No. 7--Soccer—New England Revolution vs. Chicago Fire—The Bicycle Kick

by Soccer Coach Albert M. Luongo

New England Revolution vs. Chicago Fire

For those that do not know what a bicycle kick is, it is a kick that passes over the head of the kicker while the kicker is in the air and lying flat (his or her back is towards the ground) in the prone position. As the ball is kicked, it has the trajectory of being sent parallel to the flattened body as it goes backwards—sort of from the feet to the head. Also the face of the kicker is pointing upward (looking at the sky) instead of at the goal. It is often labeled a dangerous play due to other faces and heads being near the ball at the time the foot strikes the ball. I do not

The game was played at Foxboro Massachusetts on November 8, 2007. It started off poorly, but got much better as time went on. In the early part of the first half, New England had trouble keeping the ball within bounds of the field and their play was sloppy--with long balls and little trapping. With the constant interruptions of the ball going over the sidelines, I thought, here we go again with another poor soccer match. There were too many long kicks from the goalkeepers and others. In my opinion they were trying to emulate controlled long ball English Soccer, but without the control

After about a quarter of the game’s time, both teams began to settle down to play a better passing game. I am always interested in seeing controlled ball soccer and hope that North Americans begin to see the value of controlled passing on the ground. To me this is much more interesting then just watching goals scored in a kickball game. After all, one, two or three goals scored takes only a fraction of the ninety minutes of play.

Then the only goal came from Taylor Twellman #20, just after 37 minutes of play. It was a fan-pleasing goal. Revolution’s Twellman flanked by two Chicago defenders in about midway from either side of the goalposts was facing up-field at about ten yards from the goal. The ball popped up and dropped down in the direction he was facing. He then made a well executed bicycle kick and the ball went back into the net. The defenders had no chance of stopping this goal. It was as good as Pele`‘s famous bicycle kick goal. However, there was controversy surrounding the goal, being that it could be considered a dangerous play: It was just a close call and fortunately there was no danger to the two defenders from being injured with this kick. That goal then put spirit into New England who then went on to play a better-controlled game. However, in the first half, it is my opinion that Chicago still outplayed New England.

In the second half of the game, the quality of play improved both with New England and Chicago. I might add, as good as the play became, both teams still have a way to go to match the play of the top soccer teams of Europe and South America. But, both teams had good passing and trapping and it became an enjoyable game to watch and even exciting at times as both teams endeavored to get the next goal. Only a few serious fouls occurred, so this lack of them also added to the enjoyment of the game. Another goal never came however, and New England went on to win the Eastern Conference Final Championship. This was the semi-final of the MLS cup. And, this game and Twellman's goal will be talked about for a long time.

All of the above information is the author's opinion. This article in no way is meant to degrade, discredit or defame any team or person. Its sole purpose is to improve the skills of young soccer players, coaches and the game itself.

No. 6--Well Played Dutch and English Soccer Games--Sparta vs. Rotterdam

by Soccer Coach Albert M. Luongo

On October 28, I watched a most interesting and enjoyable Dutch game—Sparta Rotterdam vs. PSV (Philips Sports Club). The teams were Dutch, containing international players with several from Latino countries. The broadcasting was in Spanish, but that mattered little. The teams were equally matched and skillful. Both teams played equally well with interesting attack buildups due to excellent ball control, traps that landed at the foot, thigh and chest, along with great passes—most of which were ground passes. The fouls were not excessive nor did the ball cross the sidelines too often making it an enjoyable game to watch. This is what I call a good spectator game. The score ended up with PSV 4 and Sparta 1. But only one goal was scored while the players were running. I will explain.

Four of the goals were what I consider unusual because they were all scored by direct kicks as a result of infractions: Three for PSV and one for Sparta. Only one goal, the first one, was scored by PSV in the usual manner by a pass in front of the goal and a once-on kick by one of the forwards. Discounting the goals scored by direct kicks, one could easily see that the teams played equally well. The ball control was superb by both teams. The point here is that North American players should witness games such as this to understand the difference between amateurish playing and top professional playing.

I only had one criticism and that was with the refereeing. If I didn’t know better, I would think that holding and shirt pulling were legal soccer tactics because frequently these offenses went unpunished. While this was not excessive, it occurred fairly often and only penalized probably half the time.

I have been a proponent of short ball soccer for over thirty years and generally do not watch long ball soccer. But I happened to catch part of an English soccer match, which I believe was Manchester United vs. Bolton. While the best English teams generally play a good game of long ball soccer, it is my opinion that this style of play cannot compete with short ball soccer. I believe that long ball soccer is becoming obsolete with the best professional teams in Europe and South America. Note: Long ball soccer is played with the ball headed or kicked in the air, for long distances the majority of the time. Short ball soccer is played mostly with short on the ground-controlled passes and traps. What surprised me was how well the ball was controlled with the many short passes. During this game, I did not see the usual English long ball soccer. Possibly the English are now starting to see the merits of maintaining possession longer with controlled short passing. Several years ago I can remember when the German teams switched over to short ball soccer. My books are based upon the merits of short ball soccer.

All of the above information is the author's opinion. This article in no way is meant to degrade, discredit or defame any team or person. Its sole purpose is to improve the skills of young soccer players, coaches and the game itself.

No. 5--Who Said Soccer is a Non-contact Sport?--Fatima vs. Sporting

Well, it is generally not supposed to be a contact sport. But, some games are played with excessive contact because the referee does not “nip in the bud” fouls at the first signs of such behavior. This means giving yellow cards as soon as possible, even though it is my opinion that the Laws of the Game are a bit vague. Law 12 (FIFA Laws of the Game) states that a player can be shown a yellow card if a player is guilty of unsporting behavior and or persistently infringes on the Laws of the Game. A red card is to be given if guilty of a serious foul play such as a tackle, which endangers the safety of an opponent.

Rough play occurred in the following game and it was widespread. It was a Portuguese soccer game on TV on October 31, 2007. The teams playing were Fatima vs. Sporting. From the beginning of the game, there were serious and violent infractions such as tripping players from behind, shirts being pulled, pushing and holding. I did not see a yellow card given in the first half. If any were given, it was not in view. It is also my opinion that the referee seemed to cultivate friendships with the players as he smiled to them while discussing an infraction. If the first half of the game was rough, the second half was extremely physical. Finally, in the second half, a few yellow cards had to be issued. But by then it was too late to reduce the physical contact because the referee let the game get out of control. As an additional spectacle, I never saw so many players on the ground so frequently. Often, these players had collision injuries. This occurred about every minute or so.

There is a certain amount of roughness allowed in soccer such as fair shoulder charging and “pushing off” when one player obstructs another player from getting to the ball, but the play during this game was obviously out of line. And, it always gets that way when such infractions go unchecked early on. Maybe some fans like the roughness, but I do not. It is not that I am against normal and allowable physical contact, but in excesses, it takes away from enjoyable skillful play and is made up by distasteful brute contact--causing the flow of the game constantly stopped.

I would like to site one of my experiences when I managed an adult Portuguese team a several years ago. Most or all the players were from the Azores and were used to “playing the ball”, not “playing the man”, as the expression goes. There was one exception though, the left wing defender, Luis had his own style of play. I will explain about him shortly.

We played and lost our first four games, yet in the beginning of each game we were generally up by about two or three goals because these players played with superb ball control. I should add, it was a league with all “American” teams with the exception of our team. However, in each game as time progressed, the opposing team members soon realized that our players, not used to “American roughness”, could be intimidated this way. Our players were just not used to rough play. The strategy against us worked with all of our first four games. So I decided to do something about this.

Using my shoulder charging drill, one that I used effectively with younger players, I demonstrated soccer-legal rough play on each player. Furthermore, I personally demonstrated on each player just how hard one can hit with the shoulder, yet keeping the shoulder charges legal. I will never forget the expressions on some of their faces the first time that I shoulder charged them. In a short time however they became used to roughness.

The next activity was to teach proper defense to defensive players. This was especially aimed at that left wing defender, Luis, mentioned earlier. His style of play always got him caught up-field and out of position. As an opposing attacker came into his zone, Luis was usually trying to catch up with him. This of course was particularly serious when an attacker was dribbling the ball towards our goal. Naturally, he was always out of position that way. Well to save an eminent goal from being scored, he would trip the attacker and thus he frequently prevented a goal from occurring. Obviously, this defensive tactic is flawed, and it also caused goals to be scored from his side of the field. I instructed him on proper defense and each game hoped for the best, but in order for him to stay in proper position, it became necessary for me to take over the job as his defensive coach. But getting him to break his bad habits was difficult to say the least. It became necessary for me to place myself on the sidelines on his side of the field. He knew little or no English, so I would shout to him with my very limited Portuguese to stay in front of his opponent whenever this opponent was in his zone. It was not easy, but I was consistent and persistent. This personal soccer coaching was effective and he eventually learned to be a great defenseman.

With both of the above problem situations corrected, we went on to win every game thereafter and won the championship in our league. The point made is that a certain amount of roughness is permitted by the rules. When this is adhered to by players that fully understand it, they can better deal with other players that are exceptionally rough and still play their game. Furthermore, teaching proper defense proved to be far superior then to rely upon illegal roughness such as tripping to prevent some goals from occurring. For further information on the methods and drills, see my soccer books.

Note: A weak referee can make a difference on the outcome of a game and his or her conduct during games should be reviewed and scrutinized. Note: Under FIFA Law 12, Fouls and Misconduct, Under Disciplinary Sanctions, it says: The referee has the authority to take disciplinary sanctions, as from the moment he enters the field of play until he leaves the field of play after the final whistle.

No. 4--Soccer Goalkeeping and the Defense

Goalkeepers (at levels above very young soccer) are generally different than other soccer players. They can often be thought of as tough individuals that choose this position on the soccer field because they like being different. They also like being in charge of themselves along with the goal that they are tending. With this thought clearly in mind, they should be given greater authority then just having the usual traditional responsibilities given to their kind.

The soccer goalkeeper is generally thought of by many coaches and players as the last person on defense whose duty is to somehow save the ball from entering the goal. In addition, he or she is also thought of as the first person on the offense and told to make long kicks or throws up field. While these definitions are accurate for the lowest levels of soccer, the advanced coach must train the goalkeeper to have a greater level of responsibility.

That level goes beyond the traditional role as the last person on defense and the first person on attacks with kicks up field. Generally speaking, the traditional role does little to help win games, but at a higher level, the goalkeeper’s duties will become an integral part of a winning machine. For the defensive, no other player has a better view of the field; and thus, has the ability to see all players at all times. Strictly speaking, the defensive players need a leader. So who is better than the goalkeeper for having the role as commander of the defense?

The ultimate responsibility of a defensive commander is to have command and control over the defense, i.e., authority. To be more effective on the field, he or she must continually direct the field location of each defensive player to optimally screen attackers from having a clear shot on goal. When these defensive players are in their optimum positions, it is generally easier for the goalkeeper to be in a proper position when a shot on goal comes. The commands to the defensive players are issued with a low voice, and to each and every defensive player as to where this goalkeeper desires them to be. Think of it this way. The goalkeeper will be extending his or her range by controlling a second line of defense. The less saves made by the goalkeeper, the less chance that the opposition has for scoring.

The worst position for any defender to be in is to be behind an attacking player in his or her zone. Just after such a situation occurs, the goalkeeper’s role is to reprimand the player at fault, as this defender should know better. The coach should be watching the defense and not just the ball. If this same defender needs a constant reminder for this error or does not respect the goalkeeper’s desires, that defender should be immediately replaced: This defensive error causes goals. Another danger occurs when a defender is behind his or her attacker and a causes foul to occur. This can result in a penalty kick.

Offensively, it is always better to start attacks by passing the ball to one’s defensive players. For this to occur at a high rate, the defensive player should be skillful in trapping and screening the ball. So what is wrong with kicking the ball up field? As a general rule, interception by the opponents has a frequency of about 70 to 80%. Why is this? The opposing team is facing the ball as it arrives, making interception easy. Your team will be attempting to maintain the same direction of the ball’s flight—this is difficult to do for a long ball. Furthermore, the end result of long kicks very often causes the ball to return back to your own goal area shortly thereafter.

With a broader view transferred to the goalkeeper as the defensive commander, there will be the beginnings of better ball control on the field. Control of the defense is a requisite for winning more games.

No. 3--Soccer: DC United vs. Chicago Fire with Some Good and Bad Offensive and Defensive Strategy

DC United vs. Chicago Fire
On Thursday October 25, 2007, I saw the Eastern Conference soccer Semi Finals, Game 1on TV. There were some positive points on both sides as well as negative points to be mentioned. First, I will discuss the general negative points: Here is my opinion. It frequently looked like an amateur game, especially in the first half. However in the second half, DC United offensively outplayed Chicago and looked more professional. DC had more possession and ball control, better traps, passes, goalkeeper throws and short kicks. But, they seemed to favor a certain field location to begin most of their attacks. That location was generally their left midfield. As a result, certain DC players and the ball often got tied up there because Chicago was ready for them. This often resulted in turning over the ball to Chicago. This type of play can occur when the distribution of passes favors certain teammates and easily gets noticed by opposing players.

Chicago’s offensive players played sloppy the whole game. This also included their defenders and goalkeeper as they pushed the ball up field with offensive up-field kicks etc. Nearly all their goalie's kicks were sent far up-field instead of being thrown or kicked to their defenders to start a controlled attack. This sloppy play included up-field headers, amateurish up-field head flicks, long kicks and missed traps. One must ask oneself if the Chicago players have ever watched a control ball soccer game; such as, one that might be seen played by top South American or Continental European teams? Much of what was seen in this game did not demonstrate to young soccer players as what to strive for in order to become a more competitive player. That type of kickball can ordinarily be seen with many undisciplined youth teams. Young North American players need to observe and emulate the skillful techniques of control ball soccer practiced by countries that produce top-notch soccer, if they wish to ever become world class players.

The game was not a good spectator game either. The ball all too often passed over the sideline. This in itself is annoying. Along with these discontinuities, constant fouls (many trips and pushes from behind) and out of control player’s arguments took away from the enjoyment of the soccer match. Having been a referee myself, my opinion is that the referee should have had better control of the game. Even though I thought that the game was not a good spectator game, I am nearly certain that the loyal fans probably differed in their opinion. And while on the subject of loyal fans, I think that they (Chicago fans) should be disallowed from producing billows of smoke in the stadium. I found these smoke scenes annoying to watch. I also wonder if there may be a safety issue too.

Now, getting back to the plusses and minuses of the game. On one hand, DC’s defense (on defense) made capitol mistakes by being out of position. This was the case when Chicago’s Chris Rolfe scored the only goal of the game. Rolfe was clearly ahead of the DC defenders as he raced towards the goal. And this type of situation occurred at other times with DC’s defense. Soccer note: A defender should always be in front of his or her attacking opponent To be chasing an attacker with no other defender in-between the attacker and the goalie is a capitol error.

On the other hand, Chicago’s defense (on defense) was superb. In the second half, DC dominated the first three-quarters of the field with quick short passes, trapping and shielding. However in the final quarter of the field, they had very few chances to score due to the Chicago defenders being in strategic positions to disallow DC to get set up for clear shots on goal. It appeared to me that the Chicago defense (on defense) was doing everything right; and thus, deserves an important comment:

I have learned to win games and championships by having a well oiled and a trained defensive team. And this starts with the goalkeeper. This individual, when being a true leader, calmly controls and positions his or her defensive players during attacks. He or she also assures that defensive player errors are kept to a minimum. When all this occurs, these same defensive players need not worry about being out of position when under attack because the goalkeeper directs and commands with full vision of the game. For younger teams, a defensive coach can take the job until it can eventually be transferred over to the goalkeeper. Furthermore, with confidence in one’s defensive players, the midfield and the forward players are better able to concentrate on their own attacks and not be too concerned about opposition attacks occurring in their own defensive part of the field. This defensive strategy has worked well with teams that I coached or managed. It also worked as well for Chicago.

No. 2--A Discussion On Shielding--UCON vs. Rutgers Women’s Soccer

This article is about controlling the ball on the field: Trapping and shielding. On Saturday, October 6, 2007 I caught the game on TV between UCON and Rutgers. It was women soccer and a good spectator game to watch. It ended up with a zero to zero score and even went into overtime for two ten-minute periods. What I particularly noticed was that it was a controlled passing short-ball game most of the time. There were very few fouls and the ball was kept in play most of the time. Because of all this, I would say that it was a good spectator’s game because these factors allow the game to play on continuously. What was enjoyable to me was to see the UCON players shielding the ball, especially just after the trap was made. This is a move that I have always strongly endorsed while coaching the field players.

Shielding goes like this: With an opposing player near the “trapper” at the time of the trap, it is ordinarily difficult to trap and maintain possession of the ball. However, just after receiving the ball (keeping it near the feet), the trapper maintains control by rotating his or her body to protect the ball—this is necessary if there is an opposing player applying pressure. This means that the ball, the shielding player and opponent are almost always kept in a sort of straight line--in that order. Thus giving protection to the ball. The shielding-player generally places his or her back (and arched leaning backward) towards the opponent--keeping that opponent safely away from the ball. The trapper, now the “shielder”, maintains his or her body between the ball and the opposing-player. As the opposing player moves around to get at the ball at the “shielder’s” right, this shielder rotates the body and dribbles the ball counter-clockwise--always using the body as a shield. If the opponent goes to the left side of the shielder, the body and ball are rotated clockwise.

When shielding is performed against one player it is nearly impossible to steal the ball. It can even be done against two opposing players, but naturally not quite as effective. I love to demonstrate this set of moves to young players. This practice can also be used to safely make a rotating 180-degree turn. Suppose a player receives the ball from his or her own goalkeeper while facing this player. Further suppose that there is an opponent at his or her back. In order to turn 180 degrees to go up field, it is a matter of shielding and rotating mostly in the same direction and in an arc. Thus keeping the opponent mostly at the right or left side and away from the ball.

Why is shielding not used very often in North American matches? I cannot answer that, but it is used by top international players such as can be seen with top Brazilian soccer. Too often, I observe a player (dribbling the ball) trying to get by an opponent while placing the ball between the two of them. Sometimes it works, yet sometimes it does not. So it is risky. Note: The shielding practice described above is used extensively in basketball, but I doubt that it is ever called shielding. It is an identical tactic however.

Shielding is one tactic used for ball control. Generally, when a team has control of the ball most of the game, it is the winner. This control style of play (ball control) is definitely advantageous and puts teams that employ this method of play at the top of their leagues.

Now back to the women’s match. Here are my opinions about the game. The game was dominated by UCON with many controlled ground passes, close trapping and shielding. This control gave them several more chances of scoring than Rutgers while moving the ball up field; moreover, Rutgers made a few good attempts at scoring themselves. Even though UCON had more attempts at this, Rutger’s defense was solid and thus difficult to penetrate. I might add that proper defense, from my own experience, is a superior tactic for winning championships, but it is often underrated. It will be the subject of another article.

I think that UCON could have won due to its domination on the field. It also had a good defense even though it was tested less than the defense of Rutgers. During overtime, UCON lost this edge, as their play became sloppy by attempting to play long-ball soccer. Clearly this was not the type of soccer that they used in the regular playtime. Had they not tried to force a goal during the overtime periods by making long kicks and flicks downfield, they might have maintained their domination over their opponents by working the ball up field with control ball soccer: The type play used during regular playtime. As it turned out (in my opinion), both teams in overtime were anxious to force a goal and threw caution to the wind. The result was that neither team had the ball under control most of the time and the result was a scoreless game. The lesson here is that a team should continue to play the controlled style of play that they are trained to do so and not deviate from it when the pressure is high.

No. 1--North American Soccer--How Soccer Has Evolved

Has the level of soccer improved since the mid-seventies? I have seen the progression of soccer from its infancy in both the US and Canada to its present form at the youth and professional level for over thirty years. And it seems that the progression has not been great. I was highly involved in just about every aspect of this sport in North America, especially in the US and Canada. My involvement included playing, coaching, managing, organizing and refereeing. From the very beginning I could see the difference between skillful soccer playing, and unskillful playing--often known as kickball. I love to watch international professional play at the highest level of the game but always turn away from sloppy play that often occurs at all levels of this sport. My main interest is promoting skillful play with youth soccer. So I ask this question: Why have we not made greater strides with our youth in skillful play? Here is why I feel that the progression toward more skillful play has been slow:

1. In North America, the general public does not recognize skillful play in soccer. That also includes most players coming up through the system.

2. North America likes North-American football; myself included. I have played it as a youth on organized teams and was trained by some exceptional coaches that taught the basics and insisted upon their use (both of my teams were championship teams as a result of superior coaching). But, I became deeply involved with soccer when my children were young because I believed and still believe that it is the safer alternative. And as a result, I promoted basic soccer skills in this sport just as learned in football with good results. Football requires a different mindset from soccer. To the inexperienced, they may seem similar, but they are really fundamentally different. Football is a game where much brute force is used to win. And many of its players hardly ever touch the ball, but use their force to prevent or gain yardage. This style of play is frequently seen translated into youth soccer at the competitive levels in place of using basic skills to gain the advantage over the competition. This power-style play is effective against weaker teams, but is ineffective at higher levels. Thus the players who are trained this way soon find themselves sitting on the bench during high school and college games.

3. In soccer, many North Americans believe that gaining yardage down field is an objective. Of course it is not an objective as the ball can be transferred from one end of the field to the next in seconds with no benefit to either team. Soccer is a game, or should be a game of ball control and possession, because the continuity of ball possession by a skillful team over its opponents results in a win, at least most of the time.

4. Dozens of skills are needed in soccer. Unfortunately, the average individual lacks this understanding and the average coach promotes only offensive moves. Good coaching includes proper defensive moves and tactics as well as offense. An appreciation for these skills usually comes from having had the benefit of good coaching by those that truly understand the game or by having learned them through some other means.

Does all of the above matter? It matters to me and probably to many of the professional coaches that want winning teams when competing at the highest levels.

So, the reader may ask, just where is this sport in North America going? I believe it is first necessary to understand the negatives about this sport. Without an understanding of what is incorrectly taught starting at the young age levels, it will be hard to imagine how improvements will be made and thus stagnation will be the result.

I know that improvements can be made in soccer as I have trained and coached players of all ages and have coached championship teams. Improvements always came over a few years to my teams following the development of skillful players. With some players, their improvements in skill levels were permanent, while with others, only temporary. Why? The permanent skills that certain players developed were sustained because I had total control of these same players for years and consistently corrected their errors. The improvements with many other players were only temporary because these same players went on to play under coaches that lacked the understanding of the necessity of insisting upon basic playing skills.

Many coaches might challenge what has been said and what will be said because they have coached for many years and feel that this experience yields a complete understanding of the skills and training needed. My question to them would be, “Would you compare your knowledge to the best European and South American coaches?” While I would not put myself at their level, I can certainly recognize the skill levels of their players. Furthermore, inexperienced or unknowledgeable coaches frequently negate the use of basic skills during games and thus add confusion to players. These same players (just discussed) had little future in this sport because these coaches lacked some or all the following. They

1. did not understand the absolute necessary soccer fundamentals (to be discussed in detail the future)

2. encouraged useless techniques that have no direct or indirect application in game play (to be discussed in detail in the future)

3. changed formations during a losing match; formations that were not practiced

4. were dishonest and made promises to players that were not kept

5. allowed more playing time to less skillful players that they favored.

Here are my opinions, specifically and generally, about some unproductive coaching techniques:

1. Some coaches attempt to warm up a goalkeeper by throwing the ball to this player while he or she is sitting on the ground. This goalkeeper must then catch the ball, jump up and throw it back to the thrower. What is the purpose of this exercise?

2. Not training the goalkeeper to be the defense captain.

3. Insisting upon the use of the so-called one-touch or two-touch soccer. Naturally there are times during a game where this tactic is appropriate, but it must not be the rule. There is no substitute for trapping and controlling techniques most of the time.

4. Telling players to make throw-ins “up the side line”. Throwing the ball up the sideline usually results in the ball being intercepted because that is where the defenders will be standing. It is even worse yet to allow players to take a running start. This is totally unproductive. The running start is useless, as anyone that has some knowledge of physics knows that running and then stopping before the throw, imparts a zero extra velocity onto the ball. Running to make a throw-in usually produces an invalid throw-in anyway. These practices are generally not done in top professional soccer.

5. Allowing defensive players to “attack” the ball being controlled by an attacking player. This is probably one of the least understood aspects of defense. It is frequently the cause of a lost match and can be seen at all playing levels of soccer.

6. The bureaucracy that has now permeated into many youth organizations would account for the reason that many skillful coaches have been replaced with inexperienced coaches that may have even “earned” coaching certificates. An inexperienced head coach often overrides an experienced assistant coach simply because he or she is in charge.

As stated, these are some of the many negatives that unknowledgeable coaches impart to their young players. Skills do not come easy, so in their promotion, skillful play must first be understood and accepted by the coaches. This is a necessary prerequisite before they can unceasingly insist upon what players must do or avoid doing.

Other articles will be forthcoming and often focus on the positive aspect of skillful tactics. Also, there will be some useful soccer training articles attached to my web site in the near future.