LMSC Weekly

Quick Boys Meet John Hackworth; Springboks Perform Well In First Match Of 2012

• Hackworth, 1 Stinson, 0 - He stuck to his guns...I didn't
• Heatstroke, hydration, and 11 year old kids
• Injured versus hurt
• A teachable moment in the Springboks' game
• The sticky points of playing against your own club
• The challenges of differing coaching styles
• A call for more cohesive club structure in America

Some related themes this week between the two sides, and some crossover points which fans of both teams may find of interest.  Everything below is written presuming both sets of team families/players will take interest!

Hackworth, whose son was on the Nether Providence Broncos team, is clearly putting his money where his mouth is, which was nice affirmation that the folks involved with US Soccer and who are leading the charge to improve player development in this country are not only offering advice, but also taking their own advice.  The most prominent characteristic of the Broncos' approach was that their GK never (maybe not quite never, but close enough) punted or kicked long.  This is perhaps one of the most difficult aspects of the new wave of player development guidelines, and one I have veered from with the QBs the last two matches...shamefully in front of a man I admire and whose advice I hope to spread further in youth soccer.



So, shockingly, we discover I'm not perfect.  The 'Boks' families will notice some parallels here...playing against the LMSC "C" team, we almost exclusively rolled the ball out to feet from our GKs (and by the way, huge shout outs to Lilly, Lexi, Lucy and Ellie -I think Ellie played GK...my notes don't show who played the end of the first period...- for stepping into goal the first match of the year...I hope they had a little fun with it; I know their teammates will be heartened by the good nature and success of their four bold teammates!).  The only time the players were allowed to deviate from this was when we were down 1-0 in the second half (ironically the first goal we conceded was a direct result of a GK turnover...there's a price to pay for this approach).  There were some close calls, of course, but in general, the girls did a very good job of being cool under some pressure, and coming up with good solutions to the challenge posed by such a demand from their coach.

Both teams in training this week will take a look at some combination play options to use in these scenarios; the neat trick is that in doing this, we'll also be training the players to attack the top of the opponent's penalty area using essentially the same reasoning and technical skills.

As my experiences accumulate, I considered on Saturday how much of an advantage the Broncos enjoyed against the QBs given they had two additional subs (we had two, they had four).  Essentially, assuming none of the subs replace the GK, two subs account for 29% of the team.  Four, of course, double that (+/-58%) and when I looked at those numbers across a sixty minute match in very hot and humid weather, and that extra 30% rest offered every player (one other major assumption- everyone comes off the field at roughly the same ratio...we all know teams that leave some players on full-time.  I don't believe I took Alex Kades off Saturday at all...and only took Cole off after he overheated. See below for more on that incident) makes a huge difference.

For both teams this is an area of interest, as we balance the desire to win against the best-known practices of player development.  I certainly compromised Saturday, but not so much on Sunday, and both results were, if nothing else, competitive...but we also ensured that our players got the maximum touches on the ball in the match on Sunday.  Saturday...less so.  However, valuing match time as an opportunity to allow the players to use what they cover in training at a technical level makes it less desirable to have more subs.  And there is great value in games in this sense, so finding a line in the sand between just enough subs but not too many to limit the reward of match time at the end of the week is tough.  Of course, our rosters are set; I'll not be adding names!  So, we may have to deal with the odd difficulty of our players struggling to keep up over 60 minutes especially when it is so warm, but in the long haul, we are allowing each player a bit of rest and maximizing their access to match-minutes.  So I guess I can live with it, but it does make me think about ideal roster-size questions a little more.

As pertains to resting players...young Cole (who was playing a remarkable match) feel victim to a degree of heatstroke.  I'm no MD, so how severe is unclear.  However, an 11 year old coming to a total stop in the middle of a match is pretty unusual (no contact, just couldn't move) and offered me quite a fright.  I'm no coddler (see below) but I am aware that these are someone else's kids, and my responsibility during games and training.  To this day, while I've seen my share of injuries, I've only ever seen one truly scary situation when I was coaching in Iowa...everything else has been pretty run of the mill.  Cole got into the shade (namely me hunching over him- there was no shade on our bench, and I didn't want to send him off alone to the shade at the end of the field, nor did I want to leave the technical area as the match was being played...) and had water poured over his head while he chugged from another bottle.  A headache and physical discomfort (pins and needles-type sensations) were the only complaints, though I suspect not very good ones, though his folks assured me Sunday he was fully recovered.

So here's the take-away:  what I do know about pre-pubescent athletes is that they cannot cool their bodies nearly as efficiently as adults.  So that's one age-specific concern that we all ought to be aware of.  The other is the importance of being hydrated well before the beginning of a match.  I generally offer the advice that an athlete should pee about every 30 minutes (clear and copious is the pithy jock-speak for proper hydration) and this should commence several hours prior to game time.  At any rate, lots of water before games, folks, especially if the weather is warm, windy, sunny...but also when cold...a hydrated body does much better in cold weather if sufficiently hydrated.

As for coddling kids...some of the conversation with these teams this week will focus on learning the difference between and injury and a hurt.  Hurt can play, injuries are done for the day.  Being kicked, or having a toe crunched under someone's stud, or, like Max on Saturday, having a knee in the back and the wind knocked out of you (owww) is a hard shot to take.  Been there and done that myself.  For the most part, our kids do a pretty good job of handling the hurts...but just to be clear with everyone, if it's a "knock," they'll be encouraged to play on it...if it's a "twist" or heaven forbid, a break, well, then we'll be a bit more circumspect.  Rolled ankles don't get the same respect as a twisted knee, back, or shoulder...

The big issue in the 'Boks game was the poor, young official running the sideline opposite our bench.  In what must always be an awkward situation ("B" team playing "C" team in the opening game of the league schedule) it's impossible not to think about the implications of the final score.  Having come back from 1-0 down, and secured a 2-1 lead in the second half, it was very tempting to say nothing when we scored a third from a blatantly offside position.  Having already asked the center official in the first period to keep an eye on the other team as they attacked on this young kid's side, it was plainly hypocritical to let it slide when it favored us.  Now, if I get that gift at Haverford this fall, you bet your next paycheck I'll smile quietly and take the goal.  But, against our own club, already having the lead and in front of kids who could learn something about fair play and respect - pretty sure there's enough ruthless competitive stuff in their lives - I asked the ref to double check the AR's decision, and they called the goal back.

I know, I'm a paragon of virtue...and an idiot, because they pulled one back with 2 minutes to play, and we ended up drawing.  Talk about no good deed goes unpunished.  But I did explain it to the girls, and they seemed pretty relaxed about it.  11 year-olds can be surprisingly logical at times...  And what drove it home was that as the team was packing up to leave, I overheard two girls talking happily about not caring if we tied; the game was a lot of fun.  Now, when we train this week, I'll go back to yelling and stamping my feet, handing out push-ups and micro-managing seemingly mundane details.

Game day belongs to the players, more so at the youth level than any other, and the contrast Sunday was marked - less so Saturday because my counterpart on the Broncos is part of the cohort who brought the approach I use to this nation - where Coach Ferreira leads from the touchline and played a very direct game, the 'Boks were left a bit more on their own, and were trying to pass the ball up the field via specific avenues: simply, if we can find our central striker's feet, do that...if not, find the widest players feet, preferably as high up the field as possible...if not, find the central midfielders...and if all that fails, hit it negative to a defender or the GK and start over.  Wingers were asked to experiment with any/all of the moves we've worked on this year to get to the goal line...no matter what, take the defender on and get to the goal line.  Over the course of the match, this became increasingly successful as the players realized they won't get criticized for losing the ball taking a defender on in the attacking half.  Other than that, they were asked to play two-three-maybe even-four touch, and play the ball on the ground.  And they did alright, for sure.  And my singing voice was preserved.

Now, here's the conundrum.  Coach Ferreira is under some degree of pressure to win, I'm sure.  I see the families faces when we lose- at least with the QBs, the girls being 0-0-1 not yet! and hope that the adults rally as fast as the kids do.  Heck, I've admitted that I tossed out an important value in my philosophical approach to my profession on Saturday because the team we faced had advantages in size, and maybe in speed.  So I took a risk Sunday after walking away from Saturday feeling like a cheat, and gave a big advantage to our opponent by restricting my team's options.  And it did hurt us, sort of.  However, say we lose because of that goal given up directly as a result of how I ask my players to play; the other team suffers no such penalty and now it's just so many sour grapes if I complain that we lost (or drew) because the other coach won't similarly handicap his own players.  Pep Guardiola, Claudio Reyna, John Hackworth and I all believe it to be the best way to teach the game...but I doubt you'd catch any of us offering that it is the best way to win a game.  

But of more concern to me is that we had two teams from the same club playing totally differing styles.  

One of the great weaknesses in American youth soccer is that kids are trained in a different environment almost every year, certainly with every change in coach.  And to some degree the coach's style will always differ...but systems of play, principles of play, these things ought to remain the same within a given organization.  And here's a couple reasons why: If the "A" team coach plays a 4-3-3, and has attacking wing backs, but the "B" team coach uses a 4-4-2 cantenacccio-style approach (sit deep and defend slavishly, while attacking on the counter) how does a "B" team player ever make it to the "A" team?  The jobs are totally different, and the role on the "B" team is, at best, only training 1/2 the job the "A" team will require - excellent defender, highly unlikely to be comfortable or effective going forward.  

I worry that next season, were I to remain the 'Boks coach, if a couple of my players moved up to the "A" team (and here's hoping!) I don't know that the "B" team kids would be in a good position to play with the 'Boks because they've played a different style this season and have had different focuses in training.  Of course, I have no idea what Coach Ferreira will do or has done stylistically in other matches- that approach may well have been a one-off, and we are in fact taking the same approach.  I should also mention I mean this in no way to be a criticism of his methods- he organized things well and gave his team a good chance to win the game, and it was all recognizably soccer.  Perfectly valid stuff in my book; if I was told to by the administration, I'd coach that way quite cheerfully.  Given the option, I won't, but that's a pretty personal choice.

But the risks are clear for the players, and the organization is less cohesive than it could be.  The coaches are on their own, and so, therefore, are the players.  Greater coordination among a given club (and by no means is LMSC alone in this) would reduce the number of kids who jump to other clubs - standardized expectations help eliminate some of the subjective decisions and the hurt feelings that follow - and thereby help to create a more stable training environment, a more consistent environment where players can grow into roles that are clearly defined.  And with so many clubs to choose from, if a kid doesn't like the 4-3-3 at Club A, they can go to Club 1 and play in their 4-4-2.  That's a much better reason for changing clubs than simply being frustrated by being left off an "A" or "B" team or what have you.  I would also argue that many coaches would do better jobs if they were part of a systemic approach, where they could gain expertise in one system- a quicker proposition than trying to gain expertise in many systems, styles and approaches.

More than enough for one week...a good start to the league season, and hopefully some information that will make our players better, and offer greater context to the work we are doing together and bring more value to the game.