People are fascinated by "street footballers" like Neymar or Vinicius Jr.
All youth coaches want to develop players who move effortlessly on the field.
How can we create motor-intelligent players?
What are the most effective training methods to improve technique? (Thread⬇️)
In Part 1, I will define the term technique and examine traditional assumptions about technique training.
⚫️What is the role of technique in football?🔵
The smallest unit in football is a football action. A football action starts with communication with the environment. Then the player makes a decision and executes it. Technique is nothing more than executing the decision.
Communication → Decision → Execution
It is different when you are a figure skater. Then your actions are judged against an ideal movement. Technique is the goal. But in football, technique is a tool, not an end in itself. It doesn't matter how "beautiful" your technique is - what matters is the outcome.
This also means that the entire game model depends on the individual technique. Players make decisions based on the game model. And if they can't execute those decisions, the system doesn’t work. The system is only as strong as its weakest link - often the technique.
Game Model → [Communication → Decision → Execution]
Summary: Technique is a tool to execute decisions. And the decisions are based on the team's game model (the common plan for winning games). Without good technique, your players cannot execute the playing style. The better the fundamentals, the more the coach can demand from his players.
Comment: Technique is part of every action, even defensive ones. When I press my opponent, I need good sprinting technique. Technique is the tool to execute my tactical decision.
⚫️What is a good technique?🔵
The answer is in the definition of a football action. A good technique is when the decision and the execution are the same. A poor technique is when the execution is different from the decision. For example, a player wants to pass to his teammate's right foot but ends up at the left foot. This is a technical error. A player with good technique can execute what he decides immediately and precisely.
Good Technique: Decision = Execution.
But there is a problem in football: Every situation is different. No two situations are the same. How do you develop a technique that prepares a player for an unpredictable situation?
In traditional training, coaches aim to develop an ideal technique. But there is no such thing as an ideal movement because every situation is different. Different situations require different responses. Instead of aiming for automatisms, we should aim for motor variability.
Motor variability allows us to create stable responses in an ever-changing environment. We want players who can adapt their body to unique situations. This is a motor-intelligent player.
⚫️Assumptions of traditional training🔵
The traditional method suggests repeating techniques in unopposed drills. The coach's role is that of a critic. He compares the player's movement with an ideal movement and corrects it if necessary.
With many repetitions, the aim is to create an automatism so that the technique can be performed during the game without thinking.
Below I will examine the assumptions of traditional training.
#1 Assumption: Create automatism through many repetitions
Traditional Assumption:
Coaches strive for an ideal movement. With many repetitions and corrections by the coach, the player gets closer to the ideal movement. The more repetitions, the fewer mistakes they make (in comparison to the ideal movement), and the more likely they are to perform it successfully during a match. Players develop automatisms that they can use during the game.
Problems:
1. Every situation is different, so an ideal movement cannot exist. Technique is a tool. The execution is always adapted to the unique situation.
2. With many repetitions, we create stability in a certain movement. But this automatism can hinder precise technique. This is because we use the same answer (technique) for constantly changing situations. During the game, the player is confronted with new situations. The body must first "break" this automatism. This leads to sloppy actions. We achieve the opposite of what we wanted. There cannot be a stable solution in an unstable environment.
3. “Repetition prevents effective learning” (Wolfgang Schöllhorn). Repeating the same thing does not lead to learning. After three repetitions, the neural adaptation is complete. In repetitive training, the brain switches to autopilot. Our brain doesn't strive for perfection. It stops learning when it is good enough. So we need to create new challenges for the brain.
New Approach:
Children teach us the most effective way how to learn movements. Children make mistakes when they learn to walk. They have a lot of differences between their attempts. One time they try a big step, the next time they try a small step. The big difference between both repetitions creates information for the brain to learn. The important message is: We don't learn through repetitions. We learn through the differences between repetitions. Repetitions are still important, but without repeating the same.
Children learn quickly because they have high fluctuations in their movement. This is different for adults and young people. The error rate decreases, and with it the learning rate. However, how people learn doesn’t change. We learn through differences. So we have to create the differences on purpose.
Even with repetitive training, we have differences because no one can repeat the same movement twice. But the differences are too small for the brain to learn. So we have to maximize the differences between repetitions. We call this differential learning. The bigger the differences between movements, the more information we have for our brain.
🔑 Traditional training minimizes the differences between the repetitions. Differential learning maximizes the differences.
Instead of striving for automatism, we strive for a high motor variability. Traditional training sees errors (differences) in the movement as a problem. Differential learning sees them as necessary for learning. A high motor variability enables the player to adapt to new situations fast. So the player can develop a stable technique in an unstable environment.
#2 Assumption: Technique can be isolated from the context.
Traditional Assumption:
The analytical method breaks football down into its components. Technique, tactics, mentality, psyche, physis, etc. are trained in isolation and then put back together again. In isolation, you can increase the number of repetitions and work on mistakes.
Traditional: The player is the sum of different parts:
Problems:
1. This method implies, that the player consists of unconnected parts. In reality, everything is connected.
Humans are complex systems. We are more than just the sum of our parts. Humans are made up of different systems, such as the respiratory system, the digestive system, or the cardiovascular system. Isolated, they cannot survive. But together they form a human being.
The player is more than just the sum of his parts. The characteristics emerge from the interactions between the elements:
2. Without context, we don't train football actions, we repeat a movement. A football action is communication, decision making and execution. When you do an exercise, where not all three elements are included, then you don’t train football. You train for football. You hope it will improve the whole football action. Since people are complex systems, you cannot predict how your training affects the action if you isolate one component. You just make assumptions.
3. In isolated drills we can maximize the number of repetitions. If each player has a ball, we achieve the maximum number of ball touches. But the question is, what are optimizing for? Are we optimizing for touches of the ball or a maximum of football actions? Technique is not touching the ball. Otherwise, freestylers would be the best footballers in the world. Football is more complex. Yes, repetition is important. But we want repetitions of football actions (communication, decision-making, execution). Not just ball touches.
“Technique is not being able to juggle a ball 1000 times. Anyone can do that by practicing. Then you can work in the circus. Technique is passing the ball with one touch, with the right speed, at the right foot of your teammate.” (Johan Cruyff)
New Approach:
Train in context. All aspects of the game should be present. By changing the environment, we can focus more on specific aspects (e.g. technique) of the game, but we improve the player as a whole.
#3 Assumption: Technique = Action
Traditional Assumption:
We see a player make a sloppy pass or move awkwardly and assume technique is the problem.
Problem:
We often confuse technique with the whole action. A football action is communication, decision-making, and execution. The only thing we see is the execution. We don't see the cognitive processes of perception, information processing, and decision-making. That is why we often confuse technique with the whole action.
Example. We see a bad pass. Many coaches conclude that they need to improve the passing technique. But maybe it was an error of perception. Perhaps there was too much information for the player to process. This led to an imprecise decision ("just pass the ball that way"). The subsequent execution looks sloppy. The coach only sees the technique and confuses it with the whole action. But in this case, technique was not the limiting factor. If we improve the cognitive processes, the player can process the information faster and make a better decision ("pass to the player's right foot"), which also leads to a better technique. If you instead isolate the technique, you are not improving the action. You're not solving the problem and wasting valuable time.
New Approach:
Train in context to improve all the elements that the game requires (technique, psyche, tactics, physis, visual-cognitive processes, etc.) at the same time.
#4 Assumption: The coach is the teacher
Traditional Assumption:
We are striving for an ideal technique. The role of the coach is that of a critic. He explains how to do it better.
Problems:
1. People don't like criticism. Criticism leads to rejection and ultimately a negative learning environment.
2. Why do coaches think they know what the players need? We teach what we learned as a player. But the football 20 years ago was different from today. So if we want to develop players, we have to know the future. But we don't.
However, there is one teacher who knows all the challenges of future players: The game itself. It will never change. It contains all the lessons a player can learn. We have to poke the game (create challenges) so that the players experience what they need to learn. Not what the coach thinks they need.
New Approach:
The game is the teacher, giving feedback to the player. The game teaches the player exactly what he needs. After an action, you know immediately whether it was good enough or not. The coach is the supporter who helps the player to solve the problem. This is a much more positive role that leads to a better learning environment.
#5 Assumption: Faster Learning in unopposed environment.
Traditional Assumption:
The idea is to create an ideal movement in a simple environment (without opponents) and then transfer it to the game.
Problems:
If you start the session with an isolated exercise, then you're just guessing. We assume that this is what the player needs. But we don't know exactly. By playing first you have three advantages:
a) The coach knows exactly where the problem is. The game doesn’t lie. It shows what you can and cannot do.
b) The coach creates a context for the player. When you start with an unopposed drill, your players might not understand why they should improve this action. But if they “feel” their "bad" action in a game, then they understand the necessity to correct it.
c) Isolated exercises follow the watering can principle. The same exercise for everyone. But every player is different. When you let them play, everyone is confronted with their specific problems. The coach can help the player individually and targeted.
Have you ever done an exercise and the players didn't take it as seriously as you wanted them to? Then they probably didn't understand why it's important. Most coaches get angry and try to explain why they should invest more. This becomes less effective over time. The better option is to let the players feel their incompetence first. They will be much more willing to work on their weaknesses once they have experienced them.
New Approach:
Overload the player's skills. This creates clarity and context for the coach and the players. The players understand why they should improve this. The coach can help the player individually and precisely with problems.
#6 Assumption: Learning is a linear process.
Traditional Assumption:
We think of the player as a computer. We systematically upload what we want ("data") into the computer. Isolated training gives us a feeling of control over the player's development. In games we cannot predict the actions. The player can do whatever he wants. This gives us coaches the feeling of losing control over the development.
Problem:
Humans are learning non-linear. Learning is a random adaptation process to new situations. We never know when and what adaptation will happen. Sometimes he learns something different than we aimed for. And some players take longer to adapt than others.
New Approach:
Do we have to leave learning to chance? No, we can also systematically organize training by playing football. We can increase the probability that a specific adaption happens. It is more than just “letting them play.” I call this “systematic street football.”
⚫️What are the NEW Assumptions?🔵
1. Optimize for repetitions without repeating the same.
2. Train in context.
3. A Football Action is more than you can see.
4. The game is the best teacher.
5. Experience first.
6. Learning is a non-linear process.
⚫️Is there room for isolated training?🔵
To answer this question, we need to think from first principles, not by analogy. What do I mean by that? First-principles thinking is the scientific way of thinking. The only limits to our thinking should be the rules of physics. Elon Musk said: "Physics is the law, everything else is a recommendation." Translating this to football, we can say: "The game is the law, everything else is a suggestion."
But we often reason from experience. We do drills because other coaches do them. We play a certain way because other coaches do it. Then a coach like De Zerbi comes along and changes the way coaches around the world play. He does not copy other coaches, he thinks from first principles. Nobody thought it would be a good idea for the central defenders to put the sole of the foot on the ball and wait for the opponent. But as long as it doesn't go against the physics of the game, there's no reason not to pursue your ideas. And De Zerbi takes the principle of timing to the extreme.
So, is there room for isolated technique training? Yes, as long, as you think from the first principle of the game. Technique is a tool. It is executing your decision. As Raymond Verheijen said: Football Actions are the rule, isolated training is the exception. Not the other way around.
“Don't be trapped by dogma - which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of other's opinions drown out your own inner voice.” (Steve Jobs)
Thank you for reading.
In part 2, I will discuss how to develop players by playing football.
The question I will try to answer:
How to systemize “Street Football”?
How to create a stable technique in an unstable environment?
How to focus specifically on technique by playing football?
How to create many repetitions of football actions?
All youth coaches want to develop players who move effortlessly on the field.
How can we create motor-intelligent players?
What are the most effective training methods to improve technique? (Thread⬇️)
In Part 1, I will define the term technique and examine traditional assumptions about technique training.
⚫️What is the role of technique in football?🔵
The smallest unit in football is a football action. A football action starts with communication with the environment. Then the player makes a decision and executes it. Technique is nothing more than executing the decision.
Communication → Decision → Execution
It is different when you are a figure skater. Then your actions are judged against an ideal movement. Technique is the goal. But in football, technique is a tool, not an end in itself. It doesn't matter how "beautiful" your technique is - what matters is the outcome.
This also means that the entire game model depends on the individual technique. Players make decisions based on the game model. And if they can't execute those decisions, the system doesn’t work. The system is only as strong as its weakest link - often the technique.
Game Model → [Communication → Decision → Execution]
Summary: Technique is a tool to execute decisions. And the decisions are based on the team's game model (the common plan for winning games). Without good technique, your players cannot execute the playing style. The better the fundamentals, the more the coach can demand from his players.
Comment: Technique is part of every action, even defensive ones. When I press my opponent, I need good sprinting technique. Technique is the tool to execute my tactical decision.
⚫️What is a good technique?🔵
The answer is in the definition of a football action. A good technique is when the decision and the execution are the same. A poor technique is when the execution is different from the decision. For example, a player wants to pass to his teammate's right foot but ends up at the left foot. This is a technical error. A player with good technique can execute what he decides immediately and precisely.
Good Technique: Decision = Execution.
But there is a problem in football: Every situation is different. No two situations are the same. How do you develop a technique that prepares a player for an unpredictable situation?
In traditional training, coaches aim to develop an ideal technique. But there is no such thing as an ideal movement because every situation is different. Different situations require different responses. Instead of aiming for automatisms, we should aim for motor variability.
Motor variability allows us to create stable responses in an ever-changing environment. We want players who can adapt their body to unique situations. This is a motor-intelligent player.
⚫️Assumptions of traditional training🔵
The traditional method suggests repeating techniques in unopposed drills. The coach's role is that of a critic. He compares the player's movement with an ideal movement and corrects it if necessary.
With many repetitions, the aim is to create an automatism so that the technique can be performed during the game without thinking.
Below I will examine the assumptions of traditional training.
#1 Assumption: Create automatism through many repetitions
Traditional Assumption:
Coaches strive for an ideal movement. With many repetitions and corrections by the coach, the player gets closer to the ideal movement. The more repetitions, the fewer mistakes they make (in comparison to the ideal movement), and the more likely they are to perform it successfully during a match. Players develop automatisms that they can use during the game.
Problems:
1. Every situation is different, so an ideal movement cannot exist. Technique is a tool. The execution is always adapted to the unique situation.
2. With many repetitions, we create stability in a certain movement. But this automatism can hinder precise technique. This is because we use the same answer (technique) for constantly changing situations. During the game, the player is confronted with new situations. The body must first "break" this automatism. This leads to sloppy actions. We achieve the opposite of what we wanted. There cannot be a stable solution in an unstable environment.
3. “Repetition prevents effective learning” (Wolfgang Schöllhorn). Repeating the same thing does not lead to learning. After three repetitions, the neural adaptation is complete. In repetitive training, the brain switches to autopilot. Our brain doesn't strive for perfection. It stops learning when it is good enough. So we need to create new challenges for the brain.
New Approach:
Children teach us the most effective way how to learn movements. Children make mistakes when they learn to walk. They have a lot of differences between their attempts. One time they try a big step, the next time they try a small step. The big difference between both repetitions creates information for the brain to learn. The important message is: We don't learn through repetitions. We learn through the differences between repetitions. Repetitions are still important, but without repeating the same.
Children learn quickly because they have high fluctuations in their movement. This is different for adults and young people. The error rate decreases, and with it the learning rate. However, how people learn doesn’t change. We learn through differences. So we have to create the differences on purpose.
Even with repetitive training, we have differences because no one can repeat the same movement twice. But the differences are too small for the brain to learn. So we have to maximize the differences between repetitions. We call this differential learning. The bigger the differences between movements, the more information we have for our brain.
🔑 Traditional training minimizes the differences between the repetitions. Differential learning maximizes the differences.
Instead of striving for automatism, we strive for a high motor variability. Traditional training sees errors (differences) in the movement as a problem. Differential learning sees them as necessary for learning. A high motor variability enables the player to adapt to new situations fast. So the player can develop a stable technique in an unstable environment.
#2 Assumption: Technique can be isolated from the context.
Traditional Assumption:
The analytical method breaks football down into its components. Technique, tactics, mentality, psyche, physis, etc. are trained in isolation and then put back together again. In isolation, you can increase the number of repetitions and work on mistakes.
Traditional: The player is the sum of different parts:
Problems:
1. This method implies, that the player consists of unconnected parts. In reality, everything is connected.
Humans are complex systems. We are more than just the sum of our parts. Humans are made up of different systems, such as the respiratory system, the digestive system, or the cardiovascular system. Isolated, they cannot survive. But together they form a human being.
The player is more than just the sum of his parts. The characteristics emerge from the interactions between the elements:
2. Without context, we don't train football actions, we repeat a movement. A football action is communication, decision making and execution. When you do an exercise, where not all three elements are included, then you don’t train football. You train for football. You hope it will improve the whole football action. Since people are complex systems, you cannot predict how your training affects the action if you isolate one component. You just make assumptions.
3. In isolated drills we can maximize the number of repetitions. If each player has a ball, we achieve the maximum number of ball touches. But the question is, what are optimizing for? Are we optimizing for touches of the ball or a maximum of football actions? Technique is not touching the ball. Otherwise, freestylers would be the best footballers in the world. Football is more complex. Yes, repetition is important. But we want repetitions of football actions (communication, decision-making, execution). Not just ball touches.
“Technique is not being able to juggle a ball 1000 times. Anyone can do that by practicing. Then you can work in the circus. Technique is passing the ball with one touch, with the right speed, at the right foot of your teammate.” (Johan Cruyff)
New Approach:
Train in context. All aspects of the game should be present. By changing the environment, we can focus more on specific aspects (e.g. technique) of the game, but we improve the player as a whole.
#3 Assumption: Technique = Action
Traditional Assumption:
We see a player make a sloppy pass or move awkwardly and assume technique is the problem.
Problem:
We often confuse technique with the whole action. A football action is communication, decision-making, and execution. The only thing we see is the execution. We don't see the cognitive processes of perception, information processing, and decision-making. That is why we often confuse technique with the whole action.
Example. We see a bad pass. Many coaches conclude that they need to improve the passing technique. But maybe it was an error of perception. Perhaps there was too much information for the player to process. This led to an imprecise decision ("just pass the ball that way"). The subsequent execution looks sloppy. The coach only sees the technique and confuses it with the whole action. But in this case, technique was not the limiting factor. If we improve the cognitive processes, the player can process the information faster and make a better decision ("pass to the player's right foot"), which also leads to a better technique. If you instead isolate the technique, you are not improving the action. You're not solving the problem and wasting valuable time.
New Approach:
Train in context to improve all the elements that the game requires (technique, psyche, tactics, physis, visual-cognitive processes, etc.) at the same time.
#4 Assumption: The coach is the teacher
Traditional Assumption:
We are striving for an ideal technique. The role of the coach is that of a critic. He explains how to do it better.
Problems:
1. People don't like criticism. Criticism leads to rejection and ultimately a negative learning environment.
2. Why do coaches think they know what the players need? We teach what we learned as a player. But the football 20 years ago was different from today. So if we want to develop players, we have to know the future. But we don't.
However, there is one teacher who knows all the challenges of future players: The game itself. It will never change. It contains all the lessons a player can learn. We have to poke the game (create challenges) so that the players experience what they need to learn. Not what the coach thinks they need.
New Approach:
The game is the teacher, giving feedback to the player. The game teaches the player exactly what he needs. After an action, you know immediately whether it was good enough or not. The coach is the supporter who helps the player to solve the problem. This is a much more positive role that leads to a better learning environment.
#5 Assumption: Faster Learning in unopposed environment.
Traditional Assumption:
The idea is to create an ideal movement in a simple environment (without opponents) and then transfer it to the game.
Problems:
If you start the session with an isolated exercise, then you're just guessing. We assume that this is what the player needs. But we don't know exactly. By playing first you have three advantages:
a) The coach knows exactly where the problem is. The game doesn’t lie. It shows what you can and cannot do.
b) The coach creates a context for the player. When you start with an unopposed drill, your players might not understand why they should improve this action. But if they “feel” their "bad" action in a game, then they understand the necessity to correct it.
c) Isolated exercises follow the watering can principle. The same exercise for everyone. But every player is different. When you let them play, everyone is confronted with their specific problems. The coach can help the player individually and targeted.
Have you ever done an exercise and the players didn't take it as seriously as you wanted them to? Then they probably didn't understand why it's important. Most coaches get angry and try to explain why they should invest more. This becomes less effective over time. The better option is to let the players feel their incompetence first. They will be much more willing to work on their weaknesses once they have experienced them.
New Approach:
Overload the player's skills. This creates clarity and context for the coach and the players. The players understand why they should improve this. The coach can help the player individually and precisely with problems.
#6 Assumption: Learning is a linear process.
Traditional Assumption:
We think of the player as a computer. We systematically upload what we want ("data") into the computer. Isolated training gives us a feeling of control over the player's development. In games we cannot predict the actions. The player can do whatever he wants. This gives us coaches the feeling of losing control over the development.
Problem:
Humans are learning non-linear. Learning is a random adaptation process to new situations. We never know when and what adaptation will happen. Sometimes he learns something different than we aimed for. And some players take longer to adapt than others.
New Approach:
Do we have to leave learning to chance? No, we can also systematically organize training by playing football. We can increase the probability that a specific adaption happens. It is more than just “letting them play.” I call this “systematic street football.”
⚫️What are the NEW Assumptions?🔵
1. Optimize for repetitions without repeating the same.
2. Train in context.
3. A Football Action is more than you can see.
4. The game is the best teacher.
5. Experience first.
6. Learning is a non-linear process.
⚫️Is there room for isolated training?🔵
To answer this question, we need to think from first principles, not by analogy. What do I mean by that? First-principles thinking is the scientific way of thinking. The only limits to our thinking should be the rules of physics. Elon Musk said: "Physics is the law, everything else is a recommendation." Translating this to football, we can say: "The game is the law, everything else is a suggestion."
But we often reason from experience. We do drills because other coaches do them. We play a certain way because other coaches do it. Then a coach like De Zerbi comes along and changes the way coaches around the world play. He does not copy other coaches, he thinks from first principles. Nobody thought it would be a good idea for the central defenders to put the sole of the foot on the ball and wait for the opponent. But as long as it doesn't go against the physics of the game, there's no reason not to pursue your ideas. And De Zerbi takes the principle of timing to the extreme.
So, is there room for isolated technique training? Yes, as long, as you think from the first principle of the game. Technique is a tool. It is executing your decision. As Raymond Verheijen said: Football Actions are the rule, isolated training is the exception. Not the other way around.
“Don't be trapped by dogma - which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of other's opinions drown out your own inner voice.” (Steve Jobs)
Thank you for reading.
In part 2, I will discuss how to develop players by playing football.
The question I will try to answer:
How to systemize “Street Football”?
How to create a stable technique in an unstable environment?
How to focus specifically on technique by playing football?
How to create many repetitions of football actions?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
