earth and sod

Artificial turf is excellent for our Canadian climate. It allows for training in nearly any weather. It's more economical in the long run, but it's no match to the proverbial grass pitch. Even the translucent lime coloured light it emanates under the rising and setting sun is much kinder on the eyes then the blinding glare of artificial turf. And the sent of a real sporting green can be intoxicating.

I'm reminded of such an affect this past summer. My son had an evening practice out in Vaughan, it  also happened to be the birthday of one of his coaches. It was a beautiful day, the sun setting low in the sky, casting long shadows across the pitch. There had been rain two days previous and the grass was a rich green. I walked over to greet the coach, the boys were playing a small sided possession game and mashing up the dirt and grass. As I neared fragrant rich earth and sod over took my senses. The effect was immediate and profound. If it were possible the skies could open up and shower down a chamomile tea mist I might have felt a similar sensation. It stirred in me a pleasant energy.

It was clear I was not the only one. The boys faces looked happy as they played, and although they always work hard, tonight they seemed to have more pep. The field was in good shape and I'm sure the earth beneath their feet felt much better then the hard carpet or the poorly maintained fields they often trained on. Their touches where sharp, and they seemed to be gleaming.

I suppose one might say that playing game on a good sporting green is much like a celebration of our place with nature.









 

don't let me down! and don't tell me what to do!

It's not that a coach should wear many faces, in fact, he or she should remain as consistent as possible when around the players. A coach should, however, be aware of the diversity among the players, and strive to bring the best out of each one. It is important coaches understand the need to coach the team they have and not the team they want.                                                            

So what does it mean (coach the team you have and not the team you want)? Well, simply put, it's good management. If you look at a top level pro club like Real Madrid, who wish to build and market a side that brings excitement and flare to the pitch; they go out and try to acquire the manager and the players with the individual skills to make it happen. With a club like Real Madrid, it is as much about marketing as it is about the game itself. As a coach of youth soccer it is about developing a group of young less accomplished players. They are from the neighborhood and hope to play on your team. These players possess varying  levels of talent, fitness, and motivation. It is up to you to develop and manage them to the best of your ability so the experience is fun and rewarding enough for them to flourish and become skillful, knowledgeable, and effective players in their own right. Many have dreams of becoming super stars, and playing for clubs like Real Madrid, but all hope for a rewarding and fun experience, so don't let them down.

Your team will be comprised of players who run fast, but lack technique, or have technique, but lack fitness, some will lack focus, others heart, some tall others small. Your keeper might need work or maybe the one holding you in games. This might not be the team you want, but it's the team you have, and must develop and manage effectivly.

 don't tell me what to do --  

There is a lot of research out there on youth sport development that I enjoy reading, and intend to blog about in more detail, but for now, I like to continue casually discussing a little coaching philosophy, and avoid getting into the planning and executing of actual sessions. It is important a coach create a nurturing atmosphere in each session and not spend all the time with players in intense, high pressure, 'drill like' sessions where they are continuously told what to do. A carefully planed session will create all the intensity and pressure needed. I believe that a young player will get more fun and reward out of interaction and small sided or full pitch games that challenge skill levels.

It's important for young children (6-12)* to spend more time developing technical skills in short, simple, 'drill like' sessions where instruction and demonstration of key factors are imperative. At the very early ages (6-8)* they must learn the fundamentals of the game. It's important to keep their minds and bodies busy while developing their muscle groups, and muscle memories. (physical literacy) But deliberate play activities should accompany the structured 'line drill' style training as much as possible. If you strike the right balance children will participate and learn.  Much of the tactical game is beyond the comprehension of a four or seven year old,  including play making or playing as a team, so there is little point spending too much time on tactics or stressing over the state of their game performances. As players age, more and more game like situations and tactics should be introduced in place of technical drills. Play that is designed to challenge their technical abilities, and teach them when a technique might best suit various situations. Play that should fuel an awakening imagination. These planed sessions (and simpler sessions for youths age 8-12)* should effectively teach a young teen how technique relates to the tactical game and so on. (soccer literacy)

A good philosophy to adopt in these sessions is self discovery through play. An example, say, during a small sided game, might be to ask a player why there was no success sending a pass under pressure to a target player? And what technique or option might have been better suited then the one that was used? Teach them high percentage opportunities vs. low percentage ones.- "walls and bridges"- Guide them towards finding their vision.

In short, use carefully planed sessions that are fun, but challenge, and be patient while your group discovers the game for themselves. Their progress will be a shared reward for all who persevered, and at the end of the day, your beer will go down smoother.

           Here is an excerpt from: Athletic Insight: The Online Journal Of Sports Psychology:

Coach Influence

       The DMSP (Côté, et al., 2003; Côté & Fraser-Thomas, 2007; Côté & Hay, 2002) highlights the critical role the coach can play in positively or negatively influencing youths’ sport experiences. Smith, Smoll, and Curtis (1978) were among the first to examine youth coaches’ behaviors. They found that the best liked coaches were those who demonstrated more technical instructional, reinforcement, and mistake contingent reinforcement behaviors. In more recent intervention studies (Barnett, Smoll, & Smith, 1992; Smoll, Smith, Barnett, &Everett, 1993) it was found that coaches who were trained to increase these behaviors were better liked, created an atmosphere that athletes perceived as more fun, created more team unity, and had lower dropout rates than untrained coaches. Other studies (Martin, Jackson, Richardson, & Weiller, 1999; Salminen & Liukkonen; 1996) have found that youth prefer coaches who demonstrate child-involved democratic coaching styles.

       Unfortunately much research also highlights the potential negative influences of youth sport coaches. Several authors (Gilbert, Gilbert, & Trudel, 2001a, 2001b; Hill & Hansen, 1988; Siegenthaler & Gonzalez, 1997) have suggested that youth coaches who place primary emphasis on winning often exploit their athletes rather than considering their developmental stages and advancing their psychological and social best interests. In particular, dropout and burnout athletes perceived their coaches as less encouraging and supportive, and more controlling and autocratic than other athletes (Gould, Udry, Tuffey, & Loehr, 1996; Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand, & Briere, 

   

       Côté and colleagues’ model aligns with much of the current developmental literature on readiness for competition, particularly with regard to psychological and cognitive readiness. Kirk (2005) suggests that quality early learning experiences through sampling and play during childhood develop perceptions of competence, which in turn lead to motivation for continued participation. Horn and Harris (2002) suggest that children’s perceptions of competence in late childhood (ages 8-12) are largely the result of comparisons with their peers. It is only at about the age of 12 or 13 that children are able to fully understand the differing effects that effort, practice, and ability have on their performances. For example, before the age of 12 or 13, children tend to judge their athletic ability in comparison with their peers (i.e. I run faster/slower than Mary) rather than in absolute terms (i.e. I can run 100m in 15 seconds). Many researchers have argued that if children are exposed to competition and advanced skill work too soon, they will experience a decreased sense of self-esteem and competence, and an increased sense of anxiety. Csikszentmihalyi, Rathunde, and Whalen’s (1997) research on talent development provides further support for this argument; they found that those who did not persist in their talent area often experienced anxiety because their skill level was too low for the challenges offered to them.

*(these numbers, ages, are merely guides and it is important to keep in mind individual levels relating to technique and knowledge of game.) 

Here are some links that relate to this post: http://www.athleticinsight.com/Vol8Iss3/YouthSports.htm#Overview, http://www.canadasoccer.com/wellness/Wellness_CoupeDuMonde.asp?lang=en, http://www.allmusic.com/album/walls-and-bridges-r11533