MWFA

MWFA recently ran a series of interactive workshops for coaches interested in where the future of football is heading, especially in youth development. There are people’s opinions, and there is logical debate, but sometimes even these are not enough for people to be convinced. To resolve this dilemma, we conducted experiments to prove how certain things should be approached using grassroots players, factual data and first hand experiences.

In this third workshop, the theme was: “YOUR TEAM CAN PLAY BETTER FOOTBALL IF YOU COACH BETTER”.

We had several groups of different ages and skill levels, initially playing without coaching to see their natural behaviour, and then seeing how far we could take them with effective coaching.

The ‘effective coaching’ involved:

• Demonstration and moving pictures for the players to visualise different scenarios
• Using Q&A to trigger problem solving and discussion
• Giving them key phrases and cues to help them recognise their options, as well as reminders on the run to help them reflect
• Positive reinforcement to encourage more of the same behaviour from the player concerned and all other players

The above replaces more typical and less effective methods of coaching, such as talking without helping the players see what you mean, talking for too long (leading to information overload and reduced playing time), not engaging the players and only telling them what to do (no decision making), and only offering negative correction, which impacts the degree with which players have a positive experience at training.

Feedback provided to the players was focused on:

• Using their first touch to move the ball (ideally forwards, or at least away from the nearest defender)
• Not rushing on the ball even if under pressure, and supporting each other off-the-ball to provide options
• Recognising when space is limited and seeing if there is a teammate free on the other side of the pitch, and what players could say to each other to make this work

Obviously, the level of detail and language used was adapted to each group, but the messages were the same philosophically.

We measured the following stats for each group before being coached, while being coached, and after being coached:

• Switching play (successful pass to teammate on opposite wing)
• Turn-overs (booting it, getting tackled, being forced out, etc.)
• Scoring chances (shots on and off target, 1v1 against the goalie, etc.)
• Consecutive passes (passes in a row before a shot or turn-over)

We kept this experiment as objective as possible by ensuring the following:

• Using the exact same process with different age groups
• Regularly mixing up teams based on levels of ability and gender within each age group
• Every team played the same duration, using a different size field and number of players depending on their age group
• We had the same number of analysts watching each team and group

Obviously, doing a longer term comparison would be better, but the results from just one night were very insightful. Note that the data from game 2 is not as important because the duration of this game was different, and players were adapting as they were learning and being challenged with each new coaching point. The important comparison is between game 1 (before being coached) and game 3 (after being coached).

The raw data is shown in the following table:

What we can see is that players were able to perform 31% better overall in game 3 (where they could play freely again, but after being coached) according to the criteria we were analysing. In other words, they switched play successfully more often (39% more often), lost the ball less often (by 29%), and created more scoring chances (24%). Interestingly, despite these findings, the number of consecutive passes was 18% worse on average in game 3 for most age groups, but when this is analysed with the other stats in mind, it is likely because players were playing more effectively (switching play and creating scoring chances) using fewer passes, rather than passing more often but getting stuck in crowded areas and losing the ball.

Conclusions / Reflections / Learnings:

• If you can have a 31% positive impact in one session with any age group and level of players, imagine how much of an impact you can have over a whole season using these teaching methods. If demonstrating, asking questions and/or highlighting role models are not methods of coaching you are used to, the only thing you can do is start, and the more you practice the better you will get (just like players learning new skills).
• If you can have this much of an impact in a purely game-based training session with no restrictions or conditions, why bother doing anything else? The most important aspect of any training exercise is if the learning transfers into real matches, and the best way to ensure this occurs in real matches is practising during training sessions (if you do anything else, you are only assuming and hoping the learning will transfer).
• The counter-argument to the previous point, which was covered in the first workshop, is that game-like drills allow for more repetition of specific skills. The lesson is to keep these simple and realistic, and focus more on coaching effectively during these drills, rather than getting distracted with managing the rules and progressions in the drill. Spend more time playing football in your training sessions, give the players challenges and feedback while they play – if any drills are not giving you higher success when the players try the same things in match scenarios, don’t bother with them.

MWFA would like to thank all of the players and coaches who participated in these workshops for their time.

MWFA recently ran a series of interactive and special workshops for coaches interested in where the future of football is heading, especially in youth development. There are people’s opinions, and there is logical debate, but sometimes even these are not enough for some people to be convinced. To resolve this dilemma, we conducted some football ‘experiments’ to prove how certain things should be approached using actual grassroots players, factual data and first hand experiences.

In this second workshop, the theme was: “SMALL SIDED FOOTBALL IS STILL TOO BIG”.

We had several groups initially playing in the current official FA formats for their age group, and then later trying more modern formats with different numbers of players and rules.

The change in formats meant that:

• U7s went from 4v4 and a small goal each end, playing two halves of 10mins, to
  • 2v2 with 2 small goals each end and shots only permitted from the attacking half
  • Playing 7 games of 3mins each before switching teammates and opponents
  • With the added rule of free kicks being awarded if players booted the ball with no intent on controlling it
• U9s went from 7v7 including goalkeepers in medium size goals, playing two halves of 12mins, using a formation and throw-ins policed firmly, to
  • 5v5 with 2 small goals each end and shots only permitted from the attacking half OR goalkeepers in medium size goals (both were used)
  • Playing 4 games of 6min each before switching teammates and opponents, without formations (everyone could attack and defend)
  • Removing throw-ins in favour of kick-ins, with the added rule of free kicks being awarded if players booted the ball with no intent on controlling it
• U11s went from 9v9 including goalkeepers in medium size goals, playing two halves of 12mins, using a formation and throw-ins policed firmly, to
  • 8v8 with goalkeepers in medium size goals
  • Playing 4 games of 6min each before switching teammates and opponents, and still using a formation
  • Removing throw-ins in favour of kick-ins, with the added rule of free kicks being awarded if players booted the ball with no intent on controlling it

We measured the following stats for random individual players across each age group in the different game formats:

• First touch into space
• First touch stops the ball dead
• Successful passes
• Unsuccessful passes
• Running with the ball into space
• Beats a defender 1v1
• Fails to beat a defender 1v1
• Shots on target
• Shots off target
• Goals scored
• Wins a 1v1 duel as the defender
• Gets beaten 1v1 as the defender

We kept this experiment as objective and fair as possible by ensuring the following:

• All players who participated had equal game time and shared the goalkeeper position where relevant
• Each game format had the same duration
• We had the same number of analysts watching players in each game format and spread out evenly across the different matches happening at one time

Obviously, doing a longer term comparison would be better, but the results even from just one night were very insightful. Note that players were not coached at any point, as our objective was to see how the players would respond naturally to each game format.

The raw data is shown in the following table:

What we can see is that U7s had a slight decrease in the number of positive touches / involvements (26.5 to 23.2 on average) but a more than 50% reduction in errors (14 to 6.8 on average), and overall a similar number of overall touches / involvements (40.5 to 40 on average). It is possible that the fact we had U7s playing for 40mins in total may have caused them to fatigue and reduced the intensity of their play towards the end, but the key thing is the ratio of positive actions to errors went from about 2/1 to more than 3/1.

U9s had a more than 20% increase in the number of positive touches / involvements (16.2 to 21) as well as a slightly reduced number of errors (10 to 8.5), plus an increase in the number of overall touches / involvements (26.2 to 29.5). The ratio of positive actions to errors went from just over 3/2 to just over 3/1.

U11s also had an increase in the number of positive touches / involvements (12.1 to 15.4) but also an increase in the number of errors (6 to 8.7) which in turn impacted the ratio of positive actions to errors (about 2/1 to just under 2/1), but there was a big increase of 25% in the overall number of overall touches / involvements (18.1 to 24.1).

Conclusions / Reflections / Learnings:

• Although there has been a push recently to change U12s from 11v11 on a full sized pitch to 9v9 on a smaller pitch, which is a positive step, this shows that moving forward there would also be benefits to reducing the number of players and the size of pitches across all MiniRoos age groups, which is also what has been happening in various leading European countries for many years, so we are quite far behind in Australia still (see here for further reading)
• In addition to adjusting the size and number of players, other changes would also have a positive impact on player development and experience, such as adding more goals to score into for younger age groups in particular, removing throw-ins until players reach 11v11, and reducing the emphasis on results by mixing up teams and opponents in non-competitive age groups so each match day feels more like a tournament with multiple matches with and against a mix of players
• Any big changes like this, as reasonably simple as they might look, may still require of lot of time and effort to achieve buy-in and then see them implemented, but in the meantime coaches can still take positive steps, especially if they collaborate with their opposition – why not try playing 4 games (or even 5-6 if you want to avoid having any subs) of 2v2 with U7s instead of 2 games of 4v4? Or two games of 5v5 instead of one game of 7v7 with several subs each, if there is space (or make the space!)? Why not agree to replace throw-ins with kick-ins given the game leader is usually a parent? And if games are imbalanced, instead of taking players off or letting the opposition add players and making the game unrealistic, why not mix teams up randomly and not worry about who plays for which club? Why not do that anyway even if teams are balanced? In the end, the most important thing is that all players have a positive experience, so if that can be achieved with some common sense and negotiation / collaboration, then don’t let ‘the way it has always been done’ stop you

MWFA would like to thank all of the players and coaches who participated in these workshops for their time and efforts.