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.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
