Dear Aly,
Had a game with my U13 last Saturday. Played like crap for the final 50 minutes. First 20 were pretty good, though.
We played a very good team and lost 4-0. We gave them two goals -- one own goal and then handed their player the ball 10 yards out. One of their girls swerved a corner kick into the far, upper corner. So we were down 3-0 and had made just one mistake. Then we gave up. Never challenged for a ball, didn't look like we wanted the ball. Sloppy passes, no movement, etc., etc.
So it gave me a chance to talk about heart, effort, courage and standards. And let's face it, those are concepts that U13s don't usually think about. First, I told them that playing pretty possession soccer is great, but that alone is not going to win you any games. Heart wins games, effort wins games and personal courage is a by-product of heart and effort. Then we talked about standards and how that performace was well below the standard they have set for themselves and what I expect.
Fortunately, we had another game the next day. I was able to expand on Saturday's talk. Next, I told them that I was going to pick the starting lineup from the warmup. If they were not working hard and showing me effort and heart, they would not be starting. Okay, I came up with that on the spot and had determined the starting lineup on the way to the game in the car. But it worked.
I am a firm believer that your warmup sets the tone for the game. In a warmup you are preparing for the game. I will sometimes pull them in during the warmup and explain that to them and then say, "Right now, you are preparing to lose."
Anyway, we went after it hard in warmup. I pulled them together and said, "This is outstanding. It is exactly what I was talking about."
During the game, at least four of my players played better than they ever had for me. Everyone worked extremely hard, played their nice possession game but played it with some bite. And we won, which was a nice reward for them.
I am now able to talk about maintaining high standards, the value of heart and effort, and how we need to bring that to training every day. The girls now have some success to draw on when they think about those concepts.
And we are working on the fine line between the fury needed to win the ball and the composure to do something smart with it after you win it. And after three games, that's a nice place to be.
When I think of more, I'll write.
Thanks
You Know Who
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Still Wondering About Next Generation
Dear Carla,
For a long time, I have been wondering about the next generation of U.S. women’s national team players. Well, here they are, and I’m still wondering.
Let’s say up front that I was and still am a big supporter of Mia Hamm, Carla Overbeck, Julie Foudy, Michelle Akers, Kristine Lilly, Joy Fawcett, Brandi Chastain and anyone else that played from 1996-1999. One of their greatest qualities was their leadership ability. Another was their sense of where they came from.
I’m sure you’ve read countless stories about the early days, the time when training camps were few and far between, travel was sketchy, accommodations were Spartan and morale was sky-high. There was a sense that everything they got, they earned. Nothing was handed to them. They had to fight for the simplest things – like uniforms or more than $10 a day per diem.
So I wonder sometimes about the new players. Do they truly get it? I don’t know, and I can only guess at the answer. I think Kate Markgraf, Christie Rampone, Cat Whitehill and Abby Wambach get it. Certainly Lilly gets it, so does Briana Scurry. The rest have just heard stories, and I’m not sure they truly know the history, responsibility and obligations associated with being on that team.
Something in the North Korea draw struck me as interesting. During the stoppage when Wambach was injured, Kristine Lilly pulled the team together and was very animated in her pep talk. Then the U.S. gave up two quick goals.
I am not -- and never will -- questioning Lilly's leadership abililty. I've seen for too long what a positive effect she has on a team whenever she opens her mouth. However, you have to wonder why the team did not respond to her, and in fact, did the opposite. I think their might be a softness in the group that didn't exist in the old days.
I hope they prove me wrong, and I’ll be quick to admit it when they do.
When I think of more, I’ll write.
Thanks
You know who.
For a long time, I have been wondering about the next generation of U.S. women’s national team players. Well, here they are, and I’m still wondering.
Let’s say up front that I was and still am a big supporter of Mia Hamm, Carla Overbeck, Julie Foudy, Michelle Akers, Kristine Lilly, Joy Fawcett, Brandi Chastain and anyone else that played from 1996-1999. One of their greatest qualities was their leadership ability. Another was their sense of where they came from.
I’m sure you’ve read countless stories about the early days, the time when training camps were few and far between, travel was sketchy, accommodations were Spartan and morale was sky-high. There was a sense that everything they got, they earned. Nothing was handed to them. They had to fight for the simplest things – like uniforms or more than $10 a day per diem.
So I wonder sometimes about the new players. Do they truly get it? I don’t know, and I can only guess at the answer. I think Kate Markgraf, Christie Rampone, Cat Whitehill and Abby Wambach get it. Certainly Lilly gets it, so does Briana Scurry. The rest have just heard stories, and I’m not sure they truly know the history, responsibility and obligations associated with being on that team.
Something in the North Korea draw struck me as interesting. During the stoppage when Wambach was injured, Kristine Lilly pulled the team together and was very animated in her pep talk. Then the U.S. gave up two quick goals.
I am not -- and never will -- questioning Lilly's leadership abililty. I've seen for too long what a positive effect she has on a team whenever she opens her mouth. However, you have to wonder why the team did not respond to her, and in fact, did the opposite. I think their might be a softness in the group that didn't exist in the old days.
I hope they prove me wrong, and I’ll be quick to admit it when they do.
When I think of more, I’ll write.
Thanks
You know who.
USA 2, North Korea 2
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
