Winter Targets

Anything Worth Doing 

Is Worth Doing The Hard Way

Winter is tough on soccer players.  Quite clearly the "off" sesason, a lack of meaningful matches, school vacations and bad weather breaking up the routine.  But, there is a lot to be gained this time of year, especially when considering the application of the indoor versions of the game to the development of a player.

Here's a quick statistic-based look at my two U13 team's past games...basic stuff, but one rather suspects that the average observer isn't watching through even this fundamental, mostly-objective lens!

Case study:

Quick Boys passing by location of receiving player (or intended receiver); 40 minute indoor game (6 and a GK).

110 passes to a player inside our half.
120 passes to a player in the opponent's half.

Springboks passing attempts; 40 minute futsal game (4 and a GK).

Team 1: 222 passing attempts;
Team 2: 164 passing attempts.

By contrast, two of the Prem's top passing sides played a few days ago- Swansea and Man City.  They attempted 486 and 453 passses respectively for an average of 5.4 and 5 passes per minute.  The QBs averaged 5.75 passes per minute, the Springboks averaged 5.5 PPM (Team 1) and 4.1 PPM (Team 2)...the main difference being that the two pro clubs scored 5 goals between them, as City won 3-2 over the Swans.



By location, we can see that 43.4% of Swansea's passes were in their own half; the Quick Boys played 47.8% of their passes in our half of the field.  While not apples-to-apples, it shows we are passing at a rate that mimics the clubs I prefer to model my teams after.  And we're doing it inside; on the big field we ought to find more room to operate in the opponent's half, hopefully...the StatsZone app I use for the EPL stats is slightly different; they actually mark the passes by thirds, not halves (which is far more valid on the big field).  I guesstimated the Swan's based on halving the number of passes played in the middle third:

Given that Swansea played about double the number of passes in the final third as the defensive third, it's reasonable to think they probably played more balls on the offensive side of the midfield line out of that group of 276 middle third passes...but it gets us in the ball park.

Man City looked like this:

Easy to see the difference here....the Citizens played more than 3X as many passes in the final third as their defensive third.  Swansea was almost exactly a 2:1 ratio.

What's this mean for a bunch of U13s playing indoor varieties of the game?

The uninitiated will point to any number of goals conceded (never mind the numerous near-misses) at the top level by teams playing the ball in their back four and/or with the GK, and assert that it's too dangerous to play a Barcelona-style game (you may recall this one from 2011).  Barca, of course, are the one instance no one can seem to find a problem with this style...but the very consistency of their success makes a thoughtful person think that style could be replicated.  It's not a lucky happenstance.  Bayern Munich, always a very good team, have ascended into the realm of Barca, if for no other reason than the manager who brought so much success to the Catalans is now in charge of the Bavarians.

Anyway, the point is, unless you're Bayern or Barca, very few will tolerate the risks required of a possession-based side.  City and Swansea represent the two ends of the spectrum in attempting to break that mega-club barrier.  City have dumped amazing amounts of money ~433 million Euros (love them Russian petro-dollars...) into acquiring a roster of all-world players.  Swansea have spent somewhat less ~45 million Euros...but the results have been interestingly similar.

City won the Premiership title in 2012, and have been at the top of the table for a while, having been in the top half of the table since 2007.  Swansea have moved upward rapidly from the cellar of professional football to the EPL in 10 seasons from division three, through division two, one, then the Championship and finally into the Premiership in 2011.  It is questionable if Swansea can generate the finances to get world-class players into the club to truly compete for titles; indeed, at that level it's worth asking if there are that many players who can play this style and keep teams like Barca, Bayern, Ajax, Arsenal, Man City, Swansea, and even Shaktar Donetsk fully staffed.  Happily, more youth programs than ever are training young players to keep the ball and so the answer ought to be "yes," at least over time.

In Swansea's first season in the EPL, they finished in the top half of the table, the best performance of the three promoted sides that year.  They aren't quite so high this year, but did just beat Man U at Old Trafford in the FA Cup, so we know the quality is there.  But they've done it without spending nearly as much in a global market for players...this isn't the NFL, there are hundreds of thousands of professional players out there (not quite 13,000 college football players out there across four classes; Ohio State has 112 on their roster, if you figure 110 players per team, over 120 BCS schools...)  Clearly the players at Swansea are not as good as those at Man City...but their team does pretty well.

Teams that can keep the ball, all of this is to say, can contend with virtually any opponent.  Given that the ball and the mind move far faster than someone's feet, the technical skills of passing and receiving are the great equalizer.  But the psychological composure required, the decision-making sharpness and technical skills are not easily acquired.  Even the groans and angry shouts from the sidelines restrict this development in a player; if people are upset when the ball is lost, players will take fewer risks.  Which is fine if millions of dollars have been spent to win a title...not so much if a child's potential is to be reached.

So this winter the goal is to take advantage of the limited spaces, small numbers on the field and high number of touches to get comfortable with risk, playing under pressure (though in truth at U13 there is very little defensive pressure to contend with...) and resolving the various problems a defense presents. 

How do we keep the ball and establish a given possession as a viable attacking chance?  How do we turn that possession of the ball into a situation of numerical superiority?  Once we have numerical superiority, how do we get behind the defense?  Once behind the defense, can we effectively evaluate the quality of the chance to go to goal versus "recycling" the ball and trying another tack...are we effective at balancing the risk of the loss of the ball (for any attempt at goal is a turnover, ultimately) versus the reward of scoring a goal...particularly tough given that the probability of scoring from a given situation can be both highly unlikely yet successful!  Consider that at the top level, the vast majority of goals come from inside 9 yards from goal...but they go in at about a 14 or 15% percent clip from that range.  Outside the 18 yard area?  2%, all-time.  But you still have to shoot from all of the above locations...it's just that some times are better than others.

As we try to answer these questions, there are very few concrete answers.  Players must be able to evaluate and execute on their own, not based on a formula but on a sort of intuition bred of many training ground repetitions and match situations in which the related processes are made more of a concern than the result of the match.  You want a formula?  Here it is: Hard work+good information+high repetition+freedom to play+time= kids who can play.

Long balls will win games...everyone knows this.  But not at the top level, not these days.  Everyone knows this, too.  And it's far easier to ask a player who is technically proficient to knock a few long passes when needed than to try to get a long-ball thumper to play possession.  After 15 years of college coaching, and watching very closely the trends of the game as it evolves, I know which type of player is more valuable to a team.