In your terms, what exactly is periodization(for football/soccer)?
What are some of the most common mistakes that athletes make with training?
What are some of the techniques you’ve used to blast through training Plateaus?
-How building a Mesocycle 3+1 ,what Volume/intensity/frequency in 1-2 3 and 4 weeks?In OffSeason and preSeason?
Originally posted by Davids
What are some of the most common mistakes that athletes make with training?
overtraining, which is a product of “lack of knowledge.”
[quote]Originally posted by Davids
In your terms, what exactly is periodization(for football/soccer)?
What are some of the most common mistakes that athletes make with training?
Could you not approach it like sprint training? Address when you have competition periods and work backwards (ala Charlie)? Addressing all components all the time. I guess that a question could be what training factors could be itemized as low/high intensity? Also, which ones can be addressed on the same day? Can skill development like striking a soccer ball with the inside/outside of the foot when shooting on goal or practicing set plays for free kicks be catagorized as low intensity even though it requires a high degree of concentration?
Food for thought! Let’s eat shall we!
How constructing you Mesocycle(Volume/Intensity and Frequency)?
What are ,in your opinion,“Shock” and Base Mesocycle?
overtraining, which is a product of “lack of knowledge.”
you do have a way with words E 
How about a discussion about the relative values of two conflicting approaches.
My approach is to use 2 speed and 1 speed end session per week for three high int weeks with 1 reduced int week.
The other popular approach is to use 2 speed and 2 speed end sessions per week as follows - speed, speed end, tempo, speed, speed end, tempo, off, with 2 high intensity weeks followed by a reduced int week.
What are the relative merits of each approach, and which will yield the most progress in the long run for the highest level athletes?
Do you feel that the second approach may produce temporary gains, but over the long run drain the athlete? Also, if the CNS demands are greater on an elite athlete, would the second cause more stress, (even if we consider the sp. end. work to be less of a demand)?
Taking up on Dlive’s point: Goose, for example, in another post feels he could do back-to-back to speed sessions.
What if an athlete, in their present physical state, couldn’t ‘hit’ their system enough during an individual session to cause an optimal compensation during recovery? Might two sessions be required to yield the same marginall benifit?
Just a thought…
good question. Two sessions may yield this, but you may can also add in some complex movements (bounds, form running, plyometrics) to complement what you are doing and to get the stresses needed for adaptation.
dlive: this is a big ‘what if’ but…what if the athlete tends to fatigue quite quickly (with a resultant drop in quality) and needed to spread the workload over the two sessions? At an early stage of development maybe a coach might not want an athlete to ‘specialise’ too early.
I know the answer myself - reduce the supplementry high intensity components and reduce speed volume as neccesary but am just trying to think of a case where a 2 on 1 off approach may be justified.
Great thoughts. I do see your methodology, and agree that it honestly should be looked at case by case. The younger the athlete (training age) the more this seems practical.
Let’s do some math
Given the 2 speed + 1 speed end with a 3 week high 1 wk reduced approach, a 16 week training cycle will include 24 high int speed sessions and 12 high int speed end sessions.
The 2 speed plus 2 speed end on a 2 week high int and 1 week reduced int will yield 20 speed and 20 speed end sessions.
The implications are that system one yields more speed sessions- and at a higher quality per individual session due to longer recovery between sessions, while system two yields more speed end at the cost of lowering the quality and quantity of pure speed work.
At the highest levels of performance in the 100 meters, the period beyond the alactic/anaerobic threshold becomes shorter and shorter- so which approach will ultimately yield the greatest gains and which will yield fewer injuries?
I totally get it. As in my first post to this question, over the long haul, the second option will produce negative implications. Method one (Charlie’s) provides ample time (as you state) for complete regeneration, whereas the second will over time, get into overtraining. I think in the latter posts, gf_200 was asking if this system would be considered in a younger athlete who did not have the CNS to handle much work at this level. As you see, I mentioned the addition of auxillary movements such as plyos, bounding, etc. What are your thoughts? 
…At the highest levels of performance in the 100 meters, the period beyond the alactic/anaerobic threshold becomes shorter and shorter- so which approach will ultimately yield the greatest gains and which will yield fewer injuries?(Charlie Francis).
Would the second option have more advantages for a 200m sprinter?
I still think the same rules apply for the 200m’s. In the advanced athlete, you dont want to compromise recovery from the high CNS demands.
Any other thoughts?
I think that the second approach would be better applied to a 400m athlete. the volumes would be skewed, but I think that the point made about alactic work/ anaerobic work is more important for the 400m runner. They will be able to make up for the lack of speed sessions with their inherint strength from the ana sessions. although, I think that more rest might be needed.
fastdude,
do you not feel that speed reserve comes into play in the 400?
as I wrote that reply, I was questioning that being brought up. I think that speed is #1 no matter what. But I think that in the developing athlete, an equally great reserve in anaerobic strength combined with speed will not only give a psychological edge, but also a physiologically one while giving the athlete time to develop speed. I say this from a point of view as a young (20) 400m runner where my program focused on speed rather than endurance, and at first I was very skeptical, used to getting run into the ground in HS. but after going thru the program (CHABOT JC), I have totally bought into the 400m training with equality in speed and ana. training… man, that was a mouthful. hope that clarified.
So what is the role of special endurance and tempo? I understand what you are saying, I was brought up under a system that was based on this premise, and so I see both sides. My main concern is that anaerobic strength work is typically not done at full-speed (mostly at an intensive tempo pace) which locks down on that middle distance pace. There is a great thread on the earlier forum that covers this in detail where we discuss splits of both training theories. To sum it up though, Charlie’s quote says it best: “The implications are that system one yields more speed sessions- and at a higher quality per individual session due to longer recovery between sessions, while system two yields more speed end at the cost of lowering the quality and quantity of pure speed work”.
ok Dlive, how about this, becasue I do agree with you about the idea of training at speed. maybe since tempo is doen at 75%, that could be used as recovery. Spec End. can be used inbetween speed and tempo days. it is necessary, and I feel that it makes the 400m runner mentally tough to be able to handle that kind of run in practice. for instance,
[speed-tempo-spec. end-tempo-speed-tempo- off-speed etc…] Just an idea. but for clarification, can you give me a good definition of special endurance, or a thread? I appreciate it, then maybe I can give a better example… maybe now we cah have a new thread about 400m training!!!