In previous interventions we reflected on the high volatility of situations, a thousand and more times in total, during a match. Based on this reality, it is necessary to improve the ability to make decisions in a very short time. And since it is clear that no situation can be identical to another, dispensing solutions is absolutely ineffective. We know that, when the time available to act is little, or very little, we act by resorting to our unconscious, giving a response that is the result of our experience, our experience, the emotions of the moment and only a few moments later will we be able to understand whether we acted correctly or not. Based on this, it seems very useful to me to try to broaden the children’s wealth of experiences, stimulating them to improve decision-making through the generation of alternatives.
How can you resolve a situation? Is there only one way or are there also other effective possibilities that can allow us to succeed in our aim? They taught us that the repetition of a gesture allows us to refine a technique, a skill and for a long time we proposed deductive and analytical exercises, even very far from reality, with the hope of being able to transfer them into the game. But can this way of coaching still be valid or should it be considered outdated for coaching a situational sport like football? Will learning a technical gesture in a context different from the one in which it will then be put into practice allow me to still be effective? So how can we practice a technique in a real game context, with the possibility of improving decision making? How can we generate valid alternatives? How can we repeat without repeating? What methodology, what strategy, what communication can allow us to effectively achieve these objectives? These are just some of the questions I ask myself when I question the adequacy of my training proposals.
An aspect that I am very interested in stimulating in children is that linked to the continuous search for effective solutions to solve the same problem. An effort that may initially appear useless, because if I can solve a problem, it may seem like a waste of time to try to solve it another way. In reality, when we are under stress and have little time available to act, as happens in a match, we tend to rely on the “things” that are most familiar to us and at which we consider ourselves skilled. Unfortunately, however, if our opponent is a smart guy, able to “read” our intentions, after once or twice, he will be able to predict our intentions, easily neutralizing our initiatives. We will therefore need, in our baggage, other useful solutions to use.
Practically, I find that a valid possibility of intervention is to accustom the player to solving the same problem in different ways. Simply asking to resolve a situation, each time without being able to resort to the solutions already used. For example, if the players in possession of the ball have resorted to triangulation, this can no longer be used. In the next repetition, they will have to resort to something different and then something else, deploying all their creative resources to resolve the given situation in an even different way.
Another interesting idea is to stimulate the children in our example by asking them: “what happens if…?”. In this way we lead to a reflection on the possibilities of intervention of the defenders or on the possibilities of movement of the ball holder’s teammates. For example, what happens if the defender manages to shadow a player without the ball? what happens if the defender, instead of running towards his goal, attacks the person receiving the ball during the pass? For each question, we can stimulate a reflection and then play it on the field in order to verify whether it is good or not.
Jim Rohn said: Successful people engage the creative side of their person and ask themselves, “Well, I wonder how else can I look at this problem? I wonder how else can I handle this decision? I ask myself How many other possibilities are there?”
Do we ever use this modus operandi with the activities we have proposed? Do we ever reflect on how we could propose some activity in a similar but different way, so much so as to completely change its meaning and request? I believe that using this strategy can help us coaches to generate alternatives to our proposals, expanding the range and value of training activities. I’ll try to clarify the concept with a very simple example. I often see two-touch matches proposed. If we try to ask ourselves why we insert the two-touch constraint, a grAnde percentage of instructors respond to speed up the game or to think faster. Thinking about it, however, this is not exactly what happens in the match on Sunday, when the game and its evolution will define the number of touches that will be necessary in each action. Furthermore, if you observe the kids carefully, you will notice that they will tend to play automatically, getting used to playing with two touches, even when it would be useful to keep it and play with four or five or when it is necessary to transmit it first-hand to obtain a real advantage. There is no real alternative.
Someone might opt to insert a variant. You can play with a maximum of two touches. It means that I can choose whether to play with first intention, with a single touch, or control the ball and then pass it within the limit set by the coach. This second proposal, although still quite far from the real reading of the game, will still require the player to look around at least a little to get a minimum amount of information regarding what is happening near him, to choose whether to play first or stop the ball.
Even in this example we play without a great need to perceive too much information from the game context. In my opinion, however, things would change if the request were: if I have space I lead the ball, otherwise I pass it to a teammate. The same match would become “playable” by the kids, only after a real perception of the surrounding space that the ball holder will have at his disposal, and on the basis of which he will choose whether to resort to passing or leading (and possible dribbling). Small nuances, you might think, but the request will be completely more engaging and will require a continuous gathering of information from the surrounding environment, to understand if and how much space you will have available, transforming the proposal from a mere mechanical execution to a continuous reading game .