Each August, when I kick off my university team's training camp with a player's meeting, I lay out the foundations of my coaching philosophy. The first of my 4 principles is always the same " Soccer is a game and be definition games are supposed to be fun".
Not, perhaps if my livelihood depended on the success in terms of wins and losses of the team, or the ability to put food on the table will directly related to how much performance I could get out of my athletes, my believe in that principle might get stretched but I would like to think that I would still adhere to that principle. I get it though, for professional athletes, playing their sport is their job. Like all of us, we don't always like our job, or certain parts of our job. Certainly we don't always like our boss or certain co-workers, but come on, making money to play the same sport that that one has enjoyed since they were a kid, maybe it can be tough at times but there are tons of worse things you could be doing with your life. However, for the nature of this post, I want to exclude the notion of professional sports and focus on competitive sports for kids, both male and female as they start playing at a young age and progress into their teens, playing recreational, elite, high school , university or some other variation of non-professional sport. At the beginning, I think the focus should be simply on getting physical exercise and participation. Kids need youth sports; they encourage teamwork, provide exercise, teach discipline, and practice, etc. It’s their first exposure to the kinds of games and physical activity that will be a part of their lives, one way or another, for a long time. If they don’t start early, they’ll never have a chance to develop a potential passion or aptitude for them. When kids start out they may occasionally sit down during the game, or spend his time on the bench asking about a snack or looking forward to the post game Popsicle or ice cream. However maybe during the course of the season, they will enjoy it more than they did at the start of the season. It probably helps if they feel that they are getting better at their sport of choice. It possible that for that moment in time, scoring the occasional goal, get praised for the occasional good move, tackle, throw, hit, shot, etc might just be sufficient reward to keep their interest. It probably should because at the younger ages it’s not about competition. Well let me rephrase, it probably shouldn't be. Eventually, when as they get older, it will be more about competition and results and earning playing time, getting all-star selections, making travel teams. When it start to get to that point, it's very possible that they might lose interest.. They might be one of the 70% of kids that stop playing organized sports by age 13. Doesn't mean they all stop playing sports altogether, just that the competition level might get replaced by pick up games in the park or some form of school intra-mural league. I don't have kids, but to be best honest, I think if a kid stop playing sports for the right reasons, then it shouldn't be discouraged. If they stop enjoying their chosen sport(s) because of overbearing parents, because of an environment based on an attitude of results at all cost, that saps all the fun out of the game then that is a problem. As kids become teens and the competitive component of sport becomes a more significant factor things like loss of fun, riding the bench, and fear of mistakes as reasons kids quit, and those reasons are unacceptable. They’re usually imposed by adults who are teaching kids the wrong things about the game. Most teams aren’t playing for any significant stakes, not until the kids get older at least into high school, cegep, university or maybe play on some sort of regional or provincial team. However until then and if they are truly strong enough athlete's to play at those levels, if it’s not fun, it’s not going to be easy to keep them interested. Let's be honest, is winning the U10 championship of the local rec soccer league really what we hope will be the highlight of someone's life. If they stop enjoying organized sports because they have other passions, or discovers they don’t have the skills to compete with the other kids of the same age at the level they have reach, or sometimes if simply they don't have the cutthroat competitive attitude that might be required that’s fine. They can find exercise, teamwork and camaraderie via other avenues, and they can experience success and failure, discipline and humility via plenty of other pursuits. Playing competitive sports isn’t for everyone; In this age of options, instant gratification and easier access to multiple pastimes many usually stop as they leave their teens Physically they might not match up anymore and it can become disheartening to be on the bench every single game even though they feel they are putting in the same effort as everyone else but them seeing the same athletes getting all the playing time. If it is just an issue about playing a sport that is fun, then they will find a way to play it. Unless your kid is on the fast-track to the pros, fun is or should be what it’s all about. If organized sports stop being fun for your kids, let them walk away. Support them finding satisfaction is something different. As usual, just my opinion.
0 Comments
Souvent en parlant de l’Impact (ou d’autres équipes) on dit qu’ils jouent un style contre-attaque. Je ne sais pas vraiment d’un ça vient cette expression. Sur le site web Larousse, j’ai trouvé une définition pour contre-attaque comme suit « Dans les jeux de ballon, riposte offensive intervenant pendant l'attaque adverse, ou juste à la fin » . Alors si je comprends bien, la contre-attaque survient quand on récupère le ballon. C’est logique non, difficile d’attaquer quand on n’a pas possession du ballon. La notion contre-attaque souvent fait référence au fait qu’un équipe se prépare avec un schéma tactique acceptant qu’il n’aura pas souvent possession du ballon , qu’il devrait absorber de la pression et qu’il essayera d’attaquer rapidement et dans le but de surprendre l’adversaire. Alors pour moi c’est plus question de penser est qu’on attaque en batissant par la possession ou est ce que qu’on attaque en vitesse et disons plus directe. Lorsque l’équipe adverse perd le ballon c’est le moment précis où elle est la plus vulnérable. Elle n’est pas replacée défensivement, et apparaît désorganisée. C’est le moment propice pour le déclenchement d’une attaque rapide. L’attaque rapide est une action offensive conduite dans la profondeur visant par sa rapidité à profiter d’un déséquilibre défensif de l’adversaire. Elle se déclenche dans toutes les zones de jeu et plus la récupération du ballon sera haute, plus elle aura de chance d’être efficace. Elle permet de se projeter rapidement vers l’avant et de se placer en situation de but. Son principe repose sur des appels de balle dans l’espace laissé libre afin de déstabiliser encore plus l’adversaire. Ceci nécessite une vision rapide et lointaine, permettant à l’occasion de sauter une ligne à la recherche de joueurs lancés. L’attaque rapide nécessite une prise de risque importante. L’organisation de l’attaque rapide se base surtout sur la première passe qui doit être vite exécutée. Lorsque le joueur retarde ce moment, il limite l’efficacité de l’attaque rapide. On y retrouve toutes les composantes du football : la vitesse, le mouvement, la précision, la cohésion, la simplicité, la vision, l’analyse. L’attaque rapide en football est celle qui est la plus spectaculaire, où l’on retrouve les belles phases de jeu rapide, des touches réduites, avec énormément de mouvement rapide. C’est là où on découvre le génie des joueurs, leur maîtrise technique, leur intelligence dans le jeu, leur efficacité. L’attaque rapide se déclenche à partir de toutes les zones de jeu, impliquant tous les joueurs du gardien à l’attaquant. L’attaque rapide est une stratégie choisie par les équipes qui défendent bien et qui possèdent des attaquants rapides mais surtout une capacité de d’agir et réagir rapidement. Elle est également l’arme favorite des équipes qui n’ont pas les moyens techniques et tactiques de construire des attaques placées face à un adversaire a priori plus fort. Elle peut aussi être employée à certains moments d’un match, comme lorsqu’une équipe mène au pointage et qu’elle va laisser à son adversaire la possession de balle. Ainsi l’équipe en avance va reculer sur le terrain et attendre de profiter d’une récupération de balle pour placer une attaque rapide afin d’essayer clôturer le match. En gros, les principes de base de l’attaque rapide ou directe sont;
A while back, I posted some thoughts about how investing in women's sport was not only the right thing to do but actually a smart business decision. I got some good feedback about it but of course I also got some questions because I had posted it in french. As my social media footprint grows, I am getting in touch with more anglo-only people.
I try to avoid posting translations of prior posts, preferring to start fresh even if covering the same topic to avoid people comparing the quality of my translations. However for this specific topic, I will try and present a very similar article. Having been virtually ignored by companies and marketing campaigns in the past, women’s sports and their overall fan engagement is growing and logically, along with it so do the opportunities for sponsors. Companies have often invested or built marketing campaigns around specific female athletes as a brand and not for her athletic abilities or accomplishments, rather focusing on name recognition. On some occasions, it was a matter of capturing a specific moment, like the 1999 Women's World Cup winning team because they one the event on home soil and was watched by so many people. However, fact still remains that investments in women and men’s sports are far from being equal, but the latest trends will likely change the sponsorship landscape. The main reason for this change is the increasing participation of girls in sports at school, clubs, and ever increasingly at the professional levels. These girls become women entering the market place seeing women's sports as a mainstream reality and they influence their general environment. Girls involved in sports activities from a young age are more likely to develop fan behavior for sports later in their lives. This is where brands need to step in, since they are the ones pushing and elaborating fan engagement and integrity with the brand and the sport.So why should brands rethink their sports sponsorship strategy and start investing into female athletes and fans rather than their male counterparts?
but as always, just my humble opinion. I think this might be one of those blog posts where the title will scare people off not realizing that it still relates to soccer or sport. I really hope that anyone who has started reading this article, will read it right to the end.
As I have written about earlier, I sort of fell into coaching. It wasn't really something I aspired to. My fiancés team was looking for an assistant coach, I used to go watch games, so I was in. Head coach quits half way through the season and voila, I am now a head coach. The reason I mention this is that when I started out, coaching was about winning. Trying to put together the best team possible and win games, league titles, provincials etc. I was luckily to inherit a good group of players and was able to qualify for national 4 times in my 6 full years coaching club. Things like teaching the game, developing players, creating a legacy, were not in any way part of my thinking. I was young, starting out and while I was passionate about the coaching and loved the sport, I didn't see the bigger picture. As I transitioned into coaching the provincial teams, and at the National Training Center, as always I still cared about winning, but some larger issues emerged. It was about scouting, identifying players that would be considered the best among their peers to represent their province, to represent a style of play that we are proud on in Quebec, help these players develop, learn the game, find those deserving to train at the CNHP and hopefully one day make it onto the national team. I have been lucky enough to get to watch approximately a dozen players that I coached to one degree or other wear the Maple Leaf and represent Canada. I would never say that they are there because of me but I would hope that maybe I played a part. Since those days, I have now completed 15 years coaching university at Concordia. Winning ? Yes, still very important to me, developing players yup, also important, but as I get older and my time coaching probably is nearing it's conclusion, I have started to think about what I want my coaching legacy to be, but in some ways, what I want to be remembered for in general. I have always focused on coaching the women's game and in many ways, I was considered myself an advocate of women's soccer and women in sport in general terms. However as I experienced different things in my work career, I start to see that maybe my coaching has bigger implications. It can be about helping student-athletes develop skills that will help them in their lives beyond sport ( accepting that I can't make them better, just give them the chance to develop these skills, the rest is up to them). I look back and realize that providing well structured, competitive and well rounded student-athlete experience is bigger than soccer, sports or winning and losing. It can be about empowering young women to strive to become successful in what area they chose to pursue as careers. It can be about fighting for exposure, investment and support that is equitable for women and what is provided for men, which in turn will only enhance the entire structure I am trying to put in place. It is about creating a group of women that can be role models for future generations of younger women, on and off the field, in sport and in life. It's me, a male doing what I can help to give women the place they deserve in society. I think one small part of this is getting women to be willing to take on coaching roles that are traditionally held by men. Even as a man, who has spent all his coaching career coaching women, I do think there is a place, and should be a place for women in coaching. It is why I have always wanted female assistants, hoping to prepare one to take over. While more recently, I have tried to convince graduating players with strong leadership skills to stick around and help me with the soccer program. Sports have the ability to teach life skills necessary for success after the final whistle of a player’s career sounds. n increase in female sports participation leads to an increase in women’s labor force participation, especially in previously male-dominated occupations. I did some research and studies show that over the past forty years there has been a steep decline in collegiate women coaches. There was a time when 90 percent of all women's teams had female coaches. Today, that number has been cut almost in half, with only 40 percent of women’s teams having a female coach. In comparison, females coach only two percent of men’s collegiate teams. With the growth of women's sports, there are more opportunities for women to get into coaching, however it also means that there are more coaching jobs period, more chances to make a living coaching, The expansion of female sports has given women the opportunity to be athletes and potentially to coach on a higher level, but these same coaching opportunities are also available to male coaches. The drought of female coaches starts before college ball. Female sports at the youth and high school level are coached predominately by males. This instills a belief in girls that male coaches are more qualified than female coaches, so they want, or prefer, a male coach. It has happened in the past when I ask something of the team which seems challenging or difficult and the players will respond with the traditional " you have to understand that its different for girls" . This comment usually gets the same response from me each time. I ask the players, ' What would you think if a boss told you, we can't pay you as much since it's different for women" or “ What would you think, if you went into a job interview at Microsoft and they said, “We only want to hire a guy?” It’s not a fair precedent to set.”The mentality of wanting a male coach is derived partly from the lack of exposure to female roles models and leaders in coaching positions. If young female athletes are not being exposed to same-sex role models, the likelihood of women pursuing a male dominated profession is going to decrease. Changing the paradigm held by young female athletes and empowering women to become coaches requires two things to happen. First, more experienced, credentialed women become involved the hiring process, and secondly, young female athletes need a greater awareness of women in coaching roles. The first step requires empowering and mentoring more women into positions of head coaches and athletic directors. The decline or lack of women's coaches is attributable to a few issues, that years ago, it wasn't considered a legitimate path for coaches to be involved in the female side, that it wasn't a viable financial option and in part it is also attributable to those making the hiring decisions, “Male athletic directors are hiring male head coaches, who are hiring male assistant coaches. This could be helped if more major programs hired female athletic directors who would bring in female head and assistant coaches”. Females should have more input in the hiring process and the program development. As more women establish higher profile athletic roles, young female athletes will have stronger coaching mentors who will instill an awareness of male-female parity of coaching skills. Interacting with and being exposed to female coaches will hopefully prompt young female athletes to view coaching as a possible career path. Research shows that having same-sex role models inspires others to pursue similar achievements and it’s been shown that female athletes who were coached by women are more likely to pursue a career in coaching4. The coach-athlete relationship builds a bridge of non-competitive rivalry for women to mentor and support each other. Retired or current players and coaches and younger generations of potential female coaches should have a means where they can connect and discuss the possibilities of viable coaching careers but also if doing it as a career isn't an option or of interest at least that they understand the impact coaching female sports can have on younger girls This exposure helps eradicate the belief that the coaching office is for men and connects young players with mentors who can help pave a path to a career beyond sport. I hope you have read this all the way to here. My experience in coaching females significantly outweighs the experience I have coaching on the male side. I have sometimes asked myself how I might fare if I were to switch into coaching in the men's game. Could all the experience and skills I have developed over the course of my career translate into coaching men or boys.
In any case, over the years I have observed a few significant differences between coaching males and females. My perceptions are supported by discussion I have had with peers and colleagues who have coached in both or just men ( and they often asked themselves the same question I do but in reverse, could they handle coaching female soccer). If you get the chance to read anything by Anson Dorrance, probably the most successful women's coach of all time and the pioneer of the women's game at the international, it is interesting to see some of the "culture shock" he experienced when he made the switch. Some of the comments you will read below will seem stereotypical on the surface and the reality is that every group is different. Not every group of female athletes or male athletes will exhibit the traits I list below, but I seen it more as tendencies to keep in mind In my humble opinion, these are some of the main differences..... 1. COACHABILITY Females: On the whole, females tend to be more coachable then males. Compared to male athletes, females tend to be more open to coaching and new ways of doing things. They are willing to try new techniques, especially if it will help them perform better. Females tend to give their coaches much more initial respect, rather than reserving judgment or making their coaches prove they are credible. They also are much more appreciative of good coaching and willing express their gratitude in large and small ways. Women on the whole, seem to want to please their coaches more so than men do. Males: Male athletes tend to be more convinced (and sometimes deluded) of their own prowess, and are therefore often less coachable. They may feel like they know everything there is to know about the sport and will dismiss the coach if they do not think he/she is credible. They force coaches to prove that they know more than them. Males sometimes brace against coaching, especially if it is the in-your-face, coercive approach. When the coercive style is used, many males seek to prove the coach wrong, whereas women might have a tendency to shut down when this approach is used. Ironically, the coercive approach can yield the desired result in the short-term with some males - better performance - although the athlete often ends up despising the coach for it. 2. CONFIDENCE Females: Confidence is one of those factors that is obviously critical for every athlete. All athletes struggle with their confidence, however, a good number of females I have worked with, even at the elite levels, have found maintaining consistent confidence their toughest struggle. While confidence seems to ooze from the pores of the most successful male athletes, there are many world-class female athletes who struggle with their confidence. They attribute their skills and successes to luck rather than to their talent and hard work. They also tend to base their confidence more on what they think others (coaches, teammates, fans) think of them -- rather than relying on their internal sources of confidence. Because of this, their confidence becomes very fragile and fleeting. Females also tend to be more open and forthcoming when they are not feeling confident. They are less inhibited to show a lack of confidence in their body language and words. As some coaches have succinctly paraphrased, many women need to feel good to play good. Males: Male athletes are taught from an early age to project confidence and toughness. Why? Similar to the animal kingdom, the Alpha Male tends to get all the attention, accolades, and awards. The top males exude a sense of confidence. Sometimes the confidence is classy and contained by humility. However, more and more, the confidence has become cockiness and bravado. Some men's overconfidence contributes to poor preparation, selfish attitudes, poor social behavior - and motivates opponents to put him in his place. Cocky male athletes often need coaches who are willing stand up to them and cut them down to size so they don't get too full of themselves. Of course, like females, all males struggle with the confidence from time to time. The difference is that most males will go to great lengths not to show that they are struggling. They will often shut down and not seek the help they need to get back on track. They would much rather try to do it all on their own. In my sport psych consulting at Arizona years ago, the females were much more likely to take advantage of the services than were the males. It seems that most males base their confidence more on internal factors such as their strengths and past successes. In this way their confidence tends to be a little more stable and durable. Whereas females have a tendency to rely more on external factors for their confidence - namely, other's opinions of them. 3. CRITICISMPicture this scenario: A frustrated coach comes into the locker room and starts chastising the team because of poor play. "We aren't working hard enough, our teamwork is horrible, and this is unacceptable!" Many females in the room think, "Coach is talking to me. He thinks I'm not working hard enough. I'm letting him and the rest of the team down." The males on the other hand are thinking, "You're right coach. John and Jim really are sucking it up tonight. They better pick it up or we all are going to lose this game." Females: In the example above, many females take the coach's criticism personally. They believe a general statement made to the team is something that was meant for them individually. Females tend to be more sensitive to comments that are made; often because they are internalized and scrutinized for an underlying message or meaning. Similarly, I often talk with females who are offended by teammates who use loud and blunt language during competition. They sometimes interpret the harsh tone as a personal attack, rather than critical information that needs to be conveyed in a high-stress and time-bound setting. Males: Males on the other hand often depersonalize general criticism and think it is not meant for them. Thus, coaches need to be more specific when addressing males who need to improve. Once males do somehow understand the criticism is directed at them, they will often fight against it. For many males, their approach is to prove the coach wrong and make him eat his own words. Thus, criticizing men and telling them they are not good enough or that no one respects them, while often confidence-crushing for women, is often viewed as a personal challenge by men. 4. CHEMISTRY Females: Chemistry is important for both genders, but seems especially critical for females. Each woman wants to feel connected to the other in some way. The web also symbolizes that all women are on the same plane and that one is not necessarily better than the other. This is in contrast to the typical male hierarchical structure of relationships, where there is a distinct pecking order, much like a totem pole. Thus, good team chemistry is highly valued by many female athletes. At some levels and on some teams, the importance of team chemistry is at least on par with and sometimes trumps winning. It is a critical criterion for many females when they judge the quality of their sporting experience. Thus, many females are continuously on the look out for ways to enhance team bonding. They will often plan team dinners, arrange movie nights, create elaborate pre-game rituals, organize secret psych pals, etc. all in an effort to enhance team chemistry. When things are going well, the team provides a great source of unity and nurturing social community. However, when it goes bad, chaos, drama, and resentments are sure to follow. Disagreements, slights, and problems between teammates can be very disruptive to the web. Much like a spider web, when you cut a key strand, the rest of the web has a hard time not getting all bent out of shape. Thus, team issues do have a greater tendency to distract, disrupt, and sometimes destroy a female team. The off field issues can easily find themselves on the field when teammates refuse to warm up with each other. And the issue becomes a major distraction that takes the focus and energy away from competition. Males: Chemistry is important for men and should also be developed, monitored, and maintained. However, men seem to believe that chemistry is not as important to winning and having a successful sport experience as it is for the females. The males would like to get along with their teammates, but it isn't absolutely necessary for their team to be successful. The differences between men and women when it comes to chemistry can be best categorized using what researchers call task cohesion and social cohesion. Task cohesion means that the team is all focused on the same common goal - usually winning a conference, state and/or national championship. Social cohesion refers to how well the teammates get along with each other. When it comes to team building for males, it seems that task cohesion is the most important and that social cohesion is a nice plus and desirable - but not a necessary component. Females on the other hand highly value social cohesion. Further, it seems that a female team's level of social cohesion plays a big role in determining the team's task cohesion. Translation: Good team chemistry is a highly significant factor in how well a female team performs. Like many kids, my dad was my first soccer coach and continued on for a few years. This was at the beginning of the 70s where soccer simply wasn't as structured or organized. For me, it was just my dad being my coach, for other kids and their parents, it was having someone from Europe and therefore who understood the game being the right person to coach. I can't really remember if it affected me as a player or if I benefited from special treatment or the reverse got held back because my coach was also my dad and therefore he wanted to avoid the appearance of favoritism. To be really honest, I just don't remember my specific experience. I was a good and sometimes very good player but never great. I was consistent, successful and decorated as a player but never the big star. I earned whatever success as a player not because of my dad or in spite of him, but simply because I was willing to work hard, play whatever position or role I was asked to and probably most importantly was ultra competitive.
I have been around the game as a coach, technical director, and coaching level instructor to have seen how certain individuals balance being a parent and being the coach. Youth sports thrive on parent-coaches. Some estimates find that parents of players can make up to 80% of all youth sport coaches. Parents have a unique relationship with their own children, and when it comes to coaching your child’s team, it is not easy to separate being the parent from being the coach. The parent-coach/child-athlete relationship in youth sports is one that has not been widely studied but has significant anecdotal stories about the parent-coach, pushing his or her son/ daughter, providing favoritism or bending over backwards to avoid. Parental involvement and support is a necessary and important part of a child’s participation in sports. However, there is such a thing as too much involvement, and it is possible that in the unique environment of youth sports, having dad, or mom, as coach can push parental involvement toward the over involved side of things. One could ask if parent-coached athletes might experience significantly higher anxiety related to competition than their non parent-coached peers. It could also then be important to understand if it might lead to any significant difference in motivation for participation. Having fun is, or should be, the predominant motivation for younger kids in sport, might being singled out among a peer group by having a parent as the coach change this at all. From my experience, as someone with no kids so therefore never having coached my kid, but having seen it up close many times, I would suggest the following to any parent who ends up coaching their son and daughter (and this was often part of the discussions I had when giving coaching certification courses). If you are going to coach your child’s team, there are several things you can keep in mind so that the experience is a positive one. First, it is necessary to separate the coach-parent roles as much as you possibly can so that you treat all athletes the same. This may be difficult, but it is necessary. Second, force yourself to treat all players equally and fairly. While you are coaching, think of your child just as you would any other team member. Third, it is essential to pay attention to your relationship with your child off the field. Once the game ends, your child needs you to take off your coach hat and put your parent hat back on. They need you to be supportive of them and not critical. Fourth, talk to your child and discuss their feelings about you coaching their team. When they are younger, they may enjoy having their parent as coach, but in adolescence, kids tend to want their independence from their parents, and this may not be the best or most appropriate time to coach your own child. In addition, the level of play may make a difference in your relationship with your child. The more competitive the league, the more room there is for the negative aspects to creep in. Some organizations do not even let parents coach their kids at higher competitive levels. Finally, other suggestions for creating a smooth relationship with your child and other team members include: educate yourself about the sport, only coach if you really understand the game, and do not have any pre-conceived ideas about your own child As always, just my opinion. Ça fait 27 ans que je suis entraineur et un chose que je constate c’est que pour être un bon entraineur, fait savoir s’ajuster selon le groupe d’âge, le niveau de compétition et même si c’est filles , femmes, garçons ou hommes dont on est responsable. On ne peut pas simplement se tenir à une façon de faire et espérer que nos athlètes s’ajustement toujours à nous. C’est vrai que la façon qu’on choisit d’agir en tant qu’entraineur doit rester constant et en conséquence de notre personnalité mais le moyen qu’on choisit pour livrer notre message doit changer. Ça c’est bien pour l’ensemble de notre approche comme entraineur, il y a divers profils d’entraineur, le technicien, le motivateur, le tacticien, le rassembleur, etc. Pour aujourd’hui, le veut me concentrer sur l’aspect style de jeu. Les divers styles dont un entraineur spécifique au soccer peut choisir de bâtir son équipe. Même sur ce point, un coach doit s’ajuster en vue des athlètes sur lesquels il ou elle peut compter.
D’une façon assez simpliste, je pense que les types d’entraineur au soccer peut se définir comme suit; 1. Adepte des rôles (style anglais ?) Ici, l'objectif de l'entraineur est d'assigner 3 rôles différents selon la physionomie du match. Il y a les défensifs, les soutiens et les offensifs. Les défensifs ne servent qu'à défendre, donc leur liberté est quasi nulle voire nulle. Les soutiens ont une liberté plus ou moins normale selon leur position et la situation sur le terrain pour servir de rampe de lancement aux attaques dans de bonnes conditions. Et les offensifs ont une liberté créative élevée proposer systématiquement des solutions variées. Le 4-4-2 en ligne se prête bien à ce système, car il permet un grosse polyvalence des rôles ( 6-2-2 très défensif et très étroit, 4-4-2 aventureux et peu large, 2-6-2 pour garder une bonne maîtrise et de bonne option avec une largeur classique, et 2-4-4 pour chercher à marquer en jouant très large ). Évidemment, dans ce type de schéma, la liberté créative des joueurs est quasiment équivalente à leur mentalité. L'objectif de ce style de tactiques et d'assurer une bonne assise défensive avec les défensifs et les soutiens, et de relancer proprement le jeu, via les soutiens, vers les offensifs pour les laisser trouver la faille. L'avantage, c'est que ce type d'équipe s'en sort bien en défense et bien en attaque. L'inconvénient, c'est que vous en remettez à l'inspiration et aux qualité techniques de vos offensifs. Vous pouvez donc très bien gagner 3-0 contre le premier du championnat et faire un vieux 0-0 tout pourri contre le dernier au match suivant. Il est donc particulièrement importante de bien sentir dans quel état de forme les soutien et surtout les offensifs sont avant et pendant le match. 2. Adeptes du beau jeu (style espagnol) Ce type d'entraineur aime le beau jeu, ou l'on se passe le ballon un nombre incalculable de fois en jouant assez court et de manière plutôt rapide. Toute l'équipe va participer à la construction, ce qui rend ce type de formation très dangereuse car le danger peut venir de n'importe qui. Tous les joueurs ou presque auront une liberté normale inférieur, pour essentiellement pour respecter le jeu de passe assez court, tout en gardant assez d'initiative lorsqu'un occasion nette de déstabiliser l'adversaire se présente. Bref, le 4-3-3 en version 4-1-2-2-1 avec une largeur normale à étroite s'y prête particulièrement bien car les joueurs ne sont jamais loin les uns des autres, ce qui leur donnent plusieurs option de passe pour enchaîner le jeu sur un rythme soutenu. L'avantage d'une telle tactique réside dans le fait qu'une fois que vous mettez le pieds sur le ballon, vous ne le lâchez plus, ou jamais pour très longtemps. Le potentiel offensif n'a alors d'égale que la frustration grandissante de l'adversaire, sevré de ballon et voyant son énergie lui échapper au fil du match. L'inconvénient, c'est que pour jouer ce type de tactique avec succès, il faut un haut niveau technique, notamment dans le jeu de passe et le qualité des appels de chaque joueurs. 3. Adeptes de la discipline (style italien) Ici, pas de place pour l'improvisation. Ce type d'entraineurs analyse parfaitement les forces et les faiblesses de leur effectif ainsi que ceux de l'adversaire. Ils ont une idée très précise de la manière dont ils vont gagner leur match. La liberté créative de l'équipe tout entière est basse pour qu'il respecte à la lettre les consignes collectives et individuelles, du stoppeur au buteur. Le style de jeu lui, peut varier, selon les qualités de l'équipe tant dans sa largeur que dans son style de passe. En revanche, bien que la largeur préféré et le style de passe soit assez classique avec un réglage "normal", le rythme lui est souvent assez lent, pour laisser le temps aux joueurs d'exprimer leur capacité via leurs consignes au moment opportun. Ce type de schéma, qui s'exprime le plus souvent par les 5-3-2, 3-5-2 ou encore 4-4-2 version Serie A. Le gros avantage de ce type de tactique, c'est son potentiel défensif. Les joueurs prennent peu de risque, sont nombreux derrière et au milieu, et sont donc rarement pris à défaut en phase défensive. L'équipe encaisse donc rarement des buts dans le jeu mais plutôt sur des phases arrêtées. En plus, ce type d'équipe ralentit le jeu en mettant souvent le pieds sur le ballon. Et comme si ça ne suffisait pas, elle ne le perde pas bien longtemps en général grâce à leur capacité de récupération. L'inconvénient, c'est l'aspect offensif du jeu. Comme le liberté créative est faible, le jeu de ce genre d'équipe est assez prévisible. De plus, si vous vous trompez sur l'analyse de votre équipe et/ou celle de l'adversaire, ou que plusieurs de vos joueurs ne sont pas dans un bon jour le jour du match, vos schémas offensifs peuvent vite s'avérer un fiasco sur certaines rencontres. Ce type de choix de jeu est donc particulièrement exigeant tactiquement parlant, et un corner ou un coup franc bien placé peuvent anéantir vos chance de succès en un instant. 4. Adeptes du meneur de jeu (style français) Ici, ce type d'entraineur est un peu un mélange de tout le reste. Il allie le style du jeu anglais, le style de passe assez court avec une progression par étage du jeu hispanique et la frilosité et la rigueur italienne La seule différence, c'est le meneur de jeu au beau milieu de tout cela. Contrairement aux autres styles, ce type d'entraineur tient à avoir un meneur de jeu pur et dur ayant une liberté créative sans limite. Son objectif, c'est de d'orienter le jeu d'attaque vers l'un des schéma que vous avez fixé ( c'est à dire vers l'un des joueurs autour de lui, à qui vous avez fixé des consignes bien strict avec un liberté créative basse) pour apporter un touche d'imprévisibilité, tant en s'appuyant sur ses coéquipiers, que sur ses propres capacités à faire la différence tout seul. L'avantage est presque le même que pour les adeptes des rôles. Ce type de stratégie confère à l'équipe un bon potentiel défensif si vous optez pour le 4-3-3 défensif ou le 4-2-3-1, et un bon potentiel offensif si vous optez pour un des 4-4-2 diamant. De plus, le côté imprévisible du meneur est un sérieux atout. Cependant, l'inconvénient de type de tactique, c'est aussi son meneur. Pour qu'il soit à l'aise et qu'il est de l'espace, il ne défends que très peu, ce qui sur certaine tactique affaiblie le pouvoir défensif de votre milieu de terrain. L'autre problème, c'est que, comme vous voulez vous reposer sur les choix d'orientation du jeu de ce joueur, vous allez systématiquement le rechercher. Ce joueur devra donc être capable de se rendre très disponible et surtout, ne devra pas connaître de mauvais jour, faute de quoi, vous vous retrouverez avec un schéma d'attaque italien décris ci-dessus mais sans l'avantage de conservation de balle et de temporisation à cause des pertes régulière de balle du meneur de jeu, sans compter qu'il ne défend pas... C'est donc un tactique alléchante, mais à double tranchant, car souvent dépositaire de la forme d'un seul de vos 10 joueurs de champs. 5/ Adeptes du copier-coller ( typiquement africain ou asiatique ) Comme le nom l'indique, ce type d'entraineur, généralement ayant fait le tour de divers styles , possède un bagage de connaissance tactique excellent. Il connait et maîtrise plus ou moins bien les différents styles ci-dessus. Et selon les forces de son effectif, et le type de championnat où il joue, il va adapter sa gestion de l'équipe et ses schémas. Le gros avantages, c'est le fait d'adapter son style et de tirer le meilleur de son effectif en fonction de la situation, quitte à passer d'un schéma à l'autre régulièrement, l'objectif étant le résultat avant tout. Géré finement, on peut être capable d'obtenir de meilleur résultat que toutes autres entraineur, pour peu que l'on possède un effectif riche et équilibré. L'inconvénient, lui, réside dans la gestion d'effectif. Comme le schéma change tout le temps, il est bien compliqué de définir le statut des joueurs au sein de l'équipe, étant donné qu'on ne les utilise pas forcément de manière régulière et cohérente mais surtout à la demande. De plus, il est également bien difficile, de chercher des joueurs types si on ne sait pas d’avance comment un veut jouer. 6. Adeptes du couloir et de l'hybride ( style sud-américain ) Comme exemple je te dirais de regarder vers les styles argentin et brésilien. L'argentin calque le modèle italien. Quant au brésilien, il calque le modèle hispanique. Alors, pourquoi hybride ? Parce que les deux ont deux point communs : les deux utilisent le plus souvent 2 joueurs en rôle de meneur de jeu à la place des ailiers, ce qui, de facto laisse un large terrain de jeu aux défenseurs latéraux modernes, qui se muent alors en de véritable joueur de couloir. le 4-2-2-2 est donc parfait pour appliquer ce type de schéma, L'avantage, c'est que l'on utilise plus de joueur à vocation de soutien ou offensif. En plus, le fait d'avoir 2 meneurs minimise les effets néfastes du meneur défaillant et augmente le côté imprévisible de l'attaque. Pour le type brésilien, le potentiel offensif est extrême, et pour le type argentin, le potentiel offensif est bon alors qu'on joue avec un système défensif italien de qualité. L'inconvénient, en revanche, est double. Car un pressing de qualité très haut, ou un pressing et un marquage serré sur les meneurs eux même vont littéralement couper en 2 ces équipes, les rendant alors inoffensive, mais cela implique d'avoir des joueurs adverses dépositaire du jeu de leur équipe très doué à la récupération et au marquage. De plus, les joueur de couloir sont également une faiblesse incontestable car il ne peuvent être à deux endroits à la fois. Si l'on contre rapidement en visant ses ailiers comme point d'appui, ils auront alors un boulevard devant eux pour filer au but ou centrer sans être dérangé. Formuler ces pensées en français m’a pris du temps et c’est un topo que était en production depuis quelques semaines alors j’espère que vous appréciez mes perceptions. Ok, avant que tout le monde se fâche, le titre de mon article c'est bien en blague suite aux divers commentaires que j'ai peu entendre durant mes années comme entraineur.
Par contre, le fait c'est que Les hommes et les femmes utilisent différents muscles de la jambe et de la hanche pour frapper le ballon. Selon plusieurs études et non mon opinion personnelle, es différences significatives dans l’alignement du genou et dans l’activation musculaire existent entre les hommes et les femmes pendant qu’ils frappent dans un ballon de football. Les données révèlent que les hommes activent davantage certains muscles de la hanche et de la jambe que les femmes pendant le mouvement du coup-de-pied intérieur et de côté, les frappes les plus fréquentes dans le foot, ce qui pourrait expliquer pourquoi les joueuses féminines sont deux fois plus susceptibles d’endurer une blessure du ligament croisé antérieur (le fameux ACL en anglais) Le football est un des sports les plus populaires, et les femmes jouent aussi en compétition. Des recherches antérieures avaient montré que les femmes étaient plus enclines à se blesser le ligament croisé antérieur sans contact que les hommes, et bien que plusieurs théories existent, la cause directe de cette différence entre les sexes demeurait inconnue. Ils ont découvert que les joueurs masculins activaient plus les fléchisseurs de la hanche (à l’intérieur de la hanche) lors de leur frappe, et les adducteurs de la hanche (extérieurs à la hanche) dans leur jambe de support que les femmes. Suite à un peu de recherche, j'ai lu à divers endroits que dans la jambe de soutien, les hommes génèrent plus de deux fois plus d’activation du muscle moyen fessier ce qui fait que les abducteurs de la hanche pourrait permettre de protéger les joueurs contre les blessures du ligament croisé antérieur. Les femmes contrairement, les femmes ont moins d’activation des abducteurs de la hanche, leurs hanches tendent à s’effondrer dans l’adduction pendant la frappe du ballon, ce qui peut augmenter la charge et le stress sur les ligaments du genou de la jambe de support, et porter potentiellement un plus grand risque de blessure. Ayant vu plusieurs blessures au genou lors des entrainements et matchs, je dois dire que plus souvent que non c'est justement la jambe d'appui qui souffre la blessures. Des fois la science soutien l'observation d'un simple coach. A couple weeks ago , Olga Hrycak, the recently retired coach of the Université de Quebec à Montreal men's basketball team, was awarded the prestigious Award of Coaching Excellence at the Usport annual gala. This award comes as just the most recent of her awards which include induction into the Canadian Basketball Hall of Fame, the lifetime achievement award by the Federation d'Athlète d'Excellence du Québec and many others.
For those of you who aren't familiar with Olga, she coached men's basketball for almost 40 years, yes men's basketball, even though she was a women. She coaches in the cegep ranks from 1977 to 2003 and then went on to coach at the university level for an additional 12 years. During her time coaching at Dawson College between 1988 and 2003, she won 9 provincial championships, a record that no other coach even comes close to achieving. She was also an assistant coach with Canada's 1984 Olympic team in Los Angeles. So seeing the success of this one example of a woman coaching a male sport, the questions can be asked, "why can't women coach men?". Many will say that she is a rare exception. That yes, she was successful but that it can't happen regularly. For me, asking why can't women coach men, is the same as asking why women can't manage men in a work environment. Aside from coaching, I have had a professional career or what I always refer to as my "real job that helps we make money to do the things I enjoy" spanning 28 years. I have many bosses, different personalities, backgrounds and styles, and to this day, I can honestly say that the best boss I ever had was a woman. She was the second manager I worked for after finishing university and to this day, no other person I have worked for comes close to her as a manager. I consider her a mentor and someone who really help define who I would become as a manager, as a coach and in some ways as an adult. It should be noted that she was my boss at a time when I wasn't as enlightened or understanding about gender issues, stereotypes etc. She was just a good boss, because she was simply a good boss, the fact she was a woman, wasn't really relevant, at least not to me. To others, well of course there were stories about how she got to where she go to. So why can't women coach men's sports? I really don't know. A few months ago, Mike Francesca, a fairly well know US radio host was in the news for saying that he could never imagine a woman ever coaching in men's professional sports. His exact words were, a woman as coach, specifically in the NBA, would be a "sad publicity stunt." He believes that there will never be a female head coach ever in his life time. He admitted women can be very successful, even become US president, but he does not believe that he will see a female coach in any professional sport any time soon. He is not the first and sadly probably not the last to make this type of comment but the timing of his comments certainly brought up the debate... again. The reason I have a problem is with the concept that a woman can't coach men, is that if a women is capable of any other job in this country, politics, running corporations or being in the public eye, then why is the idea of a women professional coach so hard to grasp? The logic for dismissing a woman as a head coach of a women's professional sport has often been the notion that how could a woman stand up to the pressures of coaching professional sport with all the scrutiny, media attention, social media activity etc. Well in essence how can anyone if they aren't cut out for it? Pia Sundhage, former coach of the US women's soccer team and currently coaching Sweden's team, was asked if she thought she could ever coach men and she had the following reply (these are her words) "Well, then, let me ask you a question: does it work with a female chancellor in Germany? Angela Merkel [is running an entire] f***ing country. Clearly it works." Coaching players or managing people, is not about men and women but is more about being respected by the players and the players wanting the coach to be there.While being a great coach requires more than just respect, it does get to the point that a coach does not need to compete with the players. If a coach has a good coaching philosophy, can train and motivate players, and execute a good game plan, it doesn't matter whether the coach is male or female. Like many other things, success will determine the outcome. If a a team wins, I don't think the athletes will care about the gender of the coach. Vue que notre équipe locale l'Impact de Montreal a choisi de jouer en 3-5-2 (ou 5-3-2 selon certains), j'ai voulu sortir un petit bilan de comment moi je vois cette façon de jouer.
Principes de la formation Le 3-5-2 a pour caractéristique de densifier la défense centrale (généralement composée de deux défenseurs centraux) et de créer le surnombre au milieu de terrain. Nous pouvons l'apercevoir notamment en phase défensive, c'est-à-dire au moment de récupérer et de relancer le ballon. L'enjeu d'une telle formation est de gagner la fameuse bataille dans la zone de construction en augmentant la capacité de l'équipe à récupérer le ballon loin de son but par la création d'un surnombre alimenté par deux latéraux avancés sur le terrain. Ces derniers viennent presser le porteur de balle de l'équipe adverse, souvent obligée de repasser dans l'axe pour construire une nouvelle attaque. Le principe est d'étouffer le joueur et de le contraindre à ressortir le ballon vers l'arrière. Dans ce cas, les deux attaquants prennent le relais pour harceler. L'« asphyxie » est mise en scène par le coulissement du bloc équipe côté ballon pour forcer l'adversaire, démuni de relance courte, à jouer long qui est plus compliqué à négocier. Les Pours Grosse densité au milieu du terrain par la présence de cinq joueurs dans ce secteur de jeu. - Verrouillage de l'axe grâce aux trois défenseurs centraux qui obligent l'adversaire à contourner la défense et passer par les ailes. Ceux-ci ont souvent une grosse qualité de relance; les milieux de terrain servant quant à eux de relais aux défenseurs centraux. - Système flexible grâce aux deux milieux latéraux. Possibilité d'un passage rapide d'une défense à trois à une défense renforcée à cinq. - Facilite la mise en place d'un pressing sur l'équipe adverse avec sept joueurs à disposition. - Utilisation de toute la largeur du terrain avec recherche de déséquilibre sur les ailes par des joueurs lancés. Les Contres aille défensive sur les ailes par l'absence de vrais défenseurs latéraux. L'arrière-garde centrale peut avoir des difficultés à coulisser sur les ailes. Ils doivent être bons de la tête et décisifs dans les duels. - Énormes efforts physiques demandés aux deux milieux latéraux qui doivent occuper tout le couloir défensivement et offensivement : il faut des joueurs d'une très grande qualité (endurants, rapides et habiles techniquement). - Diversification des milieux récupérateurs qui doivent prendre la place d'un défenseur central si l'un d'eux coulisse sur le côté pour défendre. Les deux attaquants doivent proposer un maximum de solutions devant et éviter de décrocher dans un milieu déjà très fourni. Je laisserais à chacun et chacune en tirer des conclusions sur l'idée de cette façon de jouer et bonne mais encore plus important la bonne pour l'Impact. |
AuthorAfter many years of coaching at various levels and with different teams, I thought I would share some of my experiences and thoughts about coaching. Archives
January 2023
Categories
All
|