Euro 2012 - The games people play

Having watched Euro 2012 so far I’m sure you, like me, have wondered at some point why so many "foreign" players seem so wonderfully talented. They seem technically gifted, incredibly creative and manage to pass and retain possession of the ball with relative ease. In contrast, many of the Irish and English players seem so woefully one dimensional. Their touch is often poor, they often struggle to keep the ball for any extended period of time and when they come up against the better teams, they invariably come unstuck. The foreign players seem to find space where there shouldn’t be any, while our players mis-control the ball when nobody is close.

These views are backed up by most of the game statistics. The Group D encounter between England and France (1-1) saw the French enjoy 61% of the possession. Croatia had 55% of the possession against Ireland, while Ireland only saw a measly 24% of the ball against the Spanish! To give a slightly different view on these figures; after the group phase of the tournament, Spain have had the ball for a total of 120 minutes in their opening three games. France had it for 103 minutes. England, despite beating Sweden and Ukraine, have enjoyed only 80 minutes of the ball, while Ireland have had to make do with only 66 minutes of possession (all statistics from UEFA.com). Most alarming was Spain’s passing total (860 passes of the ball) versus Ireland’s (254 passes) in their Group C encounter.

While we might get frustrated and blame it on such factors as poor management, players lacking belief or determination, or even the occasional dodgy refereeing decision. The truth is, our players are just not as good as some of the best European nations! It is not because we have fewer players to choose from (Croatia is the least populous nation at Euro 2012, yet they beat Ireland 3-1). Nor can we blame it on the maturity or experience of our players (high flying Germany have one of the youngest squads in the tournament). I believe the difference, and the core problem we are witnessing is that our players are just not very well developed from a young age!

There are clearly many factors important to skill development in a young player. These include practice, coaching and the social and cultural environment within which the player grows. There are numerous blogs which could be written on each of these factors alone. However, for the purposes of this blog, I’m going to focus on one single factor; the games children play.

Just three short weeks ago, the English FA introduced a new format for the playing of games at underage level (see table right). The new pathway includes a mandatory 5v5 format of football for under-7s and under-8s and a 9v9 format for under-11 and under-12s. The sizes of the pitches and goals will be modified also to make them more appropriate for children at each age group. These changes are to be phased in by season 2014-15 and reflect a more long-term approach to player development.

Up until this, kids as young as 10 years of age have been playing full-sided games on full sized pitches. The image, left, emphasises the point. Kids playing in big open spaces with a little goalkeeper defending an adult sized goal! England's adoption of a new structure has to be put into perspective, however. The German Football Association have had a similar system running for the past 12 years (in response to their abysmal showing at the Euro 2000 championships); the French and Dutch even longer. The famous Ajax youth academy which has produced many of the best Dutch players have had small-sided games at the heart of player development for decades. A similar movement has revolutionised the way FC Barcelona, and Spain, play the game. In Brazil, players have been brought up for generations on a diet of Futebol de Salao, where small-sided games are played with a modified ball. Why the English FA (and maybe someday the FAI and IFA) are only changing their approach now is a mystery. But the effect of the current format is clear for all to see.

There is no doubt that the development of talented young players will directly affect how they can perform as adults. The introduction of a more appropriate player development pathway by the English FA will reap it’s rewards. However, with the changes only to be made mandatory from 2014, it may take another generation before the fruits of this development are evidenced at senior international level. To understand a little bit more about this approach, we need to briefly look at how small-sided games affect player development.

First we need to explain a rather simple, but revolutionary idea that was first but forward in the mid 1980’s. It is called the Dynamical Systems Approach to skill learning and performance. What this approach to skill learning basically suggests is that the behaviour or actions we learn and produce are the result of constraints imposed upon us. To give an example I’ve attached a clip from the film “Kill Bill" - an odd choice you might think! In this scene, the tutor, Pai Mei, instructs Uma Thurman's character, Black Mamba, to punch a hole in a wooden board with her fist. Critically, she must do this from only 3 inches away. On being asked if she can do it, her first reaction is “I can but not that close”, to which Pai Mei retorts “Then you can’t do it!” The point of this example is that it is not the outcome that is all important. It is being able to do it within set constraints – hitting from only 3 inches away. As Black Mamba practices under this difficult constraint she eventually adapts and learns to perform the skill successfully. Later in the movie she performs the task in a confined space to escape burial in a coffin (sorry for ruining it if you haven’t seen the movie!!).

In football, there are many possible constraints to performance. In training, a coach may impose 1 or 2 touch play, shooting zones, uneven sided games, etc. Each of these is a constraint, and each constraint imposes different demands on the players. So, for example, in 1 or 2 touch games, players must pass better, move better and be more aware of those around them. Players cannot dribble the ball in these games, so nobody hogs the ball and players must get their head up to look for team-mates. These are the behaviours that emerge as a result of the constraints the coach imposed and this is the essence of the Dynamical Systems Approach to learning. We adapt our actions to the constraints of the environment around us and as a result, new behaviours are learned and more efficient ways of performing tasks are developed. It is very different to the old fashioned drills practice and learning by rote – but this is a discussion for another day.

Back to the use of small-sided games with underage footballers. Keep in mind the comparison between 11, 10-year-olds playing in a full sized adult pitch, versus 7 playing on a pitch almost half that size.(with a much smaller goal also). These are the constraints; fewer players, a smaller playing area and smaller goals. Much research has looked at the effects of full- versus small-sided games on smaller pitches. The smaller pitch means that players are closer together (think of Pai Mei's 3 inches!). To retain possession, a player’s technical ability will be challenged. They must learn to control the ball better, and pass it more accurately. Interestingly, players also tend to use both feet to manipulate the ball more in these games! If players have less time, then they are constrained into using their less dominant foot – or else lose possession! Fewer players on the pitch means more touches for each individual player and more touches mean more opportunities to learn and to improve technical skills. Small-sided games also result in more scoring opportunities and the smaller goals require players to be more accurate, while giving the goalkeeper more opportunities to practice and develop their skills in turn. Look back at some of the statistics quoted earlier in this blog... because they might make a little more sense now.

In terms of their perceptual and cognitive skills, players will be challenged to speed up their thought processes, as they will have less time on the ball. They will have to make decisions more quickly, and will have to be more aware of what is going on around them. Physiological analysis of these games also indicate that the intensity of game play is higher, meaning that the fitness demands are greater and so players get fitter by playing them. Oh, and probably the most important point of all... research has also shown that by playing these types of game – kids have more fun! Comparisons between full- and small-sided games show that children enjoy the games more, most likely because they have more touches of the ball and also because they improve their skills more by playing these games! The knock on effect of this in improving a child’s self-esteem, motivation, and future participation should not be underestimated.

Keep in mind, each of these benefits are brought about by a simple change in the size of the pitch, and the number of players on it. The coach is doing nothing different. He is not using some magical formula (well, perhaps he is), and he is not a mystical guru. The associations who have been using this format for years; the Dutch, the French, the Brazilians, the Spanish, etc are not spending a fortune to develop skillful players. Children are simply learning by playing! Imposing smaller sided games on smaller pitches does, however, mean that coaches have to adapt their practices with these children – and so the benefits will filter down to every training and practice experience the children will have. In a way, they are probably just doing the most sensible thing that kids used to always do for themselves.

Remember when we played games of football as children? With no adults around to bother us, we picked two even teams. We set jumpers down at either end of the pitch – far enough apart to play a fair game, and small enough to make it challenging to score. We usually had imaginary sidelines – but if someone passed or dribbled the ball too far away to be challenged, we decided they had crossed that line – so play stayed tight and our skills were challenged. Oh, and if one team was too strong, we swapped a player or two to even it up. We had fun, challenging games and we improved no end – that was until the adults began to tell us how to play!

Clemente, F., Couceiro, M.S., Martins, F.M.L. & Mendes, R. (2012). The usefulness of small-sided games on soccer training. Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 12 (1), 93-107

Dyson, B., Griffin, L.L. & Hastie, P. (2004). Sport Education, Tactical games and cooperative learning: Theoretical and Pedagogical considerations. Quest, 56, 226-240

Newell, K. M. (1985). Coordination, control and skill. In D.Goodman, R. B. Wilberg, & I. M. Franks (Eds.), Differing perspectives in motor learning, memory, and control (pp. 295 – 317). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Pope, D. (2011). A new direction for youth football in England. http://www.clubnewsletter.co.uk/

Williams, M.A. & Hodges, N. (2005). Practice, instruction and skill acquisition in soccer: challenging tradition. Journal of Sports Sciences.