Where is your line drawn...?

The Moral Mankad Maze...

It was one of those things that occurs occasionally in the world of sport that I love observing from a variety of different perspectives. The way people share their views from polarised positions, taking into account a whole host of different stances is intriguing. 

The specific talking point I am referring to is the 'Mankad' dismissal in the U19 Cricket World Cup by Keemo Paul from the West Indies, in their important match against Zimbabwe. The winner qualified for the quarter final and the loser went out the competition. Here is a link to the actual moment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV3gXRZqx8g

The important thing to consider is the fact this dismissal is in the rules so there actually isn't really a debate. The batsmen does not have to be warned by the umpires beforehand, although that is often done in such times, as England's Jos Buttler found out previously. What it does raise is the question of ethics and sportsmanship. But where is the line drawn?

So I then equate this to my sport and considered the question - where does the line from black turn to white, through the grey part? And what am I prepared to sacrifice?

Would I be happy if England qualified for the football World Cup Final having scored the winner from a goal that came from a penalty where the player had clearly dived? What about if the goal came from a clear handball that lead to an advantage and a goal? What about if one of their players was injured and we hadn't kicked the ball out of the pitch? What about a terrible refereeing decision that missed a blatant offside but we scored?

This is the question for me - where do you draw the line? And also the part that creates the debate because everyone has a slightly different 'line' based upon their values and beliefs. 

The cricket example is from the U19 World Cup, and this is elite sport. It isn't a school match. So does that make it right? Where does the line change in terms of ages and competition? U18? U21? Never? Or is that a very British attitude to this? I'm not sure!

The rules haven't been broken, so do the rules need to be changed? Or is it a valuable learning experience for the batsmen? But what if they had gone for a quick single and he had slid in to make it and he made this by an inch? Does that make the head start he got then ok? Or has he cheated and gained an advantage?

We have some great discussions with coaches about the importance of 'tactical fouls' in the game of football. At what stage are these ok? Do we teach them (as this then raises the moral questions again)? If you picked U18 for example as your benchmark, if these aren't ever discussed and then a 17-year old gets picked for the First XI that weekend (i.e. Luke Shaw at Southampton previously) he would be expected to consider this course of action on a Saturday when three points are on the line, would he not? 

I can certainly recall playing football, not going up for an attacking corner as I was a little full-back. But when the opposition broke quickly on the counter attack I had a job to do. It was not unheard of that I would deliberately foul at the halfway line to stop them attacking quickly and allow our team to regroup defensively and get players back. Is that a 'tactical foul'? And is that ok?

However, whilst the debate will rage, at no stage is this acceptable in grassroots football. The game is bigger than the three points in that kid's match and as coaches we must set the appropriate behaviour and role model the characteristics we want our players to adhere to. This is a crucial role of the grassroots coach in any sport. 

But in elite sport...? The debate will continue and it's a fascinating maze of morality!

The next frontier: measuring the stuff that really matters

So I was having a trip round a Professional Sporting Academy, being given the behind-the-scenes tour by the Academy Manager. We walked through the indoor area into the next room to "where the sports scientists live" I was told. And that's what they do, in nearly every sport, sit behind their laptops where they can produce lots of data from all the testing they do. 

Now, I thoroughly understand right now there are going to be staff within that part of the sporting community that aren't going to be happy with that generalisation, this post and see this as a personal attack on their profession. This isn't about that so please don't take offence this early into the article! 

We continued on the wander round, chatting about the great work they do and the value they bring to player development. Interestingly, the view from the Academy Manager was also that there is a danger that some sport scientists are becoming a hinderance. I was told of one SS that tried to stop a 16-year old going out to practice later in the afternoon "based on data"! I think that's the opposite of the mindset we should be creating, we should be fostering players wanting to go out and get better, to continue learning and developing. The Academy Manager very clearly told the SS that regardless of the data being churned out and his flashy degree from a university that this was the real world and absolutely what he wanted at his club! 

As we moved on to have a look at the noticeboards there were stacks of numbers on the board from the last U18 and U21 game. GPS data, HR lines and graphs of a variety of forms for every player. One such graph showed the average running speed for all the players compared with each other. And this is where I start to have an issue. 

For starters, why compare one player with another? In football, where is the value in looking at running data of a full-back and comparing that with that of your centre forward? The goalkeeper made it onto the list as well! Who were the opposition and what type of game was it? Did they have much possession and what tactics were they playing? This data in isolation is meaningless so why show it to everyone?

It is fairly well accepted by those in the know that the defining factor between the good and the great is what is between the ears. Everyone in coaching and recruitment has their own stories of players that have been in the system with amazing technical prowess, tactical nous and built like a machine but the one common factor that has stopped these players progressing was a psychological gap. And I hear this all the time in lots of sports. 

"He wasn't motivated enough"
"He lacked desire and lacked work ethic" 
"He didn't have enough resilience" etc.

And this is where my issue about the resource allocation starts to come into question. 

There are loads of sport scientists in professional sports clubs across the country now, literally thousands of them, all churning out data about our players as machines. However, it becomes very easy that we start to value what we can measure and NOT actually measure what we value. 

I am interested in learning. The development, continued progression of players and the trajectory and path they are on (regardless of age, including the First XI). I would like to know how those players had been improving and developing over periods of time and whether they were on the up, plateau or down. And this is easily done in the world of sports science. 

But I'd like to know about mindset. About their levels of mental toughness. About their grit and resilience. I want to know about the players that have coping skills, the ability to implement these when they need them and adapt to ever changing circumstances in elite sport. Most of all, I want to know who the learners are. Some of these are easier to measure than others, might not be an exact science and I get that, and this is not straight forward by any stretch. 

I was in a Primary School in Hull when a Headteacher started showing me her noticeboards with laminated vases and poems and 'all the learning' that had taken place in Year 5. That's not learning, that's the outcome or 'performance'. The learning is in the five vases that were started but not finished properly because they didn't draw the edge right or the rough copies of poems where that had to scribble out and change words that didn't quite work properly. 

Great work by Ainee McNamara and colleagues (see http://clok.uclan.ac.uk/4826/) highlight some essentials, the determining factors that can differentiate the good from the great but when you then compare this to resource allocation and investment in professional sporting systems this just doesn't add up. 

One professional sports club I know has 15 full-time sport scientists across all age groups and one psychologist that tried to cover everything from U9 to First XI, and this won't be uncommon. The allocation of budgets and resources seems wrong to me. Some of this will come from the 'traditionalists' perception of a psychologist ("lie on my couch and I'll fix you") when in fact the good ones get out on the pitch/court/grass with the player's and act as a performance coach, building on strengths for development, not just putting plasters over problems. 

Fifteen years ago there was a revolution and investment in sports science and all these jobs starting popping up all over sport. It's critical that all the different experts work together and avoid silos, which is easily done too, for the betterment of player development. That's difficult to get right but many are starting to in lots of sports. 

Psychology could well be the next piece of the jigsaw to go through this drive forwards but, until that point, we could be continuing to measure a whole host of stuff that is useful to know but not the determining factor...

Interview with Dario Gradi: a coaching master

After a sabbatical from blogging of six months the start of a New Year is always an extra incentive to get back in the game. I've not been totally sat on my backside in that time, I had a Masters dissertation to get over the line and a small boy to see through from one year old to 18 months so mildly productive! 

However, what I thought I would start 2016 with is sharing some notes from an interview I had with a coaching legend, Dario Gradi. These are a few of the key quotes I took from this and my thoughts/interpretation of his views. Dario has a track record in player development, a rich history in coaching going back decades and is famous for being at the helm of a Crewe Alexandra group that consistently punched above their weight when producing top footballers.

I met Dario in a hotel in the Midlands and he shared some of his coaching views and key people that have influenced him through the years. It was a fascinating couple of hours. Dario talked openly at the start about the guidance he received from his PE teacher, how much he learnt from Dave Sexton about coaching and the mistakes he made at Wimbledon and Crystal Palace. He was very reflective, recognising what went well and what didn't go so well but crucially took learning from those moments. 

Here are some of the top quotes:

"Really nice to feel that I've helped people" - ultimately, this is what coaching is all about. It is simply helping people. As grassroots coaches this might be helping a kid get better at dribbling or passing or just being a better person and learning to tie their laces. But that is what it's all about and it is an easy message to forget. 

"All sessions should flow from one to another, no stopping or starting" - Dario talked about watching coaches spend too long moving cones about and I see exactly the same. With effective planning before the session you can work out how to ensure there is minimal time wasted in moving cones about and setting up different areas or pitches. If you waste 5 minutes a session doing this, multiply that by 30 training sessions a season and all of a sudden you have lost two a half hours of time the kids could be playing and learning and getting better. 

"Still coaches talk too much. I want to see the players play, not the coaches coach" - this is an all too common problem, coaches thinking the session is about them! However, I would elaborate on Dario's point and suggest it is about finding the balance here. Of course, the players need some help and guidance, at the right time, if they are struggling and when you think it is appropriate. This can be done in a variety of ways from talking to the whole group to 'drive-by coaching' and having a little word to one player as the game is going on, without stopping the whole practice. As a general rule, aim to have the ball rolling for about 70% of the session and waste as little time as possible.

"Most important thing coaches can do is make the players want to come back. It has to be enjoyable" - without doubt, this is integral to grassroots coaching, and any level of coaching come to think of it. The players have to fall in love with the game. As a coach, if you are the reason a kid decides to stop playing the game then you have failed, regardless. Fill them with excitement and enthusiasm, fuel a passion for football so burning they can't wait for the next session.

"By 14, teach them to make goals,stop goals and score goals" - the roles of a team really fall into these three areas and players will probably have a career specialising in one of these. However, these are the essential building blocks that players need to learn about as part of a balanced coaching programme. Allow them exposure to all these areas and avoid pigeon-holing them at a particular age because they happen to be bigger or smaller or faster etc.

"When you've shouted at a player has it helped them or just made you feel better? It's not showing passion, it's showing stupidity" - I quite liked the point he was making here and this was part of a big long rant that Dario had. I'm not sure there is ever a need to shout at a kid unless they are in danger and by doing that it makes them avoid it, like a kid running into a road to collect a ball. If a player has made a mistake, it takes their brain less then half a second to work that out and associate a feeling with it. By the time you see this, make sense of it then shout at the player, largely they already know! By shouting at them, this sometimes doesn't really have a lot of impact and Dario was very clear about coaches talking to kids, rather than shouting at them.

"I had to be careful what I said to Nick Powell when I was coaching him as his ideas were often better than mine!" - this shows real humility from Dario as well as an understanding that he doesn't have all the answers. I have done many a session where the players ideas on progressing or developing the practices were better than mine and it's those coaches with an air of arrogance that feel it is about them that are naive enough not to listen. 

There were so many take away messages from Dario that it could be a whole year of blog posts and maybe later in the year I will do another. As coaches, and Dario is certainly an expert coach, consider some of the points he has made and reflect on your own coaching through 2016 and think "am i following the Dario principles?" If you are then you are doing a great job, as Dario would say. 

Why I'm pleased my son is born in May...

It's been a hotly discussed topic for many years, there are countless opinions available relating to the subject but the topic of birth bias keeps rearing it's head. For example, a quick Google search for "relative age effect" brings up over 21,000 articles linked to this and a further search on Scholar raises another 1,300 research pieces on the subject. It's clearly a worldwide and recognised phenomena. 

If you aren't familiar with this it essentially suggests that if you are born in the first few months or half of the 'selection year' for a particular sport you will have more chance of being selected for higher level teams. This brings about the increased opportunity of better facilities, playing with and against better players and working with better coaches. It's akin to the "Matthew Effect". 

The Premier League football academy programme supports just skewed statistics with 57% of players in the system born in the first third of the year (Sept-Dec), with just 14% born in the last four months of the selection year (May-Aug). However, birth rates for children across the year are largely level, there isn't a variance of any major discrepancy that should skew these stats enormously. 

The world of football scouts select their children from grassroots participation - from local leagues that play up and down the country. These leagues are often bias already due to someone's mum or dad making the 'first selection' of players and deciding who plays and sometimes who doesn't. Evidence suggests that it doesn't always mean the quarter 3 and 4 born children don't get to play, it means they might be in teams in lower divisions rather than the top teams. Where do scouts look? Primarily at the top. Therefore, often some of the late developing children might get missed from the system.  

However, I'm going to give an alternative view from my own experiences. 

Being the smallest sometimes isn't a disadvantage, it can be really helpful (if you get IN the system). And that's the challenge. Getting in. However, once you are in the accelerated learning experience you can get compared to others is important to recognise. I have coached Academy teams, full of mixed birthdays and sizes, for the last six years and seen all sorts of kids from different backgrounds come through. 

Here's the thing - I sometimes think that it's the big kids that can be disadvantaged! This is often what you witness in the players...

Player A (early developer):
- Wins most of the physical battles and 1v1's through size and strength.
- Technically more powerful (longer range of passing and shooting from distance).
- Better scores in physical testing such as straight line sprints and jump tests. 
- Less need to focus on learning as success can come from physical advantage.
- Socially dominating due to size and others can be intimidated.

Player B (late developer):
- Loses out when pitted against a giant in outcomes that can be won by strength. 
- Technically often skilful in possession with good agility but less 'impact'.
- Scores lower when benchmarked against players chronologically older.
- Criticised for "not influencing game" or "not getting about the pitch".

However, Player B gets some advantages:
- Has to be a better learner to survive against the older players.
- Solves problems in different ways and comes up with creative solutions as can't use their physical advantage.
- Develops coping and adapting strategies that will serve them well in latter years and key to become an elite player.

The skills that Player B can develop (assuming the right environment is created and the coach recognises the importance of this matter) are huge and in the long term can massively outweigh any early physical dominance. If they have the psychological support and skills they can thrive! But word of caution and don't forget, the early developing Player A could always be the biggest!!

The challenge for coaches is to ensure that we allow all players to develop the mix of skills. The things they gain from being the biggest (self-confidence possibly), can we let the little ones gain this by playing down? The things that the early developers miss out on in their own age group, can we generate this by playing them up against bigger kids so they now have to think differently? I appreciate this solution is easier within the rules for the professional game but many grassroots clubs have mixed age group training nights so some things can be tried. 

The key to all this is patience... Give every kid the same opportunity, not just because they are shaped in a particular way today. See beyond what is in front of you now because the long term will look very different.  

Helping children becoming better players...

It's fairly well recognised that our role as coaches is to help children get better, whether that is becoming better people or better players. However, what is also becoming more apparent to me the more I read about things is that it is ultimately about children becoming better learner's too. 

There are many quotes from inspirational football managers from Pep to Sir Alex that talk about the importance of having a player that can learn but as a grassroots coach what role can we play in that process? Well, there are simple things we can do to encourage young people to develop these skills and foster a brighter outlook towards improvement. 

Self-talk is recognised as playing an important psychological role within both the practice and performance phase of taking part in sport and how a young person uses that inner voice can have an effect on learning. As coaches we spend all of our time trying to help a player master a specific technical aspect or solve a tactical problem but if all the time you are competing against a voice internally in their head that tells them they can't do this it is going to be a real struggle for us. 

The cycle then has the potential to spiral downwards... "I'll never get this" in the player's head becomes the coach thinking "they are hopeless, why can't they understand" and dangerously can move towards the coach considering "I'll find another player that can do this instead" and all because we didn't support their tape being played internally.

So, consider helping the player change those words. Discuss these with them, talk about how it affects them, get them to print them out and stick them on the fridge, use this how you like!

Instead of:                                          Try thinking:
I'm not good at this                             What am I missing?
I'm awesome at this                             I'm on the right track
I give up                                              I'll use some strategies we've learned
This is too hard                                   This may take some time and effort
I can't make this any better                  I can always improve so I'll keep trying
I made a mistake                                 Mistakes help me learn better
Plan A didn't work                               Good job the alphabet has 25 more letters
It's good enough                                  I can still make it better
He's so good, I'll never be that good     I'm going to figure out how he does it to help me

I found this lists on a photo somewhere so not sure where they came from but they were linked to classroom learning. However, these are absolutely appropriate for the sport's world too. 

So, as well as helping the player's with the technical and tactical aspects of the game try affecting the little things that could make a massive difference, to them as player's and as people. 

Techniques to encourage learning...

Ultimately, we are all there to help the kids. Sometimes we help the children with football stuff, sometimes we help them learn to tie their laces - it varies on different days and at different ages. However, our chosen methods to draw out learning from the people in front of you can make a difference on the effectiveness. 

I'm sure you have all been in the same situation: you have just called the players in after a twenty minute 'practice' on something specific and are ready to ask them some questions to see what they have learnt. Then what happens? Well, I observe this a lot, we fire out a problem for them to consider and...

a) the same hands go up first
b) you try a few answers and skip on past the incorrect ones
c) you go to the kid you know will answer correctly

or...the question isn't quite clear enough so there are no forthcoming answers immediately from the players. To avoid awkward silence you ask the question again and slightly rephrase it, hoping to get a response this time. Recognise being in that position?

Research from education suggests that if teachers haven't got the answer they were looking for within 2 seconds they ask it again. Two seconds?! That isn't a very long time for children to think about something! And this is something I see coaches doing also. 

So, in order to aid learning, here are a few things to consider doing or not doing. This blog (http://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/why-hands-up-teaching-kills-learning.html) offers some great points to think about including:

Asking for hands up:
Be cautious with this approach. The players who's hands go straight up often know the answer so I'm not sure if this extends their learning?

It can also have negative effects to the self-esteem of players that really don't know too.

Does this encourage the children more naturally introverted to answer? Will they be willing to risk putting their hand in front of others with more self-confidence in case they get it wrong? What if the answer involves 'showing' something? Does this just encourage the more technically proficient to answer? 

Have a read of the blog link as this offers further ideas. 

Asking for a no-hands up approach:
I have often used a method that is about not putting their hands up after a group question. With a well constructed question that really focuses on learning, this makes every child think of answer. This means there is a chance I will ask a child that might not be right, but that's ok. It can spark discussion.

I'm also comfortable to wait longer, four or five seconds (which might seem like forever) in order to let players have time to think. You can play around with this method, to get them answering in pairs so half the group answer rather than one in front of everyone etc.

Also...Don't miss the wrong answers!! The wrong answer from a player doesn't mean you keep asking kids until you get the right answer. The wrong answer also tells you exactly where that person is with their level of understanding, and a starting point of where you can extend them from. 

The crux of coaching is beyond the X's and O's - it is about the meaningful interactions between coach (more capable other) and the learner. This is a key place we need to invest our own time in to get better at. Follow good blogs such as the one quoted above and read things like http://www.edutopia.org/blog/asking-better-questions-deeper-learning-ben-johnson for more ideas. 

Then try new stuff out!! We ask the players to be brave and try new things, we have to do the same as coaches...

It's a Team Game...

We have a fascination currently in the country within player development that seems to be growin, at the expense of other key components - and that's the desire to produce a flair, attacking, creative dribbler. A Number 10. 

However, it is essential that we don't lose sight of the bigger picture of what constitutes a team. This is made up of a number of essential parts that allow the whole thing to function effectively, like an well-oiled machine. Even a team of 11 Lionel Messi's wouldn't be very functional!

I saw a statistic today that was somewhat alarming and runs parallel to the matter of our eternal quest for the next Number 10. Since the Premier League season in 2000, there is a 15% decrease in the number of English centre halves. This is a hugely important matter and should influence our shaping of player development.

So, what does the team at the elite level consist of:

- Leaders of others

- Workers like soldier ants

- Ones with a tall stature that protect the goal

- Physically dominant players that 'allow' others to play

- Skillful players in possession

- Jokers that keep the team together

- Sensible people that keep the team together

- Technical players that can manipulate the ball

- Selfish ones with a desire to score goals

- Older heads that support the youthful exuberance

- Younger and enthusiastic players to push boundaries

- Attack minded by nature

- Defence minded by nature

- Tactical thinkers that understand the game

I'm sure there are more essential roles and you can add to the list within the comments section but we cannot lose sight of the bigger picture. Yes, it's essential we allow the players to experiment through free play and within an environment that expresses creativity and the ability to try new things. 

But also don't forget you need players that are going to throw their head in the way to block a goal-bound shot and do all the ugly stuff when we don't have possession to get the ball back. It's the fully functioning team unit that ultimately allows our creative, game winning players to do their stuff. 

The question for you as coaches is how do we set up our sessions to ensure we: 

a) allow all of these skills to develop? 

b) value the importance of these?

c) recognise these in players?

Just a thought...