pep Guardiola being extremely successful with his positional brand of elite football and our very own fears and insecurities.

We want control, our image on the pitch, our vision, we want to show what we know – but in this quest to show our own knowledge we’ve lost what is most important, the development and the knowledge of the player. This is, of course, the very essence of a development coach.

Freedom
We must remember that when controlling possession, building from the back and playing through the thirds there is not only one way to attack. Just as high pressing is not the only way to defend. These styles of play are not necessary to win games of football, nor are they necessary for the development of world class footballers.

You could argue that moving the ball more, having more possession will allow for more interactions and therefore more technical and skill based development.

I too believe more interactions are beneficial, however, this doesn’t mean we should enforce one version of possession football onto our players. Some of us might like shorter passes, players closer together for more interactions, however, in development, we don’t want to undervalue the long pass, we don’t want to undervalue stretching the opposition.

We must be open to all opportunities to attack and defend, and our job is to highlight these opportunities to our players, not instruct them. And it is for our players to take this information and act upon it however they see fit.

Only then will real development take place. This is the safe space we must create, where the players can try things we wouldn’t, and work things out for themselves. I can honestly count on one hand the amount of coaches at the top level that actually do this.

The Constraints Led Approach (CLA) constrains, manipulates and stretches the boundaries of practice to highlight problems the players may face in the performance environment (game day).

However we must be careful not to over constrain, or only highlight one aspect of the game. I have been working within the world of the CLA for almost a decade now, and something I have come to realise is that change and variation within practice is where the real learning happens.

Differential Learning
As my understanding of development and learning evolves, I am increasingly intrigued by Differential Learning. Differential learning is a motor learning method that was proposed in 1999 by Dr. Wolfgang Schöllhorn, and works around the premise that the learning of an action or movement is dependant on the amount of noise created (practice variability).

As discussed in a previous article written for theRaumdeuter, ‘We need to talk about technique…’, our aim as coaches should not be to reach for ‘the one perfect technique’, but instead for skilful adaptability. In other words, rather than perfection of particular techniques, we should aim for a wide range of variability of techniques – the idea is that this approach will lead to players being so adaptable, that they can overcome any problem put in front of them.

We need to talk about technique

CLA & DL
Whilst I promote the use of the CLA and DL, it is important to understand that there are differences between the two and how we use them will determine how our players develop. Here are the main differences that have made an impact on my understanding:

DL
In DL, the idea is to create enough stochastic resonance (aka. noise/variation) as to not engage the frontal lobe of the brain.

The problem with engaging the frontal lobe, is that this is the part of the brain that plays a role in judgment, empathy and reward seeking behaviour and motivation.

Judgement, in football development terms, will lead to behaviour that will lead the athlete behaving in ways that will interrupt the learning process. For example, if an athlete attempts to dribble, and falls over losing the ball, they will feel judgement from their peers to maybe not try again.

Many of the brain’s dopamine-sensitive neurons are in the frontal lobe, dopamine is a brain chemical that helps support feelings of reward and motivation. So if the coach says something like, ‘Mujeeb, well done for switching the ball out of trouble there.’ This will engage the frontal lobe, the player will feel a positive hit from the dopamine, and begin to behave seeking more of the same reward.

Now Mujeeb will begin to behave as if tight areas are perceived as ‘trouble’ and big spaces afford the most opportunity. (What we will look at later is how there is opportunity in every situation on a football pitch) So if we praise a player blindly, it can lead to poor decision making in search for dopamine.

With empathy, maybe a player shoots and misses the target, there is a free player in the box who feels the ball should have been played across to score. The player will feel empathy for the missed opportunity and this will shape how they approach similar problems in the future.

We want to avoid engaging the frontal lobe in practice so the player will stay in a continuous process driven state. We do this through constant variation of the task, environment and individual boundaries. The athlete is to learn without correction or feedback. This is essentially Differential Learning.

Think of a baby attempting to walk, when they fall over, the frontal lobe has not reached the stage of feeling judged, so they just get back up and try again. They are in a constant state of process, a constant state of learning from within their own experience. This is the state that DL attempts to reach.

CLA
The CLA works on the premise that you can manipulate the task, environment and individual constraints to highlight a particular part of the game. The practice will offer affordances (opportunities to act) in line with the constraints you set, however the difference is these constraints are not changed as often. It is common to see a CLA practice’s constraints remain until the athletes find success.

These constraints, if left without constant change, will engage the frontal lobe, giving the players time to feel empathy, judgment and reward seeking behaviour.

Isolated Practice
The CLA requires representative design, the idea that for a representative practice, you need a ball, direction, an opponent and consequence. Where this breaks down is that there is no space for isolated practice. When looking through the lens of the CLA, isolated practice is not representative, and leads us to believe that there is no skill acquisition available within isolated practice. The problem is, we cannot say for sure that isolated practice does not contribute to an athlete’s skill acquisition at all.

Where DL differs, is that the method does not require opponents to support the athlete in learning. All it suggests, is that you need constant variation to not engage the frontal lobe.

Take an unopposed passing practice for instance, the practice itself offers little in the way of motor learning. However, through the lens of differential learning, it does offer something. There is often little to no variation within an unopposed passing practice, but, why do some coaches swear that it develops certain skills in players?

Because it actually does. But not for the reasons that coaches are often led to believe. One thing that the CLA and DL have in common is that repetition to reach a perfected technique does not improve a player’s skill level. Actually, through the ages of growth is where we see most improvement with drills like this, not because of the practice, but through the variation caused by growth.

In fact, doing almost anything with a ball whilst going through periods of growth will cause enough stochastic resonance to help the player learn. Whichever of these lenses we look through, this type of practice really is the absolute bare minimum when working with our players, I would absolutely advocate for using these as little as possible when compared with CLA or DL practice design.

Finally, there is noise in the CLA, there is variation, enough for players to develop much more than traditional coaching methods. However, if we want to develop the best and brightest footballers in the world, I think we can and should go further.

DL Finishing Practice
So what does a team based DL practice look like? Let’s look at finishing. Traditionally, finishing practices contain very little variation. Below is a finishing practice designed to add tonnes of stochastic resonance/noise/variation. You can adapt the rules of the practice as you see fit for your players. You adapt this practice easily to incorporate more or less players.

You can even do this with one attacker and no defenders, although there’ll be less stochastic resonance than what we would ideally search for, the variation from the different types of balls will support your athlete’s finishing development.

The idea is that the defenders are locked into zones to block, they can tackle if the ball enters the zone they are currently occupying. Again, the idea is to not engage the frontal lobe. So change the area size frequently.

What you are likely to find is players adapting in real time to the different environmental challenges from the balls and the opposition’s constraints.

I have been guilty myself of only highlighting one problem through the CLA, asking the players to repeat the search for a solution to one particular problem. And through this misunderstanding of practice design, I found that this isn’t enough to develop players to reach their highest potential.

For example, what happens when that problem inevitably changes on game day? We’ve practiced playing against a back four, now they’ve changed to a back three. The players become lost, and we have to step in to ‘guide’ them through a problem they’re not equipped to solve.

So, this begs the question, how do we develop individuals who can dynamically seek out deficiencies in the opposition? Who can identify where the gaps are appearing and how to create their own gaps to exploit. And how do we train this? Rather than the players following a rigorous set of rules, can we develop them to think for themselves?

Thankfully, yes we can. Below is a carefully constructed practice which helps develop player’s awareness and creativity. (Whilst viewing these practices, it’s important to understand that we are not looking through the lens of positional play, players do not have set positions they must occupy, but rather their positions are to be taken off of the position of the ball and the opponents.)

Build and Break
Below we will show a ‘build and break’ practice, designed to help players break apart basic defensive structures, in order to progress into more attacking spaces. This practice can be tailored to all age groups and any number of players. The rules are simple, get the ball from one end zone to the other.

The difference? Below pictures of the same practice with different constraints/boundaries being applied. The first constraint is that the blues can’t defend behind the halfway line. This will make them defend in a certain way, forcing the attacking team to act.

This is a keystone in constraints based coaching, constraining to afford. Essentially constraining the defenders so they act in a specific way, and therefore your attackers will act against that. As you scroll through the practice designs, new rules are applied; now one defender must defend behind the halfway line, then two, then three and so on.

Rather than just playing vs a defensive four, or a defensive two, the idea is to constantly change the opposition so the attackers have to self organise and work out solutions to new problems in real time, in game. These boundaries are to be changed every minute or so, this gives the attackers no time to relax and they stay in a constant state of problem solving, or as Wolfgang puts it ‘stochastic resonance’. This is what we are searching for, this is the developmental sweet spot.

Now, when it comes to game day, the players should be able to see and act upon whatever is in front of them. The idea is to ask them to constantly solve ever changing problems without the need for anyone to decide how to overcome these problems for them. Our job as the coach? Become obsolete.

There are also additional rules above, such as ‘Blues can only defend in the right side of the pitch.’ Again, this will change how they defend and this will then change the behaviours of the attacking team. These rules are ideas to constantly change the environment.

All of these rules are to be added gradually, and changed often. Allow some free play as part of the block as well.

We may feel it necessary to allow short breaks for the players to discuss how they’ll overcome these problems. One nice idea is to give each team a ‘time out’ they can use in each block at any time. If we give them more than one time out, I think it’s important to make these shorter each time so they have to be very deliberate with their communication.

Now all that’s left is to sit back and observe how our players attempt to overcome these problems, be careful not to go in and ‘fix’. Observation is key. We must get to know our players and how they approach the problems set. I’m often surprised with what some of them come up within this chaotic form of practice.

Opportunities to Act
It’s important to recognise that most of the hard work as a coach is done in the practice design. There is no need to constantly move in and force our opinion of how the game should be played when developing our players.

If we create a rich environment, full of opportunities to act, our players will choose how to solve these problems without much need for us to step in, we are simply there to bring their attention to these opportunities.

Observing is the best thing we can do, then asking our players to consolidate their learning; ‘Teddy, I’m interested as to why you chose to do that in that situation, could you explain why you made that decision?’

In highlighting their attention to things you can see that they may have missed. ‘Sarah, I noticed something when you had the ball just now, did you see Toby in a lot of space on the right hand side? You don’t have to give him the ball, but just be aware that he keeps taking up some good positions.’ Sarah may decide to use Toby, she may decide to fake using him, or ignore him all together – ultimately, it’s up to her.

What we are trying to avoid here, is everyone using Toby in the same way. How every single player approaches each problem will be different and that is exactly what we’re after. Individual thought.

Now we’re a part of their learning. We’re helping them see, highlighting opportunities to act, but not telling them they must act in a certain way. We are collaborating with them. All that’s left to do is sit back and watch the cogs turn as they become more ‘attuned’ to their environment.

And remember, there are no RIGHT answers. To be able to coach this freely, without the shackles of right and wrong, we might need to bust some unspoken footballing myths.

Myths
To break free from the constraints of control, first we must destroy the unspoken myths of modern day football…

Switching Play: Switching play is a regular theme of practice within academy football. The internet is riddled with ‘switching play’ practices, all with the same basic message. ‘Get the ball away from the chaos.’ But, what if by moving the ball away from the opposition, we are also moving the ball away from opportunities to play and create?

There is no need to switch the ball out of tight situations. There, I said it. When players are free on the wing, we think that we need to switch the play away from the rest of the team and put our winger or fullback in a 1 on 1 situation alone on the other side of the pitch, regardless of if they are a 1v1 player or not.

We’ve all heard shouts such as ‘switch it!’ from a coach on the sideline, then a player ignoring that instruction, faking playing wide and creating a new opportunity to play forward in amongst the chaos. The coach then claps and tells them well done, despite two seconds ago demanding that the only possible answer was to play the ball ‘out of trouble.’

There is absolutely no need to switch the ball out of a tight situation, it is one of many options, but not the only option. Some players may be able to play through that tight area with clever fakes, dribbles, passes and touches. We must allow our players to explore all the options, not just one. Within chaos, there is also opportunity.

Maximum width: Maximum width is not necessary to create space in a game of football. There is a place for stretching the opposition – pinning back the fullbacks, and keeping the width in order to create gaps in the opposition to play through.

It seems logical, and as PP systems have evolved, they have had to incorporate a strong rest defence to cope with the loss of possession into spaces created by having our players so far apart and far away from the ball, this has birthed the rise of the inverted fullback. However, none of this is strictly necessary to be able to play controlling and attacking football.

Every coaching course you attend points to maximum width as an integral principle of the game. When nearly every coach steps in on match day, you will undoubtably hear the phrase ‘where’s our width?’ Or ‘make sure we’re high and wide!’

However, when you begin to look closely, this often hinders the players more than it helps them. I’ve often seen these rules demanded from players, and they stand there, lifeless, just waiting. They’re not involved in the game, and unfortunately, following strict instructions will not help them reach their full potential.

Just like with switching play, there is no need for having one player hug the touch line. Maybe if you have a player who likes to isolate 1v1, but as a general rule? Remember there are no rules, players have to be free to find what works for them. The players must be able to explore options other than one style of play.

How often, for example, have you seen a player attempting to move into a central space to receive a forward pass, and is immediately told they must create width for the team. Now the player has lost their curiosity for dynamic spaces. They now just stand where they’re told. And just with that one phrase, their curiosity is gone and so is their potential. What if they found a new space inside the pitch, got on the ball and created a scoring opportunity for their team? We’ll never know.

Relativity
So what’s the alternative? Well it doesn’t have to be so black and white. If you want to create gaps in the opposition, do you NEED maximum width of the pitch? Can you not create enough width around the opposition? What about minimum width? What would happen if we changed our coaching philosophy to incorporate relative width? Taking position off of the ball and the opposition?

We have come to accept that maximum width is a set principle in football. It is not. There are no rules. When the development of the player comes to the forefront, I say that the players should decide. And when we speak about the development of young footballers, they are being hampered by this over simplification of the game. Maximum width should be a choice of the player for a reason. If they can not make that choice and we make it for them, we are cheating them away from their full potential.

Let’s start a new principle: ‘Play where the ball needs you to be’.

Creativity is only needed in the final third: ‘Wait for the ball in these spaces and we’ll move the ball to you’: Another positional play principle. Stand here and we’ll get you the ball. Think about all the interactions you instantly kill by forcing players to do this. I’ve seen it with my own eyes, players wanting to drop out of midfield to pull an opposition midfielder out, creating gaps to play through. Instead, no, stand in there and wait.

We talk about creative players as if they only ever belonged in the final third, every player on the pitch should have the responsibility to create. Why can’t a centre back be the most creative player on the pitch?

We forget that creative players can exist all over the pitch. Players that were ball orientated. We kill them before they’re even born. ‘Stand here and wait for the ball’, is by far the worst phrase in football development. We tell the players how they should build, how they should create, how they should attack. What about the players that can create the opportunity, not to score or assist, but what about the players who can create the opportunities to build?

Break Free from the Shackles
When we set up a practice, it’s important to think about whether we are allowing the players to explore all of the options the game has to offer or whether we’re just imposing one way to play onto them.

When we hear someone say, ‘you must be high and wide!’, or ‘where’s our width?!’ Ask them ‘why?’ What about the opposite option to that, what about everything in between?

We must stop accepting these make believe rules as truth and begin asking your players to explore the game. Maybe they’ll come up with something we have never seen before. Something new, something organic.

Turn up the Noise
More noise, less structure. You want your players to build out against a front three? Ask them build out against a front 3, 2, 1 and 4. Watch, as every few minutes you change the opposition shape, they begin to solve new problems together. Watch the team work together and the new ideas unfold.

They’ve solved playing out against all of these different formations? Change the pitch size: Narrow, Long, Short, Wide, No Corners, No middle.

Change the task, often: Build without going around the opposition +3 points, build without going through the oppostion +3 points, Build without playing over the oppostion +3, free play.

Change these boundaries/constraints and change them often. Watch the players work hard to overcome, to learn what works for them. Watch as they create opportunities to win the practice.

It’s too quiet, turn up the noise and find the joy of true footballing expression amongst the chaos.

Knowledge of
Our team has a game this weekend. The players need to know how to press the opposition. We have three sessions to make sure they know how to press correctly. It’s easy right? There’s plenty of set pressing structures out there; Man City with their out of possession 4-4-2, Newcastle with their extremely high front line, Bielsa with his man to man press. But which one is right for us and our team? Maybe we’ll press with a front three, maybe a front two, maybe we’ll have one of our attackers sit on the opposition’s no.6.

Whichever one we choose, of course it’s for us to determine as the coach. And we’ll press in this structure no matter who we play against. ‘This is how I want my team to press…’ we’ll say. We win the ball back a record number of times. The stats back it up, we’re an out of possession genius! But what does this really mean? Does this demonstrate the player’s knowledge in the game or does this demonstrate our knowledge of the game?

What if by prescribing a specific pressing structure, even if seemingly successful, is actually restricting our player’s adaptability and their capability to see problems for themselves? Is this what we want to develop in our players? Do we treat them as robots, where we input the solution for them to execute? Are they the computers and we input the code? As youth developers, have we got the notion of out of possession development wrong?

What if no set pressing structure is the right answer? Would we not rather the players could dynamically organise, whilst in the game, to set traps and win the ball back for their team? Are we trying to give the players the necessary tools to succeed in top flight football, or are we simply showcasing what we know as coaches? Does this benefit us, or does this benefit them?

Success
In youth development this understanding of tactical solutions is great for us as coaches to have knowledge of. But we must be careful not to enforce this knowledge on the players as the right or only way to do something. There are infinite ways to defend and attack and our job is to make sure our players can recognise these in game situations and capitalise on them.

The pressure of parents, perhaps higher ups and peers in our coaching structure, all watching our team’s play on the weekend, is hard to ignore. We need them to know that we understand the game. We can’t have the players working through what they don’t yet understand. That would be too messy, and make us look like we don’t know what we’re doing!

We all want to feel valued and be looked at as successful. But what is success in youth development? I’m not sure it’s proving to everyone that we have knowledge of the game. And it’s certainly not players winning the ball back because the coach has told them where to stand and when to run.

Maybe real success is supporting the players in noticing how the opposition are trying to play and deceiving them to win back the ball. If we ask the right questions, and highlight the problems they don’t yet see, giving them space to come to a solution – this will not only make them more dynamic and adaptable, but will also develop their problem solving skills for years to come.

Right & Wrong
When developing young players, even as soon as u9s, there is pressure on the coaches to have their team look a certain way. We take control and tell them where to stand and what to do. We take the learning process away from them. So what’s the answer to this? Quite simply, we have to be strong enough to allow players the space to go through something we think is the wrong answer.

Confusion is actually a healthy part of learning. When a player is confused, this just means they are unsure of why a certain aspect of their game is failing. This is normal and often leads to motivation to highlight the problem and then to find an answer. If we give the players an answer first, they never feel this confusion, and therefore never find the motivation to learn.

So do we sit back and do nothing? No, but we have to be careful when supporting the players in the learning process. Highlighting problems to solve as opposed to solving the problem. Allow the players the space to fail, and then highlight what the problem was in the next individual or group conversation.

There is no rush in youth development. Allow them the chance to fix the problem themselves before we jump in and take the joy of learning away from them. They may even notice the problem and fix it through working together. They will then be more aware of this particular problem in the future. Maybe you’ll concede some goals, and maybe you’ll end up 6-0 down. That’s fine. We have to be comfortable being uncomfortable in the short term, for the players to flourish in the long term.

So with this new approach in mind, how can we support this long term development on the training pitch?

Knowledge in
How do we go about developing player’s knowledge in the game? How do we get them to a place where they can look at how an opposition team is playing, and decide where to set traps and win the ball back for potential goal scoring opportunities? How does this look on game day and how can we replicate this in training?

Firstly, we must step away from traditional instructional ‘there’s a right and wrong way to do it’ coaching approach. And move towards shared principles. Otherwise known as ‘shared affordances’. Maybe a shared affordance for the team is that we want to win the ball in front of the goal to set up goal scoring opportunities. Using this shared principle, there are now a myriad of ways to achieve this. And this will come down to how the opposition are set up, how they want to play and us noticing these problems in the game.

It’s important to figure out what you are trying to develop in your players. Ultimately, we are trying to improve their problem solving skills. We want to develop their ability to look at each unique situation and work together to find success. To do this, we must set them challenges and problems to overcome.

The above practice is aimed at doing just that. Blues are trying to play out from the goalkeeper with the aim to score. Red is not your usual magic player, they will only play for Blues. Blues choose a player to put on a red bib. The Red will play on Blue’s team, and if the Blues can play through the Red player and score, they will gain 3 points instead of 1. Red is your ‘MVP’.

What does this do for the out of possession team? Well, it gives them a problem to solve. The Blues are attempting to play through their MVP, however, can still choose not to use them if they deem them the wrong option. The set up is highlighting a potential game situation. The Yellows are now armed with the knowledge of where Blues would like to play, now it’s up to them to trap the Blue team, steal the ball and score.

It’s important to recognise, this practice is not designed to stop the opposition playing where they want, more to make them think they can play where they want and then have the ball stolen away from them in the process. The progressive task constraint of ‘+3 points for an interception and goal’ gives the players an extra challenge of intercepting the ball. Really making them think proactively about where the ball is likely to go.

Changing the MVP and the lane that they are locked into, brings a fresh yet familiar challenge. Allow the players discussion breaks, maybe disguised as half times. I like to do this when the score line is getting away from the team I’m working with, so they have a chance to re-diagnose the problem and overcome it together. This practice is not limited to outfielders, try making your goalkeeper MVP and see what the players come up with to trap them!

Lastly, if these challenges are being met, I would look to change some variables of the practice. The starting point: rather than a goal kick, starting with a pass back from midfield to a deeper player. Maybe from a throw. You can play with different versions of this to allow the same problem with a fresh outlook. Depending on numbers, playing with opposition formations will also bring a new challenge to the practice. Are they playing against a back four? A back two? A back 3? Changing the variables is something I would do when revisiting the session later in the week.

Inside or Outside?
Often a common coaching point discussed under the topic of pressing is, do you want your team to show the opposition inside or outside? My answer to this is, it depends on too many variables to have your team press in one specific way. I’ve heard too many times, that when it comes to coaching defending, it’s more ‘yes or no’ than attacking. I don’t agree with this statement.

There are infinite ways to defend specific situations and the context of each specific situation will demand using different tactics. This is why, if we want to develop the very best tactical minds in football, it’s important to set up a variety of problems for your players to solve. Every team you play against will play a different way and use different players more than others in build up.

Their individuals will also have different skill sets. What if one team has great 1v1 wide players and next team have a press resistant CDM. All of these variables will play a part in how your players approach the game. If you press one way, are you really helping your players assess the game? Are you helping them develop their knowledge in the game? Or are you showcasing your knowledge of the game?

Game day
When it comes to game day, the pressure on coaches from parents and peers is more immediate. There’s a lot of pressure on the players too. They are expected to show what they’ve learnt in training that week. But what happens if we’ve prescribed them a set pressing structure and the opposition have found a way to continually bypass it? The players feel like they’ve done something wrong, but they’ve followed what we’ve asked of them to the letter!

It doesn’t look good for us either, the players on the pitch are, after all, a reflection of us and the training they receive. It’s very easy to then slip into a more controlling mode, telling the players exactly what to do so they look good in the short term, in turn making us look like good coaches. This, in my opinion, is papering over the cracks. So how do we help the players on game day?

Firstly, let’s start with what a player led press looks like. Here’s some questions to help your players assess the problems on the pitch and support them in finding some solutions.

‘Where’s the danger?’

‘Where are they trying to play?’

‘Who are they trying to play through/into/onto?’

‘Where are their gaps and spaces? How do we close them?’

‘What’s worse for us right now, they play through the middle, around the side or over the top?’

Maybe you’ve noticed something about one of the opposition players, for example the CB having a skilful long range passing ability. Feel free to highlight this as a problem and ask the players to solve it. As they move to put pressure on the CB, they may leave a player behind them free, now highlight that to the players. ‘How do we stop the CB having time to play those long passes and protect the area behind our first line of pressure?’

Now what’s important to remember here is that there is not one answer to these problems. We have to work through it with the players. We are there, not to solve their problems for them, but to highlight problems and then have them work through them together, as a team. Imagine you took this approach in training and games for three months. Imagine all of the experience they would have, playing against different teams, with different variables in their playing out structures and all of the unique individuals they’d have to assess.

The plan is to get to a point where you have as little intervention as possible. The players will start asking the question, ‘where’s the danger?’ And they will begin to notice how opposition teams want to play. They’ll highlight the problems to their teammates and have experience of how to deal with a variety of build ups. You will have supported the development of their knowledge in the game.

Tactical
Here’s what Steve McClaren had to say after moving to FC Twente and speaking to young players from their academy in the Netherlands in 2012:

‘‘…They teach young players at eight or nine years old how to solve problems on the field for themselves.’’

“I remember one young lad I had who was a 21-year-old. We wanted to teach him a bit of tactics and a bit of formation work ahead of a game. He spent 20 minutes talking through what he would do against this team. It was in such an intelligent way and exactly what we’d been talking about.”

“I told him that his presentation was unbelievable and that no English player I know could’ve done that. I asked him where he’d picked that up from. He explained that he’d been doing this kind of tactical work and intelligence work since he was about 11 years old. That’s the difference between the two cultures.”

We still have an opportunity to lead the world in our approach to developing tactically advanced footballers, and players learning this side of the game will only help improve the overall level of the players we’re working with in the long run.

Are we so committed to a top down, linear approach to learning that we forget the real meaning behind what we do as youth developers? Are we there to give the players the answer, so they look good on a Sunday morning or are we there to give our players the ability to adapt to ever changing problems – with or without us on the sideline.

The next time you design a practice for your players, ask yourself the question – Is this showing my knowledge of the game or their knowledge in the game?

This was originally posted in September 2023, since then my learning has developed and my views have changed. Below is an edited version to align with where I am today on the 6th August 2025.

When we delve into the world of football, we find its beauty intertwined with the breath-taking synergy of teammates, orchestrating moments of brilliance to unlock even the most resolute defences. Picture a pair of midfielders passing through opposition, their connection seemingly telepathic. This fluid connection between players paints a vivid canvas where the team in possession flows and weaves their way toward the goal.

We aim to unravel how we can create an exhilarating environment, filled with opportunity and freedom, where players can be creative and discover the boundless ways to connect with their teammates during possession. Furthermore, we’ll journey into the realm of defining group patterns like the ‘one-two’ or ‘third man run’ as emergent structures, all while embracing ecological dynamics in our practice design.

The infamous Arsenal goal vs Norwich City

Too often, albeit passionately, coaches will plan and deliver the topic of ‘combination play’ and ‘one-twos’ meticulously taught to the group through repetitive passing pattern drills, complete with lifeless mannequins and a barrage of instructions dictating when, how, where, and to whom to pass. Coaches shout deliberate commands, tirelessly correcting perceived ‘errors,’ demanding immediate ‘high tempo’ from the outset. Players are instructed on their body positions and the precise surface of their foot to be used when encountering a specific mannequin in the routine. They pretend there’s opposing pressure while constantly checking their shoulders hopeful the mannequin might have moved. However, such a structured approach takes away vital elements of adaptability and understanding from the athletes.

What do players experience in this example of exaggerated practice? They are limited to one way of passing, one predefined direction, a single method to configure their bodies for an expected return, and an unwavering insistence on fast passes. They are demanded to turn their heads left and right, regardless of the context. It is impossible to scan for clues, absorbing information about the defender’s body shape, approach angle, and speed—details that could inform adaptation. This method fails to mirror the complexities of the actual game, where players must think on their feet, solving real challenges posed by a dynamic and unpredictable environment.

---

What is an Emergent Structure in football?

An emergent structure refers to how players spontaneously organise themselves on the pitch during a match. It’s about their positioning, movement, and coordination in response to the ball, the space, the opposition, and their teammates. This structure is not predetermined; rather, it emerges organically as players react and adapt to the evolving dynamics of the game. It’s a dynamic and ever-changing pattern that takes shape through the interactions of players on the field. Examples include the ‘one-two’ and the ‘3rd man run’, but football’s global tapestry reveals various emergent structures, from the ‘tabela’ to ‘toco y me voy’ and ‘escadinha’ in Brazil mentioned in one of our previous articles:

To truly develop emergent structures like the ‘one-two,’ ‘up, back, and through,’ and ‘3rd man run,’ we must embrace an approach that acknowledges the dynamic nature of football. The coach can’t dictate every movement; instead, players must be given the freedom to adapt and innovate. It’s the players themselves who are in control of these emergent structures on the pitch. In reality, these structures evolve and adapt based on the constantly shifting variables of the game, including the opposition’s movements and the unique qualities of each player.

They are dependent on the participants and how they recognise opportunity to connect with each other, they will make decisions based off where the opposition is, where space is, where the ball is and where their team mates are and these will be constantly changing throughout the match.

Tottenham Hotspur 3rd man run vs Leicester City

These emergent structures are rooted in the players’ recognition of opportunities to connect with one another. They make split-second decisions based on the positions of opponents, the ball, and their teammates, and these decisions are in constant flux throughout the match.

The potential for an emergent structure exists in every moment of the game. For instance, a one-two only requires two teammates and a ball, regardless of their location on the pitch. How they execute the one-two depends on various factors: where the ball is, where the opposition is, where their teammate is, and the overall game context. Are they advancing the ball or escaping pressure?

In contrast to the rigid practices that attempt to pre-plan every move, we should strive to create training environments that mirror the richness, complexity, and challenges of real football. This means moving away from a deconstructed version of the game that molds athletes into a linear, homogenised style of play and thought. Athletes should be able to adapt to a variety of movements and situations, responding dynamically to the ever-changing game environment. Ensuring the representative information is always present ball, space, opposition and teammate.

Lionel Messi and Dani Alves showcasing one-twos

Take, for instance, the fluid and unpredictable nature of players like Dani Alves and Messi in the image above. They excel because they are acutely aware of each other’s positions and readiness to receive the ball. They adjust their tempo, choosing between quick and deliberate play based on real-time observations. While their positional training plays a role, the presence of dynamic opposition is a constant stimulus. Whether the opposition is numerically underloaded, overloaded, or balanced, it influences how these players adapt their movements and decisions.

Emergent structures are shared patterns that develop through perceived opportunities

---

What can the Ecological Dynamics Approach do for me?

So, how can the Ecological Dynamics approach benefit us? Using this lens in session design provides an environment brimming with opportunities and challenges, fostering player self-organisation. Emergent structures naturally develop, and the relationships between teammates flourish. Players must gather information to recognise pressure from dynamic opponents, prompting constant adaptation of intentions and actions. The opposition, in turn, learns and begins to anticipate in-possession patterns, pushing for an evolution of emergent structures. Players analyse and adjust their body shape, pass type, speed of movement, and direction, all in response to the ball, space, teammates, and opponents.

The more often players are exposed to situations rich in these elements, the greater their repertoire of potential solutions becomes. Coaches play a vital role in creating and highlighting these moments through diverse session designs and a range of player interactions, interventions, and coaching strategies. Going beyond representativeness can aid in their development. Understanding the relationship between a coach’s planning and practice design before training as well as their behaviours, language and adaptations live in practice can lead to purposeful and deliberate learning for both coach and player.

---

Repetition without repetition

‘Practice does not mean to mechanically repeat the same solution to a given task, but, to repeat over and over, the process of solving the task itself.’

Bernstein, N. A. (1967). The coordination and regulation of movements

Repetition, without mindless redundancy, should be a hallmark for all practice design. When designing coaching practices, the aim is to create an environment where players explore a variety of emergent structures to find success. Ensuring repetition of the process of problem solving occurs naturally, driven by a dynamic and unpredictable game environment.

It is crucial that players have the opportunity to gather information and assess to prepare their solutions intentionally. For example, consider the scenario where players in an end zone stay patient on the ball, giving those on the pitch time to reorganise and strategise. When players explore new ideas and strategies, they should not feel rushed or judged; the emphasis is not on ball speed but on gathering information (seeing/hearing/feeling) in play and building connections with teammates. The priority is making the “best decision” rather than the “first decision,” recognising that this will vary depending on individual abilities and the situation at hand.

There is no limit to the actions and ideas the in-possession team can employ to achieve success. Coaches should not look for a specific outcome; instead, the conditions and challenges serve as problems for the players to solve, prompting players’ attention toward potential emergent structures and relationships they can build. Opposition is essential to allow for co-adaptation between defenders and attackers, pushing attackers to evolve both individually and collectively.

Furthermore, teams should be given the opportunity to discuss the challenges and conditions within the environment, facilitating idea-sharing, reflection, and exploration. This can be accomplished through coach-provided objectives or talking points, but the players themselves should be the primary contributors to the discussion.

---

Practice design

This is one of my favourite topics to focus on in coaching. The returns are always amazing and the players are empowered to problem solve individually and as a collective. The practices below have been adapted many times by myself as well as collaboratively with other coaches to become what it is at the moment, and I hope they will continue to evolve within your environment. I utilise both differential learning and constraints led methodologies which underpin all of my practice design, both of these fall under an ecological dynamics approach.

Below are some examples of the practices I have used to encourage emergent structures (combination play) with premier league academy players.

The practice principles are present in all 3 examples below and should be consistent throughout. Below each diagram are the unique organisational and constraints or challenges for each type of session design.

Practice principles

Organisation

• Scoring zone is beyond the active offside line or to End Zone player
• To enter the Scoring Zone or find the End Zone player it must be done with a first time pass over the halfway line/into scoring zone/into end zone player

Potential progressions

• Use of different equipment- size 4/futsal/size 5 etc.

• Must play an ‘over’ pass over the halfway line/into scoring zone/into end zone player
• Must play a ‘through’ pass over the halfway line/into scoring zone/into end zone player
• Must play an ‘around’ pass over the halfway line/into scoring zone/into end zone player
• Under head height only
• More points scored if pass is over/through/around

3 v 3 + 2

Organisation

• 3v3 + 2 (end zone players)
• Area is set up with 3 pitches- Red (long and thin), Blue (short and wide) and Black (long and wide)
• Randomly the coach/players will call out a new pitch in play (practice should not be stopped)
• Team in possession should alternate between each end zone player

11 v 11

Organisation

• Pitches available are Red (high defensive line), Blue (narrow pitch), Yellow (diamond pitch)- each pitch increases the value of either over/through/around through combination play
• Potential conditions and challenges
  • First time pass across offside line or halfway line
  • Number of first time passes (in attacking or defensive half) = additional points if a goal is scored
  • Team in possession must alternate direction of pass – horizontal or vertical
  • Can not pass to the same unit (forwards/midfield/defence) and/or must alternate between units with each pass in defensive half

---

Conclusion

---

The beauty of football lies in the breathtaking synergy between teammates as they navigate the pitch, outwitting opponents and creating emergent structures that define the game’s fluid nature. Coaches play a crucial role in fostering an environment where players can explore limitless ways to connect with their teammates in possession.

Traditional coaching methods often involve repetitive passing pattern drills with rigid instructions, prescribing every aspect of the players’ actions. However, these practices fail to capture the essence of emergent structures in football. Emergent structures, such as the one-two and the third man run, are spontaneous patterns that develop from shared affordances and the ever-changing dynamics of the game.

To nurture emergent structures, coaches should utilsie an ecological dynamics approach in their session design. This creates an environment rich in opportunity and challenge, encouraging players to self-organise and adapt. Players must scan for pressure from dynamic opposition, forcing them to adjust their intentions and actions continually. Encouraging athlete-environment symmetry, to become a skillful performer they need to establish a relationship between themselves and their environment and not based on their knowledge or any pre-made decisions, closely linked to perception-action coupling.

Repetition without repetition occurs naturally within an ecological dynamics practice due to the game environment and relevant conditions. Prescribing solutions is counterproductive; players must have the freedom to explore and discover the best decisions based on their unique abilities and the evolving game situation. Understanding that athletes best perform when they can self-organise within a dynamic environment and adapt their movement solution to their attention and intentions.

In this approach, gathering information (seeing/hearing/feeling), assessing the game state, and patient decision-making take precedence over speed. Players should strive to make the “best decision” rather than the “first decision,” recognising that success may vary depending on personnel and the situation.

Opposition is essential for co-adaptation between attackers and defenders, prompting constant evolution in players’ intentions and actions. Furthermore, creating opportunities for teams to discuss challenges and constraints fosters a collaborative environment where players can share ideas and reflect on their strategies.

In embracing Ecological Dynamics Approach, coaches empower their players to become adaptable, creative, and intelligent footballers who thrive in the ever-changing landscape of the beautiful game. Ultimately, it’s the players who are in control of the emergent structures on the field, and the coach’s role is to facilitate their development through thoughtful session design and guidance.

There is nothing better than witnessing the perfect touch, a ball plucked out from the sky and stopped dead in it’s tracks. You hear the crowd in awe, that’s what we pay our money to see. For the special players, it’s a regular theme; Marcelo trapping a ball that’s flown from 50 feet in the air with the sole of his foot, Neymar with his trademark behind the leg touch, Mahrez receiving a wing to wing switch.

This is what we’ve come to know as ‘technique’, the aesthetics of individual play and we’re in love with it. And what better way to improve this individual aesthetic style than to drill it into our players. Repetition after repetition. So, why then when it’s drilled so much, is it still so rare to see?

Young players around the country pay hundreds, if not thousands of pounds per year to improve their so called ‘technical ability’. The internet is riddled with 1v0 practice, high speed touches around mannequins and cones and shooting into an empty net. This all seems fine on the surface and surely the more our players repeat the drill, the better they’ll be. But does this actually make our players better at football?

The view of ‘the more you practice and the more experience you have in something, the better you’ll be’, seems a logical one. However, what if we are forcing our players to repeat something so far removed from the actual game, that it actually doesn’t help, it hinders?

What if our misunderstanding of what technique actually is, underpins the work we do with our players? What if the technical training that has become a main pillar in the way we develop our young footballers, only really acts as a placebo for learning and improvement. What if consistently drilling players in movement patterns builds co-ordination and confidence, but not a lot else?

We’re going to break down what technique is and how we should go about developing it.

Patterns
Often when we talk about ‘technique’ we are actually talking about movement patterns or action capacity. Movement patterns are those prescribed movements which we impose on the players in an isolated environment and then expect them to notice the opportunity to use them in a contextual environment later on. Patterns such as; receiving side on, passing patterns, 1v0 ball manipulation, turns and beat the man moves. Learn the pattern, input the pattern. The problem is, we forget about the where and the why.

I’ve seen so many young players drilled in receiving back foot, side on and then on game day, not look around them and lose the ball. They’re then greeted with shouts from the sideline of ‘scan!’ It’s time we took more responsibility with what we do in the practice environment and how this affects what the players do on game day. If you don’t practice receiving vs opposition in training, how will the player ever be able to cope with this in the performance environment?

Action capacity is the range of which a player can perform an action, for example, when talking about ball striking, we are not talking about how a player can strike a ball in a variety of ways, we are often talking about how a player can play a 50 yard pass or shoot from range. The capacity of this player’s action underpins what he\she can do when it comes to opportunities to act in the performance environment. If you can play a 50 yard pass, and your teammates can not, new affordances (opportunities to act) are available to you.

So aren’t developing these prescribed patterns and action capacities important? Yes and no. Having the ability to rake a ball from one side of the pitch to the other is a good asset to have, however not necessary to be a good player. A good player will find ways to open opposition defences regardless of their action capacities and individual constraints. And the same goes for prescribed turns and passing patterns, they are not essential for developing a top level football player. What is important is that players notice opportunities to be functional.

These movement patterns and action capacities are usually trained unopposed, out of context. They act as a placebo for the player. Maybe because the reps can be counted. ‘I’m 100 touches better than I was yesterday.’ However, the quality of the information in these practices is not representative of game day information. We are not preparing our players for their performance on the weekend.

So how do we expose a player to opportunities to develop an action capacity? Fortunately, it’s not very hard to do this in a contextual environment.

For example, if you want to improve the action capacity of an individual’s passing, just make the pitch longer or wider – depending on what you’re other aims are. Make the distances bigger, then the players should self organise to complete the task set. If they aren’t looking for these opportunities, you can highlight that there is space to play further on, and challenge them to take the next few opportunities to play into those spaces.

In the above practice, 4v4+4(+2GK), players are asked to score in anyway they deem necessary. They can play around, through or over. The offside lines for each team are on the 2/3rd lines. Red team is there to assist opportunities to score, but do not have to be used. The idea is to develop a variety of scoring opportunities. You can award extra points for different types of goals and for different types of assists.

The development in action capacity for longer range passing comes from the distance of the practice. Red players are always free, if the GK or players at the back have time and space on the ball, they will usually attempt to find these players. The frequency of this action can be improved by awarding more points for a red player assist. This is just one example of how easy it is to develop action capacity within a contextual environment.

Skill
Here’s a hot take for you, our players today are less skilful than previous generations. Sounds crazy doesn’t it. In a world where technique is at the forefront of academy training and where we believe that our players are more technical than ever, I’m suggesting that players on a whole are actually less skilful. The likes of Messi, Suarez and Neymar are all but the last of the dying era of skill, as we usher in a new era, the era of efficiency. The era of the Machines. The artists of football are seemingly lost amongst stats, outcomes and results. Is developing our players to be more efficient, actually causing individuals to be less skilful?

If a young person today were to look at Zidane’s goalscoring record, they would think he was an average player. Those of us who saw Zizu play know there was something different about him. His level of skill and the joy he brought through variability. Look at all of his touches, goals, assists and dribbles. Every one, more different from the last.

Would Zidane have been a better player if he was more efficient? If we had streamlined his game and increased his statistical output? If he had waited for the ball to come to him, if he didn’t dictate the tempo of play, if he didn’t hold onto the ball?

Skill is the use of functional action to solve a problem. In other words, using a variation of techniques to overcome physical constraints (eg. athleticism), psychological constraints (eg. fear, confidence) and tactical problems. With this in mind, to standardise and isolate ‘technique training’, to perfect one specific technique, will not help your players become more skilful. The art in developing technique, is to improve the range of solutions to achieve a functional goal. The more the players are asked to search for answers using different techniques, the more adaptable they’ll become and the more skilful they’ll be.

But how will they improve on their aesthetic technique? Over time, whilst practicing in contextual environments, player’s will improve their consistency in varied techniques. The more they practice and use these varied techniques, the better they’ll get. The more they practice in context, the more they will be able to use these skills and techniques in a contextual performance environment. So maybe the view of more reps is right, but its more reps in context that’s the key.

Play
We would all agree that there has been a huge decline over the last few decades in child centred play. You only have to walk through the local park to see that pick up games are almost a thing of the past. And has the lack of unstructured play led to a decline in skill? The joy of park play is that there’s no one telling you what to do, you have to figure out how to win against your friends. As Legendary manager and FIFA’s current chief of global development, Arsene Wenger, mentions in a recent interview with the Independent:

Almost every academy in the country seems to spend time on ‘technical work’. The considered increase in technical ability since the 90’s seems to suggest that this technical work is and should stay as a pillar in the development of our nation’s players. But are today’s players that much more technical? If you go back and watch the best teams and players in world football through the ages, you will see hundreds of high quality technical outcomes. Are we truly being led to believe that Roy Keane, Zinedine Zidane and R9 couldn’t play in today’s game? As Roy would say, ‘do me a favour’.

The tactical side of the game has also improved significantly, as has the defensive side, meaning it’s harder to break teams down and score goals. It would seem that adaptable players are needed now more than ever. To add to this, the pitches that are played and trained on now allow more opportunity for passes to be made on the ground. Perfectly flat, no bobbles. Has all of this led to, not an improvement in technical ability, but an actual decline in skill? Have we substituted adaptability and skill for standardised pattern play?

What if the poorer playing surfaces of the 90’s actually meant you had to be more skilful as a player? More bobbles, more ball’s stuck in the mud, more aerial balls to control. More unpredictable problems to solve. Long passes were more frequent and are harder to produce accurately and to control. What we see when we look below the surface, is a high level of variability. So the question looms: is technical variety actually more important than technical repetition?

Now, I’m not suggesting we go back to long ball, ‘play into the channels’ football, but do I think that, in terms of skill, that our training has become standardised. Everything on the floor, in the same way. You hear it all of the time. ‘Back foot!’, ‘side on!’, ‘fizz those passes in on the floor! No bobbles!’. The question I pose is, has this linear standardising of football training, coupled with the decline in play, made our athletes less skilful? And how do we counteract all of these environmental and social changes to develop more variable and skilful players?

Perfection
Johan Cruyff famously said, ‘technique is passing the ball in one touch, with the right speed at the right foot of your teammate.’ Looking at this quote, the action of a one touch pass can never be the same. Do you need the technical repetition of a non-variable, one touch passing drill around cones/mannequins or do you need direction, opposition players getting in the way – defending a goal, team mates creating new gaps and spaces and consequence if you lose it? One replicates the conditions necessary to practice one touch passing, and the other does not.

The ball, gaps and spaces decided by opposition players and teammates, where you want the ball to go, the area of the pitch, conditions of the pitch, the constraints of the individual (height, athleticism etc.) and more will all play a part in a the perfect first time pass never being the same as the last. Football is highly dynamic and variable. It’s ever changing. No first time pass can ever be the same. So it’s time to ask ourselves the question: do we develop our players in variable, ever changing environments?

Majority of the training I see is around constant repetition of an action. Repetition after repetition: to repeat the same movement pattern again and again. Within this type of practice design, there is minimal if any technical variability. As we’ve now established that technical variability is more important than technical perfection, how do we look through this new lens to design our practices?

Repetition without repetition: The repetition of the search for a solution. Variability here is encouraged in the search for a functional solution to a set task.

Skilful Adaptability
Let’s challenge our perception on what we should be developing in our athletes when it comes to technique. Rather than expecting players to consistently reproduce the same action, let’s focus on our players being skilfully adaptive. It’s not so much the perfecting of a particular action, it’s having a variation of techniques to be adaptable. If you have an abundance of ways to do something, you should be able to solve the problem in a variety of ways.

Our Job as a coach is not to fill the players with our prescribed knowledge and movement patterns. They are not receptacles to be filled and it is not our job to fill them. Instead it is our role to create a dynamic environment where players are free to problem solve and it is our job to highlight opportunities to act (affordances) that they might have missed to do so. So how does this look in practice?

Ball Manipulation

Let’s start with ball manipulation. The first thing to understand is what ball manipulation actually is. Manipulating a ball on game day, is to move the ball in a variety of ways to keep it away from opposition players, or to move through, over and around opposition players into new spaces. So when our players practice, we need to make sure that this is replicated. But what should this look like?

When we think of ball manipulation we think of everyone with a ball – a great start. We then think of players touching the ball with different parts of their foot numerous times in a set pattern. Of course touching a ball multiple times is better than not at all, but unfortunately, this type of practice isn’t really related to the performance environment (game day). So how should we go about improving individuals ball manipulation technique within context?

The short video above is an excellent breakdown of why opposed ball manipulation is going to help develop your player’s manipulation of the ball and why isolated versions of ball manipulation practice aren’t. In the isolated practice, there is no stimulus (something that evokes a specific functional reaction) to act upon. In other words, there is no reason to manipulate the ball, with no stimulus to perceive and act upon, there is no relevance to the performance environment.

The idea is not more touches, but better touches. Quality over quantity. More of the wrong thing will not help your players improve. If you want your players to be masters of the ball, have a play with giving each of your players a ball and having opposition in the practice. This should create more variable and realistic situations for your players to solve.

Turns and Beat the Man Moves

In the above practice, players are encouraged to beat an opposition player to move through one of two gates. When they do so, they can score in either goal. The option of two gates leans into the player on the ball using disguise to off balance the opposition player. And the option of scoring in either goal leans into using disguise and functional turns to get a free run at one of the goals.

‘But if they don’t know how to do a Cruyff turn, how will they do it in the session?’ The answer is that they might not and that’s okay. More importantly they might turn in a way you’d never imagined possible before. And that’s the key, allowing them space to be creative, you can’t force creativity into players – they must be given room to express themselves functionally.

It’s not about which skills they use, more so if they are completing the task in a variety of ways. The important information is for them to perceive the available space, the speed and trajectory of the incoming defender and to score a goal. If they do this, they can use any skills and turns they come up with in the moment.

Combinations/Passing Patterns

The above practice is a constraints led approach to combination play and an alternate to traditional pattern play. Players are encouraged, because the pitch is narrow, to combine with each other, and find solutions to move the ball to the final third and score a goal. Encourage the players to look for emerging gaps and spaces and ask them to move the ball through, around and over into them, and then to move into new emerging spaces and gaps themselves.

You can add extra points for anything you believe the players are lacking eg. +3 points for an aerial pass in the build up to a goal. Or +3 for a no touch pass. There are more ideas like these on the session plan and should not all be added at once, but gradually depending on your observations for what the group need.

Third player runs will always emerge when there is the use of a target player that can’t score, as the task set means they have to support the target player when they get the ball. You do not need to force a third player run pattern into existence for it to work on game day. You don’t even have to use the phrase ‘third man run’, just ask the players to look for gaps and spaces to support players ahead of them. They will do the rest.

In traditional pattern play practice, you will see practices like the one below:

The passing pattern practice above has a number of problems when we look through the lens of technical variability. Lots of touches? Yes. Lots of touches in context and in relation to the game? No. There is no nuance in which to change the style of pass you might need to progress the ball, no understanding of relative timing and space and, because of the lack of stimulus, little to no variation in techniques to achieve the task.

The usual justification for this type of practice is the amount of repetition and it’s ‘all about the detail you put in’. The skill of the coach is shown through what he asks his players to imagine. However, if you’ve got a team there, ready to practice, why imagine when you could allow them to actively experience the relative information themselves? This type of practice seems to be more about a coach showing their knowledge of the game, rather than developing the player’s knowledge in the game.

If you want your players to notice opportunities to act within the performance environment, this type of practice is by far the least likely of the two to help them. We can be far more skilled in our design of the environment and task. Rather than force the action, let’s look to design the opportunity to act, allow the players to experience and explore these opportunities.

Receiving

Receiving is not just the ability to receive the ball side on, back foot. There are an infinite amount of ways to receive a ball, and this all depends on the opposition and teammates creating new gaps and spaces to play and move into. The above practice is a constraints led approach to receiving. The players start in pre determined positions and as soon as the ball is played, everyone is free to move. You can add as many players to this as you want, and even let it develop into a match, with this as the kick off/restart.

The beauty of this practice is that even though the starting positions are the same, the defenders will adapt to stop the attackers in different ways every time the game is restarted. Therefore there is a large amount of variability that the attackers have to adapt to. It’s cat and mouse, the defenders will defend, the attackers will adapt, the defenders will then adapt to the attackers and so on. Receiving is all about awareness and adaptability and this practice is full of both.

Rather than forcing your players to receive the ball front or back foot, ask them to find a route to goal. Challenge them to do this on their own or with the help of their teammate by adding more points for each. Variable techniques will emerge with them attempting to be functional. The starting positions can be changed, ask the players to move their starting positions and see what different problems this creates for both sides.

Quality, not Quantity
Lastly, some coaches may suggest that the amount of repetitions or the actual amount of touches is why you should use a traditional approach to develop technique. However, I would rather a really great technique to be applied ten times in context, than to force 100 touches out of context. We should look for Quality not quantity.

We are obsessed with the idea that more is better. And maybe Malcolm Gladwell and the 10,000 hour rule is partly to blame. I would consider reading David Epstein’s Range: Why Generalists Triumph In A Specialised World. Epstein’s work brings into consideration that with very few exceptions, 10,000 hours of the same thing doesn’t lead to mastery, in fact, playing a variety of sports will lead to more unique movement solutions.

If we want to develop the brightest, most creative and innovative players in world football; we need to develop their ability to assess and exploit space in their own individual ways. And remember, it is not repeating the same action again and again that will improve our players, it is repeating the search for an action.

Variability in technique is what makes a footballer ‘technical’. With more variability, there are more keys to attempt to unlock the safe. Technique is not what we think it is, it is not the search for technical perfection – more so the search for technical variety.

Let’s stop the obsession with making our players more ‘technically efficient’ and start taking steps to help them become more skilfully adaptive.

Relational play is becoming ever more popular and thanks to the likes of Jamie Hamilton’s article, ‘what is relationism?’, our understanding of these emergent patterns within the style is ever improving. But how do we coach them?

Firstly let’s have a look at what each of these interactions look like in practice.

‘‘Toco y me voy means ‘I play and I go’. It is the immediate movement of the player following the release of a pass.’’ – Jamie Hamilton

Escadinha is a diagonal structure, in which players use to ‘climb’ up the pitch.

‘‘The ability to identify Escadinhas reveals doors where before there were only walls’’ – Jamie Hamilton

These opportunities emerge through players being in close proximity to one another and in of the ball. But how should we coach these emergent interactions?

Below is a constraints led approach to toco y me voy and escadinha. It is important not to force these patterns, as the patterns are emergent and different every time. We may be tempted to ‘coach’ them in a traditional passing pattern structure, however that would not sit well with how these patterns emerge and are formed in the performance environment.

Instead, we are looking to create an environment where these structures will emerge. It will be up to the players to find solutions to win the game and notice opportunities for toco y me voy and escadinha.

A narrow and long pitch size is used for more progressive play and the constraints on the left are there to be added gradually, not at the same time. They are there to be used as and when you and your players need them.

Different halfway lines have been added for different defensive structures to emerge, giving the in possession team different problems to solve.

If you want to know more about relationism, toco y me voy and escadinhas, I highly recommend Jamie’s article below:

View at Medium.com

Cogs
‘Back foot…’
‘Side on…’
‘Play the way you’re facing…’

What if our impatient cries for control are killing the creativity of our most exciting footballers?

For over a decade now, positional play has ruled European football. We all know the history; Michels, Cruyff, Van Gaal, Guardiola – all who gave birth to a world now riddled with structured play. We now see emerging positional coaches such as; Arteta, Kompany and De Zerbi – the latter who puts an interesting spin on the classic Catalan style of positional play.

Positional play looks to take some ideas out of the equation to limit mistakes. Even Pep has gone on record saying, ‘I am a defensive coach.’ Limiting mistakes has been at the forefront of football in recent years and has shown consistency and dominance at the top. However, having worked in English youth football for a host of Category 1 professional clubs, I can’t help but think we’ve lost our way with what makes the game truly special. More to the point, have we lost sight of how to develop exciting and unique footballers?

I fear we have moved into the Industrial Revolution of youth development. Developing cogs for a machine. The system is king and the individuals are lost to the system.

Joy
Through the search for machine part footballers, have we lost the joy in freedom of thought? In expression? In the art of originality?

Özil, Ronaldinho, Riquelme and Ganso are all names to be lost in a world poisoned by ‘efficient football’.

‘Özil can’t play in the modern game…’
‘You can’t carry an Özil’

On the contrary, if you looked at the German national side over the last few years, I think they’d happily ‘carry’ the World Cup winning, 5 time German Player of the Year. They’ve gone too far in the world of efficiency. And now they’re paying for it.

Riquelme is another example of a player who’s career was almost destroyed by positional play. The five time Argentine Primera División winner looked unplayable for many years during his two stints at La Bombonera, and what made him such an incredible player wasn’t just his success, but the way he controlled the game through unpredictability.

His early success saw him transfer to Europe for the 2002-03 season, to none other than Louis Van Gaal’s systematic Barcelona. Formulaic rotations to bring the wingers into predetermined half spaces only allowed Riquelme to show a small part of what made him great, the play at Barcelona became predictable, Van Gaal was sacked mid season and Riquelme was loaned out to Villereal.

He began to reclaim his individuality at Villereal with the Spanish newspaper Marca awarding him the title of Most Artistic Player, also earning himself a nomination for the 2005 FIFA World Player of the Year award, after scoring a career-best 15 goals in 35 games.

These unique and special players were not only successful, but brought something much more important to the world of football, Joy.

They seemed to have vanished in English academies over the last decade. When I see a spark in a player that reminds me of the likes of Gazza, Chris Waddle or Matt Le Tissier, it gives me hope. But that hope is almost immediately crushed when I see creativity drilled out of them through prescribed passing patterns and systematic game models.

So what happened?

And what does this all mean in the context of youth development?

Fear
When you watch a new group of U7s excitedly run to the training pitch, ready to explore and venture into the exiting world of football for the first time; they are unknowingly stepping into an environment of control and prescription.

Their joy turns to fear as they connect ‘the wrong way’ with their 20th unopposed pass of the night. They’re only 5 minutes into the session…

‘I made a mistake…’
‘The coaches won’t let me stay if I make more mistakes…’
‘I better keep kicking the ball the way i’m told…’
‘I better stand this way around…’
‘I better play where I’m told to…’
‘Pass, pass, pass, got to get it and move it quickly!’

And all of a sudden, panic sets in, and the player is lost to the system. They are being controlled by fear. Fear of making a mistake, fear of being considered not good enough, fear of pushing outside the boundaries of what the coach decides is effective and efficient.

I often hear the players being asked to take risks on a match day when they’re playing dull, dreary and unimaginative football, yet in the very training they receive three times a week, there is no opportunity for risk!

‘Receive like this’
‘Pass like this’
‘Stand here and wait for us to get you the ball!’

No player in this environment is going to develop the skill necessary to perceive a game situation and find a creative answer in their own individual way. Through early specialisation, they lose their creativity, their spontaneity and their intuition. It’s drilled out of them.

The human being becomes just another cog. There must be a better way…

Hope
Luckily, there is a better way. And it starts with trust. It begins with letting go of the reins of control and creating environments where players can thrive… as themselves!

We can not rely on the academy system as a whole, we cannot rely on the clubs. We can only really rely on ourselves as coaches to find the information on how people learn. And it’s out there!

Here are some links to podcasts and ted talks to get you started:

The excellent The Talent Equation Podcast, hosted by coaching specialist Stuart Armstrong, brings professionals from all over the sporting world to break down the details of youth development. In this episode, Stuart speaks to the head of football at the Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Mark O’Sullivan around developing a ‘skatepark environment’ in his sessions when he worked for AIK.

The quite brilliant ‘Perception and Action Podcast’, hosted by skill acquisition specialist Rob Gray, where Rob delves into the details of skill acquisition through interviews and research. Below, Rob shares his thoughts around the key principles of the ecological approach to skill.

And this Ted Talk by researcher and professor, Peter Gray. Where he breaks down the importance of ‘play’ in how humans learn and the damage that has been done through adult centered, structured play.

The EPPP has undoubtably improved the quality of the academy system in England, since its introduction in 2012 and the work they do with the games programme and education are fantastic. However, there is little support offered in the way of coach development and skill acquisition. The audit system tiers clubs from 1-4 and clubs are supportively funded based on their tier. 1 being the considered the best academies in the country, whilst 4 receives the lowest amount of funding.

You would expect the top tier of academy football in this system to produce the highest quality of coaching. Especially in a system that leans towards prioritising the development of individuals. As the premier league states on it’s EPPP website: ‘with the mission of producing more and better homegrown players, which promotes the empowerment of each individual player through a player led approach.’

Unfortunately, the reality is, there is little in the way of player led development. And this comes down to how we coach and why.

Products
Taylorism – ‘A theory of management that analyses and synthesises workflows. It’s main objective is improving economic efficiency, especially labour activity for mass production.’

This theory is ingrained in our society and owes it prominence to the Industrial Revolution. The idea that to produce more, you must streamline the labour and in order for mass production, you must standardise ‘best practices.’

Sound familiar? Well, don’t take it from me, even the language used by the EPPP could be confused with 1800’s factory life on the conveyor belt. ‘…whose objective is to produce more and better homegrown players’

How can something that’s set up to be holistically player/human led, also be something where the human is considered a product?

We are a conveyer belt. An efficient machine, streamlined to mass produce people for money. But it doesn’t have to be this way.

Action
We must take action as individuals in youth development. We as the coaches need a better understanding of skill acquisition. We are not skill acquisition specialists, but we need to be.

We need a revolution in the way we think, in the way that we speak and in the way that we coach. Players are not a product. They are humans, often children; and it is our responsibility to help them reach their full potential.

Through theories such as Gibson’s ecological theory, differential learning and a constraints led approach – we can begin to put together holistic and player led practice, that truly involves the player in the heart of the decision making process. Helping them find who they are on and off of the pitch and ultimately making them the best football player they can be.

Positional play isn’t the only option, and when it comes to youth development, there are most definitely better options if you want to encourage more decision making on game day. Relational play is much more suited to the players making decisions as opposed to the coach. If you want to know more around relational play, I would suggest this superb article by Jamie Hamilton:

View at Medium.com

And there are some wonderful examples of coaches asking their players to express themselves and problem solve at the highest level too.

Carlo Ancelotti’s Real Madrid, Fernando Deniz’s Fluminense, Henrik Rydstrom’s Malmo FF just to name a few, are teams who’s players are asked to play in relation to the ball, their teammates and their opponents, as opposed to predetermined spaces. This leads to more interactions and less predictable build up and attacks, furthering an importance on individual creativity and problem solving.

How
But that’s easier said than done – do we just let them play mini games and that’s it? The game is the teacher? The short answer is no.

So then, where do we start?

Instead of asking them to repeat the answer, we can create an environment that highlights problems in the game and asks the players to search that problem for an answer. Otherwise known as, repetition without repetition.

Using a constraints led approach, where we will often constrain the opposition to show the team we’re working with problems that would occur on game day. Then ask the players to find solutions to these problems in their own individual ways. Ask them to talk to one another, to find out their team’s strengths and weaknesses, to look at the opposition’s weaknesses and strengths and decide on their own functional solutions to win the game.

We must create a context rich environment for the players to explore.

Above is a 3 team passing pattern which shows players performing prescribed actions, delivered by the coach. This style of practice comes from the idea that players should learn out of context, then later on try and put the movement patterns back into contextual practice.

The issue with traditional practices like this, is there is no representative design. The players have no reason to act functionally, other than being told what to do by the coach. There are no defenders, forcing them find movement solutions to achieve the goal. Tempo and motivation in these practices are often input by the coach, who will tend to be fairly animated to get the desired ‘work rate’ out of the players. However, this motivation isn’t represented on game day.

The shouts of ‘use disguise’ will usually be found in this type of session, however disguise can only come from acting on a stimulus. To look as if you will act upon an affordance (opportunity to act), and at the very last second changing to act upon a different affordance in the environment. Without opportunities to act, without a stimulus to create these opportunities to act, there can be no disguise.

Finally, there is no decision to be made in this type of practice. Not one that is representative of the performance environment (matchday). This is a ‘playing through’ practice, however there is no opportunity to play around or over. The only way to play is through. So when the players go back in to a contextual environment, they will usually look to play through despite that opportunity not actually being present.

The above two practice designs are a Constraints led approach to ‘playing through’. Notice there is opportunity to play through, around or over if the players deem that to be the necessary action to take. In this context rich environment there are plenty of affordances to perceive and then act upon.

You’ll firstly notice the shape of the pitch. An octagon shape has been chosen to constrain the athletes in a way where they can not make straight runs down the line into space. There’s no need to use phrases such as ‘straight pass, diagonal run!’, instead, the environment takes care of this and asks the athletes to make runs into the available space. This, along with some of the task constraints we’ll talk about later, should allow for some really creative ideas to emerge.

The constraint of +3 if you can play through the square, or through the opposition’s first line of pressure, highlights the opportunity to play through, without taking away the opportunity to score points through various other affordances.

The constraint of ‘the ball must be passed over the final third line’, will lead to the players searching for opportunities to combine a pass and a forward run. And the constraint of ‘the ball must be passed first time over the final third line’ asks players to search for combinations to move the ball into the final third. All of the constraints above are there to be used as and when the coach and players see fit. They are there for you to increase or decrease the challenge point for your players. They are there to be added gradually, not all at once.

The idea is to allow combinations and interactions to emerge organically, not have them forced into existence. These contextual practices take time to develop the individuals and should not be constrained to meet timed slots in practice. Take as long as your players need, have breaks in play where the problems can be discussed, allow the players to tweak and support them when they need help.

Now
It’s time to let go of control and realise that we don’t know it all! If we want to truly help develop the brightest talents of tomorrow, then we have to allow them the space to attack these problems head on in their own individual ways.

And here’s the kicker, there’s infinite answers, there are even answers yet to be found! So with so many answers available, how can we impose a one size fits all approach to our sessions?

We try to make everyone the same, learn the same turns, learn the same receiving skills, learn the same type of pass. How will our players ever find space to come up with something new?

There’s not just one solution to each of the problems that football throws up and as coaches we must stop forcing the game to be played through our eyes and learn more about each of our players and how they perceive the game. We must play a part in the learning journey, but not impose our knowledge on the player. We must realise that the players are not just empty vessels to be filled with knowledge, and the coach the holder of all knowledge, who’s job it is to fill them. But in fact, the player and the coach must learn together, they must co-exist and work together to find the best solution for each individual.

And finally, positional play should not and can not be the game model for true, holistic development. It is not all bad, however, it is but one small part of the game. Standing in certain positions will make the opposition do something in return and that should be explored. However, like with anything, too much of one thing can be deadly, especially a whole model that mitigates risk, and destroys the joy of the game with predictable and boring pattern play. This is not what we should look to, to help bring back the players that made us fall in love with football in the first place.

Humans are all unique and every player in every team will bring something different to the game. Add these individual qualities to some shared principles and you will have something truly special, where players can flourish and reach their full potential. No more system with roles to be filled. The shared principles are the model and the players are the roles.

No more cogs and no more machine.