Should the players adapt to the playing system, or should the playing system be adapted to suit the players?
If I have plums I should do plum jam, right? Can’t do peach jam, right? :rolleyes:
Playing system should be adapted to suit the players.
Otherwise, the coach must find and buy players to suit his system.
So yes, I would agree 
If by system you mean 4-3-3, 4-4-2 etc. then there is plenty of room for adapting it to suit certain players without compromising the idea behind it. If you mean something more fundamental, like playing possesion orientated or “kick and run”, then there is bound to be some kind of compromise isn’t it? Especially in the fast changing world of modern soccer where coaches and players change teams so often. Anyway, most coaches seem to adhere to one style of play, regardless of the players at their disposal.
Can we assume that demands of soccer game are dependent on the system played (and the tasks it demands from players at given position) without taking into consideration the individual athlete?
Are ‘demands’ something on the field that exists without athlete? I guess not… thus to expand this debate, how can we say that ‘middlefielder need more endurance’ etc? Is that demanded from the player or he is able to do it, thus he express it and thus play that position? What is first: chicken or the egg?
Should we plan our conditioning sessions on ‘positional demands’ or on ‘individual characteristicts’? Can we say about ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of player comparing his characteristic to positional demands?
I can say only that ‘positional demands’ are complex interrelation of what you need and what you already have, or in simple terms generalized demands and individual characteristics of players.
Interesting debate, but can it be finished with something usefull?
I’m a bit lost but I’ll try my best to add something worthwhile…
Can we assume that demands of soccer game are dependent on the system played (and the tasks it demands from players at given position) without taking into consideration the individual athlete?
I don’t know if that is a rhetorical question or not, but my answer would be “yes”. All Midfielders don’t do the same job; even in the same position.
Eg. One central-midfielder may have a more defensive role and “sit back” more, whereas another central-midfielder may be a “box-to-box” midfielder who is constantly making forward runs and tracking back (and therefore require better RSA/endurance/whatever)
In summary, I would say “yes”, it depends on the coaches’ instructions.
Are ‘demands’ something on the field that exists without athlete? I guess not… thus to expand this debate, how can we say that ‘middlefielder need more endurance’ etc? Is that demanded from the player or he is able to do it, thus he express it and thus play that position? What is first: chicken or the egg?
- If he cannot complete the coaches’ instructions effectively for the full game.
-If he gets extremely tired or sore from the match.
-If there is a marked drop in performance
- etc, etc…
Should we plan our conditioning sessions on ‘positional demands’ or on ‘individual characteristicts’? Can we say about ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of player comparing his characteristic to positional demands?
Sorry, kind of confused here… but I would compare the player’s characteristics to the demands of the position/the role he plays.
Then just improve qualities that make him “good at the position” - as well as weaknesses?
I can say only that ‘positional demands’ are complex interrelation of what you need and what you already have, or in simple terms generalized demands and individual characteristics of players.
:eek:
From what I understand, you are saying demands for each position/role in the team should be generalised? (correct me if I’m wrong)
Well, the advantages of such a thing would make it easier to coach and allow the system to be more versatile in the case of injuries.
So it would probably be a better “real-world” style of coaching, as opposed to specific workouts for specific roles (would require a lot of coaches).
So, having gone round in a huge circle - the system would have to suit the players, unless you have the resources to train each individual for their required role in the team.
Hopefully, I have managed to say something of note.
Robb_P,
thanks for your extensive and though provocing post!
I sounded ‘confusing’ cause I had ‘mind storm’ and I just typed it…
Regarding conditioning,
Should we group players regarding position played or players having simmilar abilities? If I had attacker who scored greater/simmilar YoYo result compared to one middlefielder, is this his strength or weakness? What about middlefielder? Should they train in the same group because they have simmilar results, or should they train according to their position demands?
If we conduct the conditioning sessions according to the demands of the position, aren’t we train to adapt the athlete to a given position/system played, instead of programming trainin on his own abilities?
I like your qualitative analysis regarding fullfilment of the positional demands…
Don’t won’t to go round a circle again, but I think that when training the athletes, we should take into consideration their individual characteristics FIRST and then second, position played — can you solve the attacker/middlefielder problem?
What are their pros and cons? What makes them ‘good at position’ and how to improve this without screwing them? (Emphasising endurance and screwing speed/power)
?
Brainstorm again… :rolleyes:
Good questions again… I’ll give them my best shot.
Regarding conditioning,
Should we group players regarding position played or players having simmilar abilities? If I had attacker who scored greater/simmilar YoYo result compared to one middlefielder, is this his strength or weakness? What about middlefielder? Should they train in the same group because they have simmilar results, or should they train according to their position demands?
I’m not sure what the YoYo test is, but I assume that it is an endurance/RSA based test?
I would just train for the position’s demands. So attacker’s would train for the same thing, midfielder’s would train together etc.
I think that, even though someone has an outstanding quality - but it is not very useful for the position (although it could be argued that any outstanding quality is useful, regardless of position) - there is no real point in enhancing it further.
You could maintain RSA/endurance in attacker’s at an adequate volume and focus on other aspects which the position demands.
For “box-to-box” midfielders, you could simply maintain speed and focus on RSA etc etc…
If we conduct the conditioning sessions according to the demands of the position, aren’t we train to adapt the athlete to a given position/system played, instead of programming trainin on his own abilities?
Yes. But this is good because:
-
allows coach to be more versatile with his system in case of injuries
-
If the athlete’s physical abilities are not suited to the position, this could be counted as a weakness. Eg. A striker has lots of endurance (not as useful) but not much speed (useful).
So if we increase his speed, then we help him get better at his position.
Then we can simply maintain endurance/RSA because it is not so useful.
Don’t won’t to go round a circle again, but I think that when training the athletes, we should take into consideration their individual characteristics FIRST and then second, position played — can you solve the attacker/middlefielder problem?
Not sure if that would work, although I can see your point.
If someone needs speed/power but is better at endurance, I don’t see why you would continue to emphasise endurance.
It would be easier to improve endurance if they are naturally good at it - but would it make a difference on the field?
How much of a difference?
Would you see better performance gains by increasing speed/power?
What are their pros and cons? What makes them ‘good at position’ and how to improve this without screwing them? (Emphasising endurance and screwing speed/power)
I think you would have to maintain one quality while, at the same time, try to improve qualities specific to their position.
I don’t think there is an outfield position where you would not benefit from having good RSA/endurance or having good speed.
I think it just depends on how much of each quality you need eg. Will having more RSA lead to bigger increases in performance than improving speed? etc…
I’m not sure how to go about this to be honest. To improve speed/maintain RSA maybe you could have 1 speed day and one RSA day? Tempo on the other days?
Improvement would probably be sub-optimal to be honest.
Hope this helps.
It is a modified shuttle run/beep test, where athletes run 20m back and forth and then rest 10sec. The speed of 20m distance increase like in beep test. After the athlete is unable to come on a signal for 2 consecuttive time, the test is over and the distance is the result. This is YoYo Intemitent REcovery test. We have Level 1 and Level 2 and the difference is in the starting speed of the first stage.
Another test is YoYo Intermittent Endurance test which is actually very simmilar altought the rest is 5 secs.
The tests are really interesting (talking about Recovery test), cause they correlate with the distance covered in a the game in high-speed/sprint running.
Excellent thought!!! I really love your reasoning Robb!
Some counter points:
a) How do you know when something is enough ( taken your qualitative analysis in recent posts)
b) How would our endurance lacking middlefielder adapt to non-optimal loads in a group of more ‘endurant’ middlefielders? It can be too much for him while too low for others?
Some ideas to solve the thing out:
- All the athlete do the same general conditioning, which will form a ‘base’, and later during tactical games, friendly games, small sided-games they will gain/maintain the abilties needed to play a given position
- Split the team into two groups: group A - Middlefielders, left/right backs, group B - stoppers, attackers. And in these groups to ‘individualize’ or futher split the team reagarding individual characteristic.
They all need power/speed. This is the emphasis #1. The ammount of endurance work is problematic. If we programm our training based on positional requirements, then some players will be under-trained and some over-trained if we don’t take their inidividual charact. in mind.
I understan your point here… excellent points!
Tempo and speed first, cause they form a ‘base’ for RSA. After this is in place, more specific conditioning.
Thanks for your though provocing response!
Duxx,
Are you suggest that we develop speed first and then go to tempo?
What is your thoughts on conditioning during the season? Should we run for long distances or continue working on the speed aspect?
No, I am suggesting to develop appropriate ammount of speed and general conditioning before going into RSA, SpeedEndurance work.
During the season we do tempo for recovery 1x/w and mostly day after the game. We use 4on4 for working on aerobic power. We are trying to maintain qualities already developed without trying to make great change in them during the season. A slight increase is ok, but aiming at great increase is bad thing.
We do speed work and plyos once per week.
If I am interpreting you correctly, you don’t work areobic conditioning during the season but use 4v4 to maintain it. Speed training 1x’s a week and plyo’s 1x’s a week.
If one would try to increase aerobic capacity, would overtraining set in?
Thanks
Warren
Aerobic capacity should already developed before in-season, but some guys may need additional training (late transfers for example or rehabed athletes). Playing games themself will yield increase in aerobic capacity over inseason. You can do it but nothing extraordinary or aiming at great increase. This will not yield overtraining (we train more during the prep period) but it may negativelly affect game performance due fatigue. If done, it HAS to be planned smartly. My experience is small thus I cannot be precise. Hope it helps.
Duxx,
Thank you! Areobic capacity should be already be established before the season.
Do you think coaches that still work on aerobic capacity during the season are asking for trouble? I mean overtraining.
Could you send me a basic outline for your out season and in season conditioning plan.
I have a daughter who coach insist on 11- 20 minute runs during the inseason.
It just seems to me to much.
No. We DO work on aerobic capacity during in season, but not that much as in PREP period, because we want to maintain it or slighty increase it.
Doing longs slow distance runs as a method to increase aerobic capacity during in-season is just dumb 
We have a (very experienced pro) player who love to do it too and he stay and jog for 10-15mins after a practice. I don’t think this is something bad, because it is not so demanding and this player do it not to condition but rather to relax, think on a game, analise his performace and play…
We do give our athletes to jog for 10-15mins after a match, but not as an method to increase aerobic capacity, but rather as a ‘relaxation’ tool more for a ‘brain’ (to give it a break from match) than for muscles. This is done in a warm-up after some easy games are done. A easy tempo run can be done instead too.
I do have some outline but it is on serbian language and we didn’t followed it thoroughly… it is just a collection of lines of actions, general objectives, proposed progressions etc.
I think I posted something…
You got our microcylce example in in-season posted in Soccer Subforum.
Great post again duxx! Sorry I could not answer yesterday.
Excellent thought!!! I really love your reasoning Robb!
Some counter points:
a) How do you know when something is enough ( taken your qualitative analysis in recent posts)
Well, apart from the ones I outlined earlier, I guess the only other ways would be:
- set your own guidelines (with the help of more knowledgable people on this forum?)
- over compensate! Do more endurance work and less speed work.
b) How would our endurance lacking middlefielder adapt to non-optimal loads in a group of more ‘endurant’ middlefielders? It can be too much for him while too low for others?
Some ideas to solve the thing out:
- All the athlete do the same general conditioning, which will form a ‘base’, and later during tactical games, friendly games, small sided-games they will gain/maintain the abilties needed to play a given position
- Split the team into two groups: group A - Middlefielders, left/right backs, group B - stoppers, attackers. And in these groups to ‘individualize’ or futher split the team reagarding individual characteristic.[quote]
I like both of your solutions.
The first one would be very “specific” (nothing more specific than playing the game!). LEss likely to overtrain people due to it being “specific” to each person.
The only problem is knowing how much tactical/friendly/small games are needed to maintain/increase ablities needed to play the position - it would be hard to track progress, because not everyone will be working as hard as each other.
The second one is good too.
The only problem is that the earlier problem applies: where there is one player who is not suited to the workload, therefore forcing an overall change in the workload for everyone in the group.
Much easier to track progress though, and to know exactly how much work everyone has done.
[quote]
They all need power/speed. This is the emphasis #1. The ammount of endurance work is problematic. If we programm our training based on positional requirements, then some players will be under-trained and some over-trained if we don’t take their inidividual charact. in mind.
I understan your point here… excellent points!
I can see your problem.
The only solutions I could see is:
-
solution number 1 that you suggested
-
reduce overall volume “to be safe”. Gains will not be as good, but it will still happen (CF).
You could gradually raise tempo by a fair amount (because it is less intense) to improve aerobic capacity and lower sprint volume.
Thanks for the post Robb.
I just received new book from Gambetta ‘Athletic Development’ and he wrote something about this issue… I am going to read it in a next few day and give my opinion.
Be sure to post it here All opinions are interesting…
Soccer is the world’s game, played, in Europe, with the highest stakes. You are either aerobically fit to play a 90 minute match, or that’s your ass. There is no speed work until that takes place. Soccer culture is different, as you can imagine, than sprint culture. For whatever reason while soccer teams do a lot of plyos and agility work there is a belief that sprint speed is innate (probably to a large extent correct, but it’s taken on the form of a myth). Most speed work and plyos are done, as in most sports, on “accident”, in matches, and many times it’s not clear “why” other than it’s faddish.
About the topic: No question, you must do a little of both, but more of fitting players to a system. Find me a coach or manager who fits a system to his players. You won’t and I’ll tell you why: Most players are naive (with all due respect?) and don’t understand the game they are playing. Take a look at Manchester United, they play a “system”, which means a formation, AND the way that formation utilizes tactics. They attack, no matter what, no matter when. Yes, they sign players who typically would fit that system, so, it’s a bit circular, but your question begged the question that there would be a system that fit a particular set of players without noting that they would be growing, changing, getting better, developing, into more skilled footballers. They’re moving targets.
That’s my say. Tried to keep it short…
I voted for ‘Both’… they are dynamical and interedendent systems: playing system and players. Both evolve!
I voted both too, even if I don’t believe they’re involved to an equal degree. Maybe in some equilibrium balancing dualistic ying/yang way, they are…