Exactly. No long term plan and frequent changes of the coaches.
Maybe I used wrong term – not speed but Alactic Power/Capacity (maybe even speed a little bit). You can combine technique work with speed work at some time periods.
Here is the drill we used
Two athletes are lying on the ground and coach with the ball between them. Coach pushes the ball forward toward the small gates(20-30m in distance). Athletes start to run and after certain distance need to ‘shoulder tackle’ to fight for the ball which is moving in between them. Only one athlete is allowed to go through the gate. After that he may play 1v1 with the goal keeper. The drill lasts 4-6secs and it is very high intensity. Does is develop speed? Probably acceleration (not Vmax for sure ;)). Do we do only this and no ‘speed work’. No, we combine the two.
Extreme flexibility in planning is a must in pro-soccer,but that does not preclude per se quality of training. It may even enhance it.
Soccer (as all sports) implies by definition the concurrent expression of multiple combined abilities and traits,way too frequently compromised in its quality by addressing them in…combinations.
Yes, in my book 3x30m with 4-5 min breaks will always be better than 10x30m with 1 min breaks.
In the first example you get 3 repetitions that contribute to a positive speed adaptation, as indicated by Pakewi. In example 2 you get 1 good speed rep (assuming the athletes are not holding back on rep 1, knowing that 9 more are coming) plus a mish-mash of special endurance work with bad technique and greater risk of muscle strain.
Unfortunately, working in the private sector does not give you the luxury of “time”. When I coached 100m sprinters, a running workout could take 2.5 hours or more. Most of this time was to allow for a gradual progression in warm-up, therapeutic interventions and, most of all, recovery between runs. And, when we performed block starts, I found very quickly that more time was required for recovery to ensure the athletes could repeat the quality of their runs. This is why Charlie used standing starts for all runs other than specific block work. The amount of energy expended from a deep position would dilute the quality of longer runs (i.e. 60m and above).
What it adds up to is that in order to optimize speed gains, you must give the recovery time identified by Pioneer and Pakewi. This point is not debatable. The “private sector gurus” will give their excuses and rationalizations for their programs, but they cannot burn the candle at both ends. In the final analysis, their programs become glorified calorie burning sessions.
Duxx,
I agree with your first point.
I don’t think that the exercise you propose is a good choice and I explain why, having done that many times and more.
Speed = relaxation and if you put the fighting in it, relaxation (if it is not in the ahtlete, and it is not most of the time) is the last thing you find.
More on that. A big problem in non-track athlete is poor technique, usually related to low (specific) strength levels. I began filming athletes and I noticed a common trend, very weak glutes and thus inefficient acceleration (pelvis up not the side pushing or hip internally rotated). If we don’t fix those issues in isolation (and that mean, in this context, without the ball) we are greatly limiting the exploitation of the athlete’s potential.
So, technique, specific strenght and relaxation must be tackled in isolation, even in team settings (the more exposure you can have, the better).
Lastly, every time we did that drill, I kinda felt that an injury was close. Not the worst drill in the wrold, far from it, but it must be put in the right context.
We started a project with pro soccer players on their way to re-join the team after an injury a couple of years ago. It implied the use of very short training workouts (16-20 minutes total allocated time) with the aim of getting them ready to work with the rest of the team and be back on the field in the shortest time possible after rehab. Workouts were assigned daily,sometimes as doubles,most of the time as singles,and were done every day with no day off until the first full time match were successfully played. Of the total 16-20 minutes the only factor we kept purposefully constant by design was the total time allocated for recovery (15-out of 16 to 20- minutes).
Players were monitored and functionally evaluated in a number of areas,ranging from pure task performance to general physiological indicators. The results were so encouraging in all areas (display of performance capabilities,general and specific fitness to mention a few) that we decided to export the very same training format to athletes outside the team,and of different sport specializations, and eventually to private PT clients and even patients from all endeavours. All with rather consistent extremely positive results over time.
No. I was saying that without fixing technical and strength (specific) issues you are not exploiting athlete’s potential, and it was related to the exercise proposed by duxx and the develpment of speed.
For sure it is a common trend I have seen, sometimes it is enough to watch people with the eyes, directly or in front of the TV. You just start noticing trends.
But what you said does not represent my thoughts. It could be like: Pakewi said that without ARP or isoextremes etc. it is not possible to break world records. I am sure it is not representative of your thought, but correct me if I am wrong.
Depending on the athlete’s talent level (obviously better with advanced skill levels), the drill could be useful as more of a transitional drill from general sprint work to more specific skill sets and game settings.
I have experimented with the speed change drills and as a transition drill, performing a type of sideline run where players sprint after a ball passed from a teammate.
I feel there is a place in training for it, depending on the specific situation of the athlete/team.
This brings up a topic of general sprint/speed work and the specific game work. At what point, if any, is there a transition between the two? I prefer to stick with general training means and leave the specifics for practices with the coaches and trainers.
From part 4, the last chart, looks very similar to the club level players who train with me. Their important games may be spaced between a few weeks, and then they may play 2-4 full matches within 2-3 days time. In between they have games vs. poor competition and practices etc. As this is the case most of the year with them, the 3+1 loading schedule may not fit exactly.
At no point really,meaning specific game work (and the game itself) is and remains the main stimulus (set of stimuli),around which everything else should be managed. Just as speed is the component which dictates everything else in the CFTS,and which everything else always supports. Too many coaches (I should say S & C coaches) still fail to recognize this,and center everything around other elements at the expenses of specific performance (response to the main set oif stimuli above).Injuries,lack of consistency in results and performances,and all kinds of excuses,justifications,and press stories are the direct end result.
EXACTLY!!! Very well said. S/C coaches are also becoming physical therapist/athletic trainers. This industry is going full retardation. We need to do the basics and do it good and we need to know priorities. Sometimes they change (in the annual plan)