By Marcus DiBernardo
Methodology
Connecting academic theory to practice session design may sound weird, unfamiliar, and strange to most coaches. Traditional coaching education often teaches rigid practice sessions, timed to the second, pre-determined coaching points, hammering out of sub-principles, and even sub-sub principles, as the coach takes on the role of Jesus in a sweat suit, imparting knowledge from the top down (all-knowing coach gives wisdom to the players). In this digital information age, it is simple to watch a training session from the internet and replicate it with your team, but the issue is that it lacks a connection to an actual methodology. A methodology is a way of teaching the game progressively through the age groups, it allows for flexibility and is always a work in progress. The cornerstone of a methodology is academic theory, it is the theoretical ideas that are present in literally every practice session design. I can’t count the number of clubs that say they have a methodology, but in reality, they just operate off a list of topics to be covered with no understanding of what a methodology is. The words curriculum and methodology often get used in the same context, further illustrating the disconnect. A curriculum has nothing to do with how you teach the game, it is simply a list of topics to be covered in no particular order. Mention academic theory connected to a methodology, and this becomes a real head-scratcher for most.
Academic Theory
The two most common academic theories used in invasion sports are the Cognitive Processing & Ecological Dynamics Theories. The point of this article is not to point out all the fine details that differentiate the two theories, but rather to show the crossover in training methods and how they can be used to target specific player perceptions leading to emerging new actions. In the simplest terms possible, the cognitive processing model looks at player decision-making as a separate step in cognition, the player processes information, and then makes a decision after the cognitive step. For example, A+B = perform action C. The cognitive processing model draws on past memories and pattern recognition, the brain is essentially seen as a supercomputer, calculating what action to take based on the cognitive processing of information. Ecological dynamics views the player and the environment as being connected in a real-time feedback loop, where information is not processed and separated into isolated cognitive steps. The act of decision-making is seen as an ongoing and real-time interaction between the environment and player – decision-making is not one moment in time, it is a continuing process. The environment is information-rich, containing all the required information for the player to make a decision via direct visual perception. The player must attune to the important information, but he/she can change intentions at any moment, as invitations for actions open and decay in real-time. The coupling of physical actions to real information based on the reflection of light is at the core of ecological dynamics. This is of course a very simplified version.
Practice Session Design
When designing a practice session, there are some basic concepts to keep in mind that connect academic theory to practice session design.
Representative Game Design: In order to couple physical actions to real information the training must look like the game. Creating game-representative environments is what enables players to make meaningful decisions on the ball, it allows players to couple physical actions to real information. Without getting into detail, opposed practices with real defenders allow exercises to be representative enough, to have great value and near transfer to the actual game.
Whole vs Part: The less we can artificially separate the game into isolated parts the better. Pep’s 4v4+4 rondo is the whole in my view. It has 360-degree scanning, keeping the ball, and counter-pressing. Of course, it is not fully representative, but it is representative enough for me to consider it whole, in its own way. The definition of fully representative is the actual 11v11 game, which must be practiced, but there is great value in exploring different game-representative environments. Variability is critical in player development.
Perception
Perception leads to action. The environments we create influence how players visually search for information, which influences actions. Top players often attune or focus their visual search on the most important information, while lower-level players may struggle to attune to the important information. Players’ visual search patterns of the environment are critical in determining possible invitations for action or perceived affordances. One of the best ways to change player perception and visual search patterns is by constraining the practice environment. A constraint makes some options for action possible while eliminating other actions. Using constraints forces players to perceive differently, leading to the exploration of different solutions, and ultimately different actions and strategies. The challenge for coaches is to create an entire methodology that utilizes constraints to develop players through the age groups. To take it a step further, can a coach adapt the environment in real-time, and can it be customized for individual players’ needs in real-time?
Customizing Constraints
An ideal practice environment will allow every player to get what they individually need from the session. However, if you want to customize a session for a specific player or players without taking away from what the other players need, you accomplish this too. Example #1, one team is working on breaking a low block, using a style that dominates the ball with shorter-range passing. The coach sets the constraint for the attacking team, they can only pass the ball on the ground, as the defending team is not told of the rule. This one constraint changes player perception and actions. The players will need to exploit time and space with short to medium-range passes, experiencing a unique rhythm of play, compared to playing a ball in the air with longer passes. However, let us assume there is one player on the attacking team who has demonstrated limited longer passing range and vision, for this player we allow passes in the air of any range. Example #2) A winger who has great speed but often crosses the ball into the box without precision or purpose is given a specific constraint. Any time the winger enters inside 18 yards of the goal (yellow dotted line), only passes on the ground that are square or back are allowed, unless the winger is shooting. From outside 18 yards, the winger has full freedom. This simple constraint changes the perception and action capabilities of the winger, it encourages the winger to drive the goal line and play a pass back to feet to players running into the box at multiple angles. This is a distinct action that is also in line with our game model. Notice that the constraint for the wingers is specific to them, and does not need to be told to anyone else on the defending team. I could add another constraint for the strikers at the same time. Any ball played into an area (pink box) must be 1-touch. That area is the “fast area” normally with the most defenders, and players must think quicker. Now the environment is constrained for different individual players’ needs, while the entire group is still able to benefit from the practice. I can change this environment again by adding a 15-second time constraint to score, this will alter players’ perceptions, what they attune to, and invitations for actions. By changing the environment we develop players soccer IQ. The main point is that constraints are a tool that fits both the cognitive processing model and the ecological model, and both can be used in a methodology that can be customized to individual player needs, without taking away from the group’s overall needs in the same practice environment.
Below is an example of cutting the corners of the field off to encourage wingers to make diagonal runs to deliver service to runners at various angles in the box. Notice, that the constraint allows players to enter into the corner areas but they can only pass back or square – no crosses are allowed from the corners. This fits our game model.
You must be logged in to post a comment.