Dear Tony,
Not so good. The U.S. women's national team struggled to a 2-2 draw with North Korea, a team that should have been beaten yet appeared superior in virtually every aspect of the match.
Credit to the players for scratching out a draw and getting a point. But they appeared under-prepared for the North Koreans. Yes, I know, it's easy to second-guess while watching in your living room, but here goes.
A 4-3-3 is a bad idea when playing a quick, technical, balanced team. Shannon Boxx, Carli Lloyd and Lori Chalupny were over-matched and out-numbered in midfield all game. Chalupny was the most effective of the three, simply because she is the fittest and fastest of the midfielders. Her ability to chase is better than the other two. And chasing is what they were doing. The U.S. lost control of midfield early and never seemed to own it for any sustained period of time. Abby Wambach's goal was the only example of the forwards and midfielders working together. Heather O'Reilly's opportunistic finish to tie the game was a result of horrible defending and poor clearance, possibly the only time North Korea failed defensively.
And I never understood the point of three forwards if, for one, you can't build an attack and play the ball to them where they need it, or two, if they are going to constantly have to chase back into midfield to help. Three forwards are great if you are pressuring the other team's backs into submission, or creating a situation where passes are coming from midfield. Additionally, the North Koreans were able to own every second ball in midfield, simply because of numbers.
And during the run-up to the World Cup, coach Greg Ryan said the strength of the team was scoring off re-starts. Great. Being efficient on re-starts is a valuable tool. But only if the other team fouls you.
So for whatever reason, the U.S. dug themselves a hole. Friday they have to start climbing out of it.
When I think of more, I'll write
Thanks
You know who
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Monday, September 10, 2007
Their Glorious Leader
Dear Aaron,
Whenever a World Cup rolls around, I always look forward to seeing the different styles of play. Each nation takes a unique approach to the game. Sometimes the differences are slight, but nonetheless different.
Usually, a nation's approach can be traced to their history and culture. Now that the Women's World Cup is here, let's take a look at some of the teams. Lately, I have been thinking a lot about North Korea, aka the Democratic Republic of Korea, an inaccurate moniker if I heard heard one. So, we'll start with them.
The North Koreas are all about teamwork. Every player is technically strong, they move the ball as a group, the defend as a group, and individual flair is pretty much non-existent. They seem to have taken advice from Major Frank Burns, The MASH doctor who said, "Individuality is fine as long as we are all doing it together."
Anyway, North Korea, in my opinion, will never win anything outside of Asia for that very reason. Without someone able to step up and take over in the big moment of the big game, you won't be successful at the World Cup level. For all I know, stepping up and taking charge might be against the law. That little guy, the dictator of North Korea, Whatshisname Kim, probably doesn't like it. And North Korea is competing for him, or at least that's what they say. Every press conference in 2003 began with the translator explaining that the team is trying to please "Our Glorious Leader."
And that's another competitive problem. If the players aren't able to play for themselves and for each other, they won't be at their best.
The U.S. will struggle a bit. There will be nerves and that strange mixture of adrenaline and expectation that will come to a head at kickoff. But adrenaline and expectation are better than fear and dread.
Bottom line: USA 3, North Korea 1. Kristine Lilly will not let this team lose the opener.
When I think of more, I'll write.
Thanks
You Know Who
Whenever a World Cup rolls around, I always look forward to seeing the different styles of play. Each nation takes a unique approach to the game. Sometimes the differences are slight, but nonetheless different.
Usually, a nation's approach can be traced to their history and culture. Now that the Women's World Cup is here, let's take a look at some of the teams. Lately, I have been thinking a lot about North Korea, aka the Democratic Republic of Korea, an inaccurate moniker if I heard heard one. So, we'll start with them.
The North Koreas are all about teamwork. Every player is technically strong, they move the ball as a group, the defend as a group, and individual flair is pretty much non-existent. They seem to have taken advice from Major Frank Burns, The MASH doctor who said, "Individuality is fine as long as we are all doing it together."
Anyway, North Korea, in my opinion, will never win anything outside of Asia for that very reason. Without someone able to step up and take over in the big moment of the big game, you won't be successful at the World Cup level. For all I know, stepping up and taking charge might be against the law. That little guy, the dictator of North Korea, Whatshisname Kim, probably doesn't like it. And North Korea is competing for him, or at least that's what they say. Every press conference in 2003 began with the translator explaining that the team is trying to please "Our Glorious Leader."
And that's another competitive problem. If the players aren't able to play for themselves and for each other, they won't be at their best.
The U.S. will struggle a bit. There will be nerves and that strange mixture of adrenaline and expectation that will come to a head at kickoff. But adrenaline and expectation are better than fear and dread.
Bottom line: USA 3, North Korea 1. Kristine Lilly will not let this team lose the opener.
When I think of more, I'll write.
Thanks
You Know Who
Friday, September 7, 2007
Why Not Just Play Direct?
Dear Jay,
As I've said here before, my U13 team is pretty good. We've played six matches and have had trouble building the attack. The problems stem from comfort with the ball under pressure and proper runs off the ball. We are working on that.
This week, we worked a lot on supporting runs, joining the attack, off-the-ball running and passing accuracy, At one point the other night, we were struggling with both the concepts and the execution. Half-joking, my assistant says to me, maybe we should just play direct.
Interesting.
In one of our six tournament matches, we played a very good team from Virginia. We lost 3-2. Neither of our goals came from any kind of build-up. On one, we won the ball and the girl hit a great shot. The other was off a corner that we created by banging the ball into their end and pressuring. The entire game, we played direct. Not by choice, but because the of the reasons I stated earlier -- comfort under pressure and naive movement. So why not just play direct? Why don't we just whack it down the field, pressure it and try to win games on effort, heart and hustle, qualities we rarely lack.
I think we all know the answer -- it's wrong. It does the players no good, it creates a false sense of how good you actually are, and it hinders (perhaps halts) development.
So we will continue working on the things that make us better, smarter soccer players and the goals will come. But let's be honest, there is a time and place for direct soccer. It should be one of your team's offensive weapons. But never the sole means of attack.
When I think of more, I'll write
Thanks
You know who
As I've said here before, my U13 team is pretty good. We've played six matches and have had trouble building the attack. The problems stem from comfort with the ball under pressure and proper runs off the ball. We are working on that.
This week, we worked a lot on supporting runs, joining the attack, off-the-ball running and passing accuracy, At one point the other night, we were struggling with both the concepts and the execution. Half-joking, my assistant says to me, maybe we should just play direct.
Interesting.
In one of our six tournament matches, we played a very good team from Virginia. We lost 3-2. Neither of our goals came from any kind of build-up. On one, we won the ball and the girl hit a great shot. The other was off a corner that we created by banging the ball into their end and pressuring. The entire game, we played direct. Not by choice, but because the of the reasons I stated earlier -- comfort under pressure and naive movement. So why not just play direct? Why don't we just whack it down the field, pressure it and try to win games on effort, heart and hustle, qualities we rarely lack.
I think we all know the answer -- it's wrong. It does the players no good, it creates a false sense of how good you actually are, and it hinders (perhaps halts) development.
So we will continue working on the things that make us better, smarter soccer players and the goals will come. But let's be honest, there is a time and place for direct soccer. It should be one of your team's offensive weapons. But never the sole means of attack.
When I think of more, I'll write
Thanks
You know who
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Why I Coach, Part III
Dear Alex,
I was reminded the other day of one of the reasons why I love coaching. My players make me laugh.
A few years ago, one of my players was running high school cross country. At practice one day, she came to an intersection, and there was a car on her left at a stop sign. The car stopped, my player started running across the street. The driver, however, looked to his left and turned right, slowly. He ran into my player.
That's not the funny part.
The girl was fine. The car barely hit her. But when she told the rest of the team, they couldn't stop laughing -- after seeing that she was okay, of course.
Okay, so about three weeks later in a game, a big girl on the other team steamrolled another one of my players. This girl is pretty flexible and rarely -- if ever -- goes down with an injury. So when she stayed down, I assumed she was in a fair amount of pain. When the ref waived me on the field, I jogged over to the player, still concerned about her.
When I got there, she was laughing. When I asked her what was so funny, she said, "Remember when Kristine got hit by that car? This was just like that."
We laughed all the way to the sideline.
When I think of more, I'll write
Thanks,
You know who
I was reminded the other day of one of the reasons why I love coaching. My players make me laugh.
A few years ago, one of my players was running high school cross country. At practice one day, she came to an intersection, and there was a car on her left at a stop sign. The car stopped, my player started running across the street. The driver, however, looked to his left and turned right, slowly. He ran into my player.
That's not the funny part.
The girl was fine. The car barely hit her. But when she told the rest of the team, they couldn't stop laughing -- after seeing that she was okay, of course.
Okay, so about three weeks later in a game, a big girl on the other team steamrolled another one of my players. This girl is pretty flexible and rarely -- if ever -- goes down with an injury. So when she stayed down, I assumed she was in a fair amount of pain. When the ref waived me on the field, I jogged over to the player, still concerned about her.
When I got there, she was laughing. When I asked her what was so funny, she said, "Remember when Kristine got hit by that car? This was just like that."
We laughed all the way to the sideline.
When I think of more, I'll write
Thanks,
You know who
Friday, August 31, 2007
Slanting the Line
Dear Farrell,
The Slanty Line concept is a great one for youth soccer coaches. The idea comes from the old game kids used to play in PE. You have a rope stretched out with two kids holding it at each end. One by one, the kids jump over it. Then you raise the rope higher and everyone jumps over it again. Whoever misses it is out. They go sit and wait for the activity to end.
That's where the problem arises. The kids who end up sitting out are the kids who need the activity the most. But should we dumb down the activity so everyone can participate? Well, no. That punishes the better athletes, the kids who want to accel and have the ability to do so. So what do you do?
You slant the line. Make it higher at one end and lower at the other. Let the kids choose where they want to jump over it.
That translate into soccer training, but not always so obviously or easily. I have a 1v1 activity that slants the line without the kids even knowing. You set up a grid of about 20x20. Two teams are at opposite corners facing each other (think of a diamond, one line at the top, one at the bottom of the diamond). One team has balls. The first player in the line with balls (usually no more than 4 in a line), plays the ball to the first player in the other line. Then they go 1v1. The dribbler gets one point if he makes it safely to one of the corner cones. If he/she makes it to the cone where the defender started (the other corner), it's three points. They switch lines after each dual so the defenders become attackers.
I like this activity because it's combative, it forces players to make moves, there is no outlet pass to use as a safety net, and it's competitive because one team wins.
The interesting part is that the line is slanted. If a player chooses to go for one point, they can do it and still have to work hard, think and be creative. If they choose to go for three points, it's even harder.
If you pay attention to it, you can start asking the kids why they never go for three. That could bring them out of their comfort zone and get them to try new moves and use more courage. You see kids bust out toward one of the side cones (1-pointers) and they quickly change direction and accelerate to the three-pointer.
I like it. One of my teams has an issue with 1v1 attacking and 1v1 defending. They elect to pass the responsibility to someone else instead of taking a defender on and cracking a shot or then making a pass. They are a very good passing team -- I'd call them advanced -- and this is a missing element.
As with any team, we have a pretty wide range of skill. But this activity seems to slant the line enough to keep everyone challenged while also being demanding.
When I think of more, I'll write
Thanks
You know who.
The Slanty Line concept is a great one for youth soccer coaches. The idea comes from the old game kids used to play in PE. You have a rope stretched out with two kids holding it at each end. One by one, the kids jump over it. Then you raise the rope higher and everyone jumps over it again. Whoever misses it is out. They go sit and wait for the activity to end.
That's where the problem arises. The kids who end up sitting out are the kids who need the activity the most. But should we dumb down the activity so everyone can participate? Well, no. That punishes the better athletes, the kids who want to accel and have the ability to do so. So what do you do?
You slant the line. Make it higher at one end and lower at the other. Let the kids choose where they want to jump over it.
That translate into soccer training, but not always so obviously or easily. I have a 1v1 activity that slants the line without the kids even knowing. You set up a grid of about 20x20. Two teams are at opposite corners facing each other (think of a diamond, one line at the top, one at the bottom of the diamond). One team has balls. The first player in the line with balls (usually no more than 4 in a line), plays the ball to the first player in the other line. Then they go 1v1. The dribbler gets one point if he makes it safely to one of the corner cones. If he/she makes it to the cone where the defender started (the other corner), it's three points. They switch lines after each dual so the defenders become attackers.
I like this activity because it's combative, it forces players to make moves, there is no outlet pass to use as a safety net, and it's competitive because one team wins.
The interesting part is that the line is slanted. If a player chooses to go for one point, they can do it and still have to work hard, think and be creative. If they choose to go for three points, it's even harder.
If you pay attention to it, you can start asking the kids why they never go for three. That could bring them out of their comfort zone and get them to try new moves and use more courage. You see kids bust out toward one of the side cones (1-pointers) and they quickly change direction and accelerate to the three-pointer.
I like it. One of my teams has an issue with 1v1 attacking and 1v1 defending. They elect to pass the responsibility to someone else instead of taking a defender on and cracking a shot or then making a pass. They are a very good passing team -- I'd call them advanced -- and this is a missing element.
As with any team, we have a pretty wide range of skill. But this activity seems to slant the line enough to keep everyone challenged while also being demanding.
When I think of more, I'll write
Thanks
You know who.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
