BARCELONA's 'Secret to Success' 05/02/2012

0 Comments

 

We all see that Barcelona are brilliant. The only problem is understanding just how they do it. That’s where my friend Albert Capellas comes in. Whenever he and I run into each other somewhere in Europe, we talk about Barça. Not many people know the subject better. Capellas is now assistant manager at Vitesse Arnhem in Holland, but before that he was coordinator of Barcelona’s great youth academy, the Masia. He helped bring a boy named Sergio Busquets from a rough local neighbourhood to Barça. He trained Andres Iniesta and Victor Valdes in their youth teams. In all, Capellas worked nine years for his hometown club.

During our last conversation, over espressos in an Arnhem hotel, I had several “Aha” moments. I have watched Pep Guardiola’s Barcelona umpteen times, but only now am I finally beginningto see. Guardiola’s Barcelona are great not merely because they have great players. They also have great tactics – different not just from any other team today, but also different from Barcelona teams pre-Guardiola. Barça are now so drilled on the field that in some ways they are more like an American gridiron football team than a soccer one.  

Before getting into the detail of their game, it’s crucial to understand just how much of it comes from Guardiola. When a Barcelona vice president mused to me four years ago that she’d like to see the then 37-year-old Pep be made head coach, I never imagined it would happen. Guardiola was practically a novice. The only side he had ever coached was Barça’s second team. However, people in the club who had worked with him – men like the club’s then president Joan Laporta, and the then director of football Txiki Beguiristain  - had already clocked him as special.  Not only did Guardiola know Barcelona’s house style inside out. He also knew how it could be improved.

Guardiola once compared Barcelona’s style to a cathedral. Johan Cruijff, he said, as Barça’s supreme player in the 1970s and later as coach, had built the cathedral. The task of those who came afterwards was to renovate and update it. Guardiola is always looking for updates. If a random person in the street says something interesting about the game, Guardiola listens. He thinks about football all the time. He took ideas from another Dutch Barcelona manager, Louis van Gaal, but also from his years playing for Brescia and Roma in Italy, the home of defence. Yet because Guardiola has little desire to explain his ideas to the media, you end up watching Barça without a codebook.

Cruijff was perhaps the most original thinker in football’s history, but most of his thinking was about attack. He liked to say that he didn’t mind conceding three goals, as long as Barça scored five. Well, Guardiola also wanted to score five, but he minded conceding even one. If Barcelona is a cathedral, Guardiola has added the buttresses. In Barça’s first 28 league games this season, they have let in only 22 goals. Here are some of “Pep”’s innovations, or the secrets of FC Barcelona:

1.  Pressure on the ball
Before Barcelona played Manchester United in the Champions League final at Wembley last May, Alex Ferguson said that the way Barça pressured their opponents to win the ball back was “breathtaking”. That, he said, was Guardiola’s innovation. Ferguson admitted that United hadn’t known how to cope with it in the Champions League final in Rome in 2009. He thought it would be different at Wembley. It wasn’t.

Barcelona start pressing (hunting for the ball) the instant they lose possession. That is the perfect time to press because the opposing player who has just won the ball is vulnerable. He has had to take his eyes off the game to make his tackle or interception, and he has expended energy. That means he is unsighted, and probably tired. He usually needs two or three seconds to regain his vision of the field. So Barcelona try to dispossess him before he can give the ball to a better-placed teammate.

Furthermore, if the guy won the ball back in his own defence, and Barcelona can instantly win it back again, then the way to goal is often clear. This is where Lionel Messi’s genius for tackling comes in. The little man has such quick reflexes that he sometimes wins a tackle a split-second after losing one.

The Barcelona player who lost the ball leads the hunt to regain it. But he never hunts alone. His teammates near the ball join him. If only one or two Barça players are pressing, it’s too easy for the opponent to pass around them.

2. The “five-second rule”
If Barça haven’t won the ball back within five seconds of losing it, they then retreat and build a compact ten-man wall. The distance between the front man in the wall (typically Messi) and their last defender (say, Carles Puyol) is only 25 to 30 metres. It’s hard for any opponent to pass their way through such a small space. The Rome final was a perfect demonstration of Barcelona’s wall: whenever United won the ball and kept it, they faced eleven precisely positioned opponents, who stood there and said, in effect: “Try and get through this.”

It’s easy for Barcelona to be compact, both when pressing and when drawing up their wall, because their players spend most of the game very near each other. Xavi and Iniesta in particular seldom stray far from the ball. Cruijff recently told the former England manager Steve McClaren, now with FC Twente in Holland: "Do you know how Barcelona win the ball back so quickly? It's because they don't have to run back more than 10 metres as they never pass the ball more than 10 metres."

3. More rules of pressing
Once Barcelona have built their compact wall, they wait for the right moment to start pressing again. They don’t choose the moment on instinct. Rather, there are very precise prompts that tell them when to press. One is if an opponent controls the ball badly. If the ball bounces off his foot, he will need to look downwards to locate it, and at that moment he loses his overview of the pitch. That’s when the nearest Barcelona players start hounding him.

There’s another set prompt for Barça to press: when the opposing player on the ball turns back towards his own goal. When he does that, he narrows his options: he can no longer pass forward, unless Barcelona give him time to turn around again. Barcelona don’t give him time. Their players instantly hound the man, forcing him to pass back, and so they gain territory.

4. The “3-1 rule”
If an opposing player gets the ball anywhere near Barcelona’s penalty area, then Barça go Italian. They apply what they call the “3-1 rule”: one of Barcelona’s four defenders will advance to tackle the man with the ball, and the other three defenders will assemble in a ring about two or three metres behind the tackler. That provides a double layer of protection. Guardiola picked this rule up in Italy. It’s such a simple yet effective idea that you wonder why all top teams don’t use it.

5. No surprise
When Barcelona win the ball, they do something unusual. Most leading teams treat the moment the ball changes hands – “turnover”, as it’s called in basketball – as decisive. At that moment, the opponents are usually out of position, and so if you can counterattack quickly, you have an excellent chance of scoring. Teams like Manchester United and Arsenal often try to score in the first three seconds after winning possession. So their player who wins the ball often tries to hit an instant splitting pass. Holland – Barcelona’s historic role models – do this too.

But when a Barcelona player wins the ball, he doesn’t try for a splitting pass. The club’s attitude is: he has won the ball, that’s a wonderful achievement, and he doesn’t need to do anything else special. All he should do is slot the ball simply to the nearest teammate. Barcelona’s logic is that in winning the ball, the guy has typically forfeited his vision of the field. So he is the worst-placed player to hit a telling ball.

This means that Barcelona don’t rely on the element of surprise. They take a few moments to get into formation, and then pretty much tell their opponents, “OK, here we come.” The opposition knows exactly what Barça are going to do. The difficulty is stopping it.

The only exception to this rule is if the Barça player wins the ball near the opposition’s penalty area. Then he goes straight for goal.

6. Possession is nine-tenths of the game
Keeping the ball has been Barcelona’s key tactic since Cruijff’s day. Most teams don’t worry about possession. They know you can have oodles of possession and lose. But Barcelona aim to have 65 or 70 per cent of possession in a game. Last season in Spain, they averaged more than 72 per cent; so far this year, they are at about 70 per cent.

The logic of possession is twofold. Firstly, while you have the ball, the other team can’t score. A team like Barcelona, short on good tacklers, needs to defend by keeping possession. As Guardiola has remarked, they are a “horrible” team without the ball.

Secondly, if Barça have the ball, the other team has to chase it, and that is exhausting. When the opponents win it back, they are often so tired that they surrender it again immediately. Possession gets Barcelona into a virtuous cycle.

Barça are so fanatical about possession that a defender like Gerald Pique will weave the most intricate passes inside his own penalty area rather than boot the ball away. In almost all other teams, the keeper at least is free to boot. In the England side, for instance, it’s typically Joe Hart who gives the ball away with a blind punt. This is a weakness of England’s game, but the English attitude seems to be that there is nothing to be done about it: keepers can’t pass. Barcelona think differently.

Jose Mourinho, Real Madrid’s coach and Barcelona’s nemesis, has tried to exploit their devotion to passing. In the Bernabeu in December, Madrid’s forwards chased down Valdes from the game’s first kickoff, knowing he wouldn’t boot clear. The keeper miscued a pass, and Karim Benzema scored after 23 seconds. Yet Valdes kept passing, and Barcelona won 1-3. The trademark of Barcelona-raised goalkeepers – one shared only by Ajax-raised goalkeepers, like Edwin van der Sar – is that they can all play football like outfield players.

7. The “one-second rule”
No other football team plays the Barcelona way. That’s a strength, but it’s also a weakness. It makes it very hard for Barça to integrate outsiders into the team, because the outsiders struggle to learn the system. Barcelona had a policy of buying only “Top Ten” players – men who arguably rank among the ten best footballers on earth – yet many of them have failed in the Nou Camp. Thierry Henry and Zlatan Ibrahimovic did, while even David Villa, who knew Barcelona’s game from playing it with Spain, ended up on the bench before breaking his leg.

Joan Oliver, Barcelona’s previous chief executive, explained the risk of transfers by what he called the “one-second rule”. The success of a move on the pitch is decided in less than a second. If a player needs a few extra fractions of a second to work out where his teammate is going, because he doesn’t know the other guy’s game well, the move will usually break down. A new player can therefore lose you a match in under a second.    

Pedro isn’t a great footballer, but because he was raised in the Masia he can play Barcelona’s game better than stars from outside. The boys in the Masia spend much of their childhood playing passing games, especially Cruijff’s favorite, six against three. Football, Cruijff once said, is choreography.

Nobody else thinks like that. That’s why most of the Barcelona side is homegrown. It’s more a necessity than a choice. Still, most of the time it works pretty well.

article by: Simon Kuper - Financial Times

 

Decision Making (What the best PRO's posses and WHY amateurs don't make it) 04/02/2012

0 Comments

 

Xavi-Inesta-Messi...

Talent identification in youth soccer is an ongoing debate among the coaching community. What characteristics separate those players who will succeed at the next level from those who will struggle? Factors such as physical size, speed, fitness and technical ability are all important attributes of success. But how important? Many coaches also consider the ability to “read the game” as a critical trait. That is, “off-the-ball” skills are needed to be successful. Researchers at the University of Groningen in the Netherlands looked at this later concept as a predictor of future success. They found that the tactical ability of “positioning and deciding” is a key factor determining which players will reach the professional level and those who will not.

The study focused on elite youth players from Dutch premier league clubs who trained with their club’s talent development program. The authors note that the players’ level of performance placed them in the top 0.5% of all other players at their age. Bottom line - these were highly talented youth players preparing to play that the professional level.

At 17-18 years of age, the players were given the Tactical Skills Inventory for Sports (TACSIS) survey. This survey asks players about their knowledge of the game as well as their confidence in executing specific tactical actions. The goal is to determine their knowledge, decision-making and execution abilities performed during a match.

The players were later tracked into adulthood. At that point, they were divided into two groups based on their adult performance – those who played on a professional team (Premier or national league) and those who played for an amateur club.

The investigators found that the knowledge of the game did not differ between the players who reached the professional level and those who did not. However, those players who scored highest in the area of “positioning and deciding” as a youth player were almost seven times more likely to reach the professional level that those who scored lowest. This was especially true for the midfielders. Even though all of the players had more than 10 years of training and were some of the most talented players in the Netherlands, half of them did not reach the professional level. What separated the professional from the armatures was the ability to make correct decisions and position themselves correctly on the field.

The authors argue that tactical skills involve both the ability to decide the right action as well as the ability to execute it. That is, being able to make the right decision does not always translate into being able to carry out the right maneuver. This component is what the investigators called “positioning and deciding” and what they found to be highly important for success. For example, players may all understand what to do strategically when shifting from a 4-4-2 to a 3-4-3 system. The may also have the technical skills to execute it. However, it is the ability to put that strategy into play during the course of the match that separates the truly talented players. Positioning oneself in the right place making the right decision is essential. That is, seeing the making the correct run or playing the correct ball separates the professionals from the amateurs. In fact, the authors suggest that it may be impossible for midfielders who lack this ability to ever succeed as a professional player.

This study focused on players in the Dutch youth system that trained at the highest level. So, it is not clear if the results are applicable for identifying success at other levels. For example, does positioning and deciding ability determine which US youth players will be successful at the college level? This study suggests it might but more research is needed. Nevertheless the investigators stress that coaches should pay attention to the concept of positioning and deciding when evaluating and training young players. Given that this characteristic impacts future success, fostering that ability is essential in developing young players into successful adults.

References

Kannekens R, Elfernik-Gemser MT, Visscher C (2011) Positioning and deciding: key factors for talent development in soccer. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports, 21: 846-852.

 

Let THEM Dribble 04/02/2012

0 Comments

 

TOP DRIBBLERS...


It's one of the most common screams heard on the youth soccer fields of America: "Pass it! Pass it! Pass it!" 

Unfortunately, parents and coaches often aim their shouts at young players who are at a stage of their development when they should be encouraged to dribble. 

Becoming a confident dribbler is the first step to developing a comfort on the ball necessary to be a good passer and shooter. Discouraging young players from dribbling is like telling toddlers to shut up when they're learning to speak. 

"This whole routine of 'pass, pass, pass' is unrealistic for the young age groups and it's been pounded into so many of our kids for so long I would argue a little that it helps explain why we lack outstanding dribblers on our national teams," says Sam Snow, U.S. Youth Soccer's Director of Coaching Education. 

Former U.S. women's national team coach Tony DiCicco addresses it by saying, "Catch Them Being Good":

"At a youth soccer game you'll probably hear parents and coaches on the sidelines yelling, 'Pass the ball! Pass the ball!' ...

"When we continually tell our young players to pass the ball, we're not allowing them to develop their full potential, especially those who have the ability to take their opponents on and beat them one-on-one. As a result, we run the risk of diminishing a player's artistry and potential." 

Mia Hamm credits pickup games she played with her older brother and other children as a key to her success, because, "I was able to dribble all I wanted." 

Youth coaches often emphasize teamwork before children can comprehend the concept.

Those who sit back and let the children explore the sport at a natural pace will usually find that the players begin to ask each other for the ball. And there are ways to create a practice environment in which all the players get a share of the ball without forcing them to pass. 

Small-sided games ensure that all players are close to the action. Coaches can play along in practice and aim their passes at players who haven't gotten enough touches. You can even throw an extra ball into the scrimmage.

That passing is a crucial part of the game at the older age levels doesn't mean it should be demanded of young children.

"You can learn the tactical side of the game later," says Landon Donovan. "But if you don't learn at an early age to be good on the ball, then it's just useless."

The U.S. Soccer Federation's  point out that "At the younger ages (6 to about 10), soccer is not a team sport. On the contrary, it is a time for players to develop their individual relationship with the ball. 

"Do not demand that the more confident players share the ball. Encourage them to be creative and go to goal. Do the same for the rest of your players." 
contributed by:  By Mike Woitalla 

 

4+1 focusing on OUR future... 04/02/2012

0 Comments

 

Technical development ( Age v. Level Specific ) attention to details...

Decision Making ( how - when - where and why ) appropriate technique in the appropriate situations and proactive before it happens...

Physical prep - how to maximize a players abilities...

Develop the Mind and attributes of management on and off the field...

SOCIAL components ( player centered v. team involvement / player driven v. coach encouraged / peers good and not so good influences / parents what should be their role)

CONCLUSION, articles relating to the above with a speciality guest commentary on each wrapped up by the staff focusing on key points we should all strive to achieve !!!

 

PRACTICE to Perfection (a case study) 03/28/2012

0 Comments

 

The usual pre-congress excitement, energy, minor frustrations and chance encounters with old acquaintances tumbles around the entrance to the Leaders Sport Summit 2011. I’m greeted with the customary friendliness and courtesy that accompanies a Leaders’ welcome. As I wander with the islands of people gathering and chattering our way through to ‘congress central’ and meander past the array of exhibitors I remember the words of my colleague Mark Nesti’s recent article in The Leader, ‘Time to Get Personal’. In the article he asked the simple question, ‘what’s the purpose of attending a conference such as this?’ In some cases, the disappointment that evolves as you learn nothing new, or you leave asking yourself why these guys were asked to talk in the first place; where’s the connection to me, to the real application of this knowledge. In essence, the purpose of gathering together in such a forum is to learn, confirm and be inspired. In light of this, The Leaders’ team have asked me to reflect on what we learnt from the conference. My immediate response was yes of course. My next step was to discuss this concept with Mark. ‘What did you learn?’ Because we all will take different things away. As conference organisers, The Leaders’ team have to accept that everyone will ‘rock up’ for a different reason, we will all carry our own personal context into the conference and thus we will all take something different away. So what did ‘we’ learn? The following conversation attempts to capture the thoughts of both Mark and I as we try to make sense of what we (and perhaps others) have learnt…

Richardson: Day one begins with Matthew Syed and a presentation entitled ‘Practice Makes Perfect: or so they say’. Now, Syed is a renowned journalist and author with a passion for practice, practice, practice. Syed has also previously written an article on this very topic for The Leader. I too am an advocate for practice and hard work, but I am not so obsessed with the notion that 10 years of hard work or 10,000 hours of practice makes an elite athlete or musician or mathematician or whatever. I am a believer in the complexity of the social context the surrounds anyone’s journey to the peak of their sport or vocation. I have to admit that I haven’t read Syed’s book, Bounce. Perhaps because, I think I know its conclusion! However, I am still keen to hear what he has to say. Syed opens The Leaders in Performance conference, so he’s under a little bit of pressure to engage, perhaps some would say entertain. His presentation is slick, informative, confirmatory and in part entertaining. But what did we learn? For me, I got what I expected. I heard some confirmation of his belief in the notions of practice and hard work. I got a sense that he was almost (but not totally) anti-talent. That hard work will prevail. I am on side with this, not the anti-talent stuff, but the hard work. His presentation extended this position for me somewhat, he talked about the type and nature of practice and the need for appropriate feedback, not to instruct, but to assist and guide. These are subtle messages that are key components of the athlete’s evolution. Practicing the ‘wrong practice’ would appear somewhat nonsensical. I am also convinced by Syed’s messages to coaches, teachers and parents alike; in order to become better at something, athletes, and people, need environments that ‘stretch’ and challenge them. They also need to develop, or be encouraged to develop, an intrinsic commitment to the pursuit of their end goal. They need to enjoy it and they need to care about it. This for me is a symbiotic relationship that should travel alongside the athlete’s development and through to mastery and subsequent retirement. Ok, but what did I learn?

The message for coaches and practitioners alike was clearly for me:
Create environments that are challenging; that require athletes to ‘stretch’ but still recognise that achievement, encouragement and fun are components of the athlete’s intrinsic motivation to care about, commit to and be more likely to succeed in their chosen pursuit.

But what about Mark? He has a different biography to me, so how did he see things here? What did he learn?

Nesti: After delivering an engaging, provocative and precisely enunciated opening address to the conference Mathew Syed set the tone for the remainder of the 2 days. It always helps when you know your material thoroughly and appear to have lived its message in your own life. And if it is backed up by a great literary success then surely it would be churlish to try to pick holes in the message? Well, I think it is because I was so taken by the outstanding presentation of Mathew that I feel able to offer a few critical comments on what he had to say. Stripped back to basics, I think I heard that the concept of innate ability is not only something that can’t be proved, but even worse, it has been used as an excuse by us all (at some point or other) to evade hard work! I can’t do it because I lack the gift is a piece of self-serving drivel. It’s because you haven’t tried and tried again that you can’t do it. Deliberate practice, the 10,000 hours rule and perfect practice makes permanent success the true empirical reason behind all achievement. Not so much Sport for All, as Hard work for All!

It really made me think how real this was, and more importantly, what did it mean in relation to how we can achieve in sport. So what does the evidence say on the matter? Well, as Mathew mentioned there are few clear psychological, physiological or biomechanical measures that are able to predict talent and the future champions. Yes it is unlikely that you will become a top NBA basketball player if you stand 5 foot one in your best trainers; however, beyond this, the science does not appear to be particularly strong. But, who said that science was the only way to look at this issue? What about the empirical evidence collected over hundreds of years by millions of researchers (sometimes called people) who have worked day in and day out with youngsters in sport and other areas of achievement? Living the phenomena, reflecting on it rather than measuring it, suggests very strongly that ability is not distributed evenly and that some people have more of it than others from the start. What they do with it is quite another matter of course. Hard work, practice, good mentors, teachers and environments all play a crucial part in helping the individual person to choose to use their ability wisely rather than squander it. Of course this does not mean that those with lots of ability are better people … which is quite another (and much more important) matter!

And it is at this point where I learned something genuinely new for me. By giving the destructive myth that ability is everything the boot (thank you Mathew) surely it is important not to think that this means there is no such thing as ability at all. We have all seen it, despite what those who live in the labs may believe! Will the skewering of the excuse that I am not cut out for this lead to immense psychological problems when the new moralists blame my failures on my laziness? Work shall set you free indeed!

Richardson: The next session, takes us to a more traditional Leaders’ set up. We have the inimitable Chris Brady in the Chair alongside Lord Mervyn Davies, the former chairman of Standard Chartered and Kevin Plank, the owner and founder of Under Armour. The session promises some business lessons for those involved in sport. This is not a new concept, but the presence of such successful heavyweight business minds makes the session unmissable. We are not left disappointed. We are offered the usual stuff about developing brand, understanding your own personal values and how these influence and permeate the organisation. This is the stuff of many a text book. However, if we remind ourselves about the concepts of relevance and application as key attributes of a good conference then we have it here in abundance. Inevitably, the notion of developing mission, vision and values can appear to be an attractive managerial approach. Who are we, what are we about etc. We’ve all heard this before. The difficulty is ‘driving’ this through your organisation; making sure that everyone believes in the vision and that their day-to-day existence is beset with such values and beliefs. Mervyn’s penchant for sacking anyone, whoever they may be, if they were seen to display any connection (tangible or intangible) to a competitor’s products and/or services offered a unique insight into the ruthless drive that has led to his successful leadership. His model however, also embraced a need to cultivate such an alignment between the employee and the employer. These behaviours are not forced but refined through strategic intent and a commitment to look inwardly for talented people and enable them to evolve and develop. The need to ‘develop your own’ should not be lost on any of the talent development coaches and or performance directors present. A similar message came from Kevin. The visionary founder and owner of Under Armour was candid in his story telling. He was clear as to what Under Armour was about and where it was going. He was also clear that his staff were in for the long haul. They’d grown together. He too, was convinced about the notion of growing talent, and the importance of having a story to tell and communicating your story internally as well as externally. So what did I learn?

It’s no good having a vision if you cannot translate this to others so that others do as you would do.

Lead by example. Tell your story.

Be committed to developing loyal and devoted staff resource.

I’m conscious that these are key management and business messages. But we all know that business and management is an amalgam of many sub components including psychology, sociology, culture, history, tradition etc. So, is my existential psychologist friend with me on this one, or does he have a different view?

Nesti: Well Dave, it’s kind of the same but different (I know, this is what gives psychologists a bad name… but then the more qualified you are the more you know stuff is complex and you realise that quick fix ideas and simplistic self-help books tend to smother the truth rather than revealing it!). Ok, so what was my take on this stimulating and lively debate? Identity, identity, identity! It was the European existential phenomenological psychologists well before Freud and his medical friends who said that the most important motivation in life is to find meaning. In more straightforward terms they claimed the big questions are, who am I, what do I stand for, and what does this mean? Much of our personality, motivations and goals relate to this. They argued that to be the best we needed to be ourselves and that to do this we first needed to know who we were. More controversially, they suggested that due to many complex reasons people in the modern world were less sure of whom they were and as a consequence suffered from an identity crisis. They argued that it is this that lies at the heart of the vast increase in psychological illness and disturbance we have witnessed in the last century.

Although their focus was on the individual, this idea is profound when considered at the level of organisations or culture. The rather scary discussion between the panellists about sacking employees who did not always eat, sleep and live the company brand maybe only makes real sense against the deeper discussions about identity. In some ways I managed to get past the sobering thought that I would deserve to be removed even if I had a competitors garment on under my suit because my proper gear was in the wash. I did this by reminding myself about that rarely heard word, vocation. It sounded to me that what was being said to us was that we need to live our vocations. This resonated with me in relation to the best sport organisations where the staff are not in a job, pursuing a career or earning a salary, but doing all these and more. It is more than this. This is what differentiates a job from a vocation. A vocation demands the whole of you without reservation. It rests on intrinsic motivation, that is something you chose freely to do and where you enjoy the feelings of doing something well! I would love to be in the HR part of the businesses of these two highly successful individuals, promoting staff and rewarding them for being more than their work for making it personal and about who they really are! Inspirational as an ideal. But then that’s what an ideal is meant to be!

Richardson: The business end of Leaders in Performance continues after lunch with ‘Managing Success: Fail to Plan, Plan to Fail.’ One could argue that there was a certain irony behind the title of the session and the respective members of the panel. Arnesen has successfully developed a career as a Sporting Director however, whilst he received some plaudits for discovering players such as van Nistelrooy, Arjen Robben, Flourent Malouda, Obi Mikkel he was, apparently, blamed for the lack of youth in Chelsea’s first team. Indeed, his departure from Chelsea was reportedly announced prior to his eventual sacking. Comolli, too has endured mixed reviews throughout his tenures as European Scout at Arsenal through to becoming Director of Football at Liverpool. Indeed, the very notion of having two Sporting Directors from the world of football talking about planning seems ironic in itself. The world of football isn’t exactly renowned for its ability to plan ahead. Indeed, football is more recognised for its short-termism, ad-hoc, volatile and emotive decision-making than any engagement with planning. So, how do Arnesen and Comolli survive the present whilst planning for the long term? In essence we learn that both Arnesen and Comolli have graduated from scouting roles to Sporting Director roles within their relatively short careers. We also get a sense that Arnesen’s move to Hamburg SV provides him with, what would appear to be, a more secure position. In essence, the German organisational model puts him at the strategic apex of the club. He provides the bridge from the football to the Board, yet it is he who is responsible for the search, hiring (and firing) and line management of the manager. In this sense, he has found a place that affords him an opportunity to plan for the long term. Comolli is similarly positioned, as Liverpool’s Director of Football, within the strategic apex of the club. He appears fortunate in that he has been specifically recruited by the Fenway Sports Group to put strategy in place. His role is to plan for the long term. In this, he embraces the academy and the first team as part of his remit. In this regard, we learn that the ability to plan is a function of the provision of long term assurances that those around you (i.e., the board, the chief executive and the owners) have the wherewithal, stamina, strength and courage to carry this through with you. If, after a couple of defeats or the first signs of unease from the fans, these so called ‘backers’ of your strategy capitulate then you may as well have no plan. If you have no plan, then you have no goals so you can’t (technically) fail!

Note: As of the 10th October, Frank Arnesen became the head coach of Hamburg SV. I can only wonder whether he will sack himself if things don’t go to plan!

Nesti: This one for me had quite a different feel to it than the other presentations, Dave. I know you think psychologists are too focused on things like individual mood and emotion at the expense of context but this time it was important. The delivery of each speaker was precise, controlled and dispassionate. They spoke about some very tough and crucial areas like how to make sure the owners of the business were satisfied that their money and that of the club was being spent wisely. They talked in some detail about the importance of planning, and of maintaining a long term view in what is invariably a volatile and short term culture. As football men however, this was no lecture on the principles of management accountancy and models of strategic development. In my opinion Frank and Damien walked steadily and purposely along the tightrope-between the need to use hard data and recognition about the value of what we sometimes call craft knowledge. They emphasised that in areas like recruitment for example, decisions should be guided by stats, profiles, and the scouting eye. It is not and never can be either/or, but both, even where the information acquired seems contradictory.

Their posts, if not necessarily the post holders, are often portrayed negatively in the sport in certain quarters, and are sometimes denigrated by the media and fans. But then it is always difficult when you are introducing new ideas and ways of working, especially in traditional cultures like professional football. Both handled questions from the floor in an assured way. One in particular that showed the value of their work in a very vivid way! This was a triumph for the rational, systematic approach, but tempered by a real awareness that football is not just a business but is more than this, a source of deep meaning in many people’s lives and something they care about passionately.

This session was to my mind about professionalism and what it means to be called a professional. I know this was not in the title they gave but it was in the talk they delivered. And what they said sounded very much like what you would expect to hear in any professional organisation, whether it be in health, business or education. Is this not needed in professional football and other sports too? Are we sure things are really so very different? I for one am not convinced.

Richardson: Day one draws to a close with the piece de resistance. The appearance of Mark Cavendish offered the audience an autobiographical account of what makes a winner. Appearing shy, retiring, almost nervous with the situation he found himself in, alongside his interviewer Jeremy Snape he talks about his childhood and his natural affinity with the bike, especially his first bike, with great fondness. He recounted his natural ability to win everything, even without trying, or so it seemed. Then he provided some context to this, ‘not quite trying’, it would appear that he went everywhere on his bike, entered every competition going including over-aged competition, pitting himself against older, bigger and stronger cyclists yet still winning. Some may say that he was continually ‘stretching’ himself. His humility is graced with immense self-confidence and an undoubted ability to plan his journey to the top of cycling. He recounts the decision he made at the age of 16 years to find work so that when he gets to 18 years of age he can pay his way to France or Belgium where the great cycle teams were based. He even recounts learning French so that he could communicate with his coaches and peers when he arrived, he also decided to learn German when he learnt that the German based professional cycling outfit, Team-Telekom, changed its name to T-Mobile! Such maturity and self-assured belief in his own destiny were evidenced throughout his interview. However, he also offered a sense that this did not come easy. He was forever under-performing during lab-based speed and/or endurance assessments offered by the sports scientists. The non-conformist is not a fan of such tests. Indeed, such tests did not ‘replicate’ the reality of his cycling technique, so he was bound to underperform! However, despite such poor lab performance, it was clear that Cavendish was a student of cycling and student of his fiercest rivals. His devotion to winning demands an intellectual pursuit for the most intricate detail that will discriminate him from his rival. He would spend hours either studying course maps, or more recently Google street maps, to ensure that he knew every bend, turn or junction of his route. He would study his rivals so that he knew their every move, their every tactic. He would memorise such movements and plan his strategy accordingly. Along the way, he is ruthless, brutal and clinical in his pursuit of victory. Nothing else matters. It would appear that his devotion to the collation of such intricate detail alongside his natural ability, dare I say talent, his ruthless racing demeanour and the fact that he just loves his sport would be critical components of his success.

For me, and hopefully, the other pseudo psychologists, and real psychologists, in the room would have learnt more from Cavendish’s autobiographical journey than any text book or research paper could ever offer. Indeed, if conference goers can take one thing away then it is that we all need to learn from Cavendish, the so called fiery rogue, the alleged non-conformist is a person ruthlessly committed to his personal journey. If we can apply just a small proportion of this, then we will be continually better at what we do. What do you think Mark?

Nesti: Right Dave, as you said, this was not one for the amateur psychologists out there! This was amongst other things an indictment about sport science, a critique of sport psychology and a challenge to our cultural fear of success. A bit extreme? Somewhat over stated? Let me try to convince you otherwise.

Listening to this passionate and thoughtful athlete brought home to me once again why I love sport at times. This was someone who sounded so very similar to the Nobel prize winners, top CEO’s and sport stars that the eminent American psychologist, Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi, described in his research into flow and peak performance. Whatever else he may not share with some of these high achieving people, he does possess their capacity for paradox. Listening to Mark Cavendish as he warmed to his task we heard what at times sounded like the most confident person to walk the earth and at others as someone full of humility. To take the stage and deliver an unscripted and searchingly honest account to a diverse audience, many of whom, myself included, are not deeply knowledgeable about cycling, takes real humility. His authenticity and ability to ‘lose himself’ in the answer is in stark contrast to the contrived and artificial dialogue we hear too often, even from some other great performers in the world of big people’s play, or sport as we like to call it.

The account of being tested by the physiologist who failed to see that data must always be interpreted carefully and in context was a warning about the perils of measuring for measuring’s sake. This short tale was deeply disappointing to hear (but maybe not too much of a surprise) for those of us who want our sport scientists to be scientist-practitioners rather than mechanics and technicians! The number of times I have listened to these stories from athletes in my sport psychology sessions but never have I heard it said so powerfully and out in the open. I just love the idea of someone making the mistake of failing a world champion in the laboratory where we know the medals are rarely won! It made me wonder how many have been written off by poorly educated professors and their post-doctoral assistants who have failed to see the wood for the trees.

For fairness sake the Cav attack (he didn’t know he was doing this I suspect) on academic sport psychology was quite sensational. How did he manage to describe in incredible detail the visualisation he carries out before he races to allow him to anticipate his competitor’s moves? It was a master class in the power of mental imagery. But how is it he managed all this without having been trained by a sport psychologist over many years? It couldn’t just be that when we love something (intrinsic motivation), want to be the best (extrinsic motivation), and think we are good at something (perceived competence), that we can’t help but daydream about it day and night! His account reminded me that if we want to know what the best is, we need simply to ask the best. No need to search for it with funny psychometrics and questionnaires with obscure terminology, just speak to the people!

Oh, and I nearly forgot! Mark Cavendish ended our first day with a very un-British, maybe it would be more culturally and historically correct to say, un-English sentiment. You see, he is good, that is, very very good, and he seems to think it is Ok to acknowledge this. Yes we have all been brought up with that admirable phrase about pride before a fall, but what about our national aversion to the idea that we should sometimes welcome a candid and honest self-assessment from our champions themselves. After all, it is not just sport psychologists who talk about the importance of self-confidence for success. It seems that we would rather keep it to ourselves. You know the style, impassive and smug! How refreshing that our greatest ever cyclist cannot be accused of being smug. The smug are those who disdain the rest of us so much they can’t even bother to tell us how great they are! Well, with the beautiful account of how to deal with the physical pains and mental torture on the road, we heard another paradox (or so it may appear). In answer to the question of how can you handle the pain, Cavendish turned it on its head by saying that he was lucky! Yes, lucky compared to his team who work harder than him to get him to the front, and who miss out on the glory. How could I look at these guys in the eyes after they’ve suffered for me in the Alpine climbs and never ending flat plains of the Tour?

And finally we heard the paradox of being someone dedicated to detail without losing sight of the bigger picture, of being utterly ruthless in his focus and simultaneously prepared to experiment and act spontaneously. Really, we ended our day in the company of someone who was humble enough to share his story so far with us. Refreshingly real, inspirational and very human, quite a rare experience in our increasingly commoditised, homogenised, artificially enhanced, shallow and flat cultural landscape. A character sent to enliven our world of smooth bureaucracy and corporate common sense…….! And just look at where that has got us?

Richardson: Ok Mark, so we’re agreed that Cav was pretty enlightening. Let’s try to finish off with a few reiterations of key characteristics:

Meticulous in detail, love your sport, humble yet ruthless, clinical even. Respectful yet aware and acknowledges that he is good, no great at what he does…

Key message from me, just listen to Cav’s story again online!


POSTED by Leaders 11.2011

 

FCB Way - Part II 02/20/2012

0 Comments

 

Before the 2011 Champions League final between Barcelona and Manchester United, an irritating article appeared in the Wall Street Journal, which told us that we -- meaning, one gathers, almost everyone except the authors -- don't know what we're watching: “But here is something most people don't know about Barcelona: Unlike every other famous soccer team in the world that thrives on possession and ball control, they do something unique during matches. They run as if their bikini briefs are on fire.” 

This far from original observation was backed up by a totally unconvincing stat which held that, during its six knockout-round games in the Champions League, Barca’s players had run a total of 390 miles, while its opponents had run “only” 380 miles, a difference of a mere 3 percent, surely not statistically significant, but which was then built up into a claim that Barca’s “central weapon, and perhaps its defining strength, is what happens when the other team does get its cleats on the ball ...” In other words, Barca’s strength is defense. 

In the sense that attack is the best form of defense, that may well be true. But only if, as with Barcelona, the attack is sustained, intelligent, skillful. Are we supposed to ignore the beauty that involves while we tick off, from our handy list of coaching essentials, work rate and tackles? 

But those are the sort of observations, backed up by bad stats, or by badly interpreted stats, that occur so easily to people who seem intent on downplaying the skillful side of the game. People to whom the success of a team like Barcelona will remain a mystery -- and evidently an annoyance -- unless it can be explained in puerile defensive terms. 

What Barcelona has been doing these past few years is to emphasize that in soccer it is a mistake to even think that offense and defense are separate compartments of the game. The two are intertwined in almost every move of the game, a mutual reliance that involves the inevitable problem: to bolster one aspect is to deprive the other. It is the abiding curse of the modern game that it is now enveloped in a cloying mist of cautious play brought about by an overemphasis on defense. 

Barca, for sure, has its defensive qualities. Separating them out from the team’s overall attacking style is not an easy -- nor necessarily a useful -- exercise. To acclaim them as the bedrock of Barcelona’s style and of its success is simply fatuous. 

Equally absurd -- and another of the carefully constructed coaching myths, most of them designed to underline the importance of coaching -- is the idea that star players are somehow damaging to a team, that star players are always selfish, that a team is better off with out them. 

Barca is the greatest example we have right now of a team that plays as a team, as a tightly knit unit that knows how to play -- simultaneously -- offense and defense. It is also a team that has a collection of superb individual stars. Including, of course, the greatest individual player to be seen in today’s game, Lionel Messi. 

Analyzing Messi is like dissecting Mozart or Rembrandt or Tolstoy -- the results are always unsatisfactory, always counter-productive, for they leave us with something so much less impressive than what we started with. Is it helpful, or in any way rewarding to separate Messi into a sequence of muscular movements, of lightning synaptic connections? Or to make him sound like a coaching manual, nothing but a collection of tactical platitudes, which will inevitably end up praising him because he does his defensive duties, because he tracks back? 

If it is agreed that Messi is a soccer genius -- and this seems now to be the widely held opinion -- then any sort of materialistic analysis is not going to bring understanding. Genius does not abide by the accepted guidelines, the usual measuring sticks, the standard scientific norms. Speaking of Messi, his coach Pep Guardiola said, somewhat tautologically, “I think his genius is impossible to describe. That’s why he is a genius.” Which is more or less what the 19th century essayist William Hazlitt had in mind with his “rules and models destroy genius and art.” 

The message is that Messi, the superstar on this wonderful Barcelona team, should be left alone to do what he instinctively does. But genius in soccer cannot be an isolated talent, it can only flourish in the group, in the team. A fact that gives the macho brigade yet another opening to downgrade skill as they claim that the star’s life is made easy by others who are doing “the dirty work” for him -- a phrase clearly meant to position the star as an effete Little Lord Fauntleroy and the “workers” as brave heroes who should really be getting the praise. 

That is another coaching shibboleth utterly laid to waste by Barcelona. Who are the “workers” on Barca, these industrious slaves whose only purpose is to spend all their time feeding the ball to Messi? Xavi and Iniesta, maybe? Oh, come on -- two players who, while not in the Messi class, have considerable claim to dwell among the second tier of soccer geniuses. Where was this “dirty work” anyway, in a game during which Barcelona committed only five fouls? 

ManU’s Alex Ferguson, right after he had seen his champion team made to look very ordinary indeed, praised Barcelona as the best team he’s ever faced in all his long coaching career (it began back in 1974) and gave us, in five monosyllabic words, a terse but all-embracing comment on their style: “They play the right way ...” 

One can hear a certain wistfulness in that praise, a regretful look back by Ferguson to the glory days of Scottish soccer, the soccer he must recall from his boyhood or from the tales told by his elders of the traditional Scottish soccer of highly skilled attacking players and an on-the-ground, short-passing style. That was the right way, but as far as the Scots are concerned, it has sadly faded away, to be nothing more than a romantic memory. 

But not for Ferguson -- there’s no doubt that his ManU teams have always been more skilled than the average English team, have always included a greater emphasis on talented attacking players.

Ferguson’s teams undoubtedly try to play soccer the right way, but within a hostile environment he has had to compromise to live with the traditional thud-and-blunder requirements of the English domestic game. 

Last Saturday, Ferguson saw -- well, suffered, I suppose -- the beautiful, majestic power of Barcelona. “They do mesmerize you with their passing,” he said. He praised Barca’s style laconically, but with real feeling. This was “the right way.” 

So where do we go from here? A more skilled, closer-to-Barca, ManU? Possibly. A much wider attempt by coaches everywhere to adopt Barca’s style -- which has shown that it is not only a delight to the eye, but is a winner, too? Alas, that seems doubtful -- the dead mass of conventional coaching opinion and what passes for original thinking within the profession will find proof, yet again, either that the Barca way doesn’t really work, or that it is a fluke, and we shall be back to the glutinous platitudes of the coaching manuals, the very ones that ... “destroy genius and art.” 

No one is saying that playing “the right way” is the easy approach. It is, in fact, the greatest of soccer’s challenges and, as such, it is the only worthwhile one. Ferguson says he is ready for it. How many other coaches will follow his lead?

 

How they do it - FCB Way 02/08/2012

0 Comments

 

Barcelona 3 Manchester United 1. How can a game between the champions of England, the legendary ManU, and the champions of Spain, the equally esteemed Barca, possibly turn out to be a mismatch?

But such was the superiority of Barca, such the increasing tameness of ManU’s response, that the word drowns out one’s attempt to resist it. If Barcelona was playing soccer, then what was ManU playing, because there certainly did seem to be a fundamental difference in what each team’s players did with the ball.

When Barca was in possession the ball stayed mostly on the ground, mostly nursed and cuddled and prodded and yes, sometimes, caressed, by Barcelona feet. The caressing came, mostly, from the sublime Lionel Messi.  

This is the point at which one can always expect a baying interruption from those irritating macho types whose troublesome hormones demand that they mock those words, that they insist, as Italy’s Claudio Gentile once famously did, that soccer is not a game for ballerinas, and that, as they sing the praises of red-blooded soccer, they are also proving that any less robust style -- the classic Brazil, or Barca for instance -- lacks the super-necessary physicality.

The argument is, of course, pathetic. Neither Brazil nor Barca lacks a strong physical presence, and no one is saying that you can play top class soccer without that. What Barca was saying - shouting - on Saturday was that physicality is merely the foundation, a given, in fact, to which the unique soccer skills must be carefully added . . . to produce a game that is recognizably soccer and not merely a test of strength and stamina and machismo, a game in which the skills and artistry of soccer are paramount, a game in which those qualities are what you notice, a game in which the physical element is always secondary, always the means, not the end.

I shouldn’t say always -- we know there’s no such word in soccer. There are bound to be occasions when muscle alone suffices, but for a team determined to play skillful soccer, those occasions will be infrequent.

A team such as Barcelona, in other words. How many times on Saturday did we see the Catalans powerfully belting the ball any-old-where, or committing crudely physical fouls? Or even simply running frenetically about, as though determined to prove that they have that current coaching solve-all, a high work rate (another physical measure, incidentally, not necessarily connected to any known soccer skill)?

This is not to say that ManU were guilty of all those gaucheries -- merely to point out that they were a lot closer to them than Barcelona. Why would that be?

We can start to probe ManU’s ineffective performance by casting an eye over the starting line up -- where what strikes one immediately is the lack of brain-power in midfield. Muscle, yes, from Michael Carrick -- and work rate, yes, from the non-stop Park Ji-Sung -- -- and speed and trickiness, yes, from Antonio Valencia. Which left the brainwork to the 37-year-old Ryan Giggs -- a role that he comprehensively flunked, partly because he looked his age, but mostly, I think, because it was beyond him in the first place. Giggs is yet another of those good players whom the Brits turn into great players -- simply on the strength of performances within the English league.

You also know that buried in the selection process by which that midfield came about was the perceived need for at least one ball-winner, those rugged, hard-tackling midfielders so typical of the English game. Enter Carrick. 

Which was something of a joke. To win the ball you need to be able to tackle, or to move quickly enough to pull off interceptions. So, seriously, one has to wonder just what sort of scouting report Alex Ferguson was working on when he decided to rely on Carrick, Park and Valencia to first win the ball and then to hold on to it when confronted with an opposing midfield that is notorious for its dizzying passing patterns and its tenacious and skillful possession.

Pause for a momentary glimpse of the stats: Possession - Barca 63 percent, ManU 37 percent.  

Enough said? No, not at all -- because there is possession that is nothing more than repeated lateral and backward passes, easy passes, that accomplish little other than to improve the stats -- and there is possession with purpose, attacking purpose. If that factor can be built into the stats, if the stats are re-named Attacking Possession, or if we could have -- which I have not seen -- the “Possession in the Attacking Third” stat -- Barca’s advantage would be even more overwhelming.

The failings of ManU’s banal midfield are brutally revealed by the contrast with what went on in Barca’s midfield. Who was Barca’s ball-winner? Did they need one?  Maybe it was Sergio Busquets, perhaps the least skilled of the Barca squad, but he was never called upon to exert any physical presence, it simply wasn’t necessary for a team that has Xavi and Andres Iniesta buzzing around in the crucial area. You can, should you feel so inclined, sit back and admire the phenomenal work rate of those two players ... but it is more than likely that their superb ability to keep the ball rolling smoothly along the grass, their passing skill and accuracy -- their playmaking ability, the very ability that went missing in the ManU midfield -- is what will dazzle you. As it should. 

In particular, that bit about the ball being kept on the ground. It is a banal observation that Barca is “not a big team.” Its three key players -- Messi, Xavi and Andres Iniesta -- are comparative midgets. Confronting them, at the heart of the ManU defense, stood two imposing center backs, Rio Ferdinand and Nemanja Vidic, both 6-foot-2 tall. Yet that huge height advantage, considered so important for English Premier League play, counted for nothing on Saturday. Barca kept the ball where it surely belongs in soccer -- on the ground. The build-up to all three goals was on the ground, two of the scoring shots were ground balls. Only David Villa’s curling shot for the third goal was airborne.

You could say that Barca plays to its strength -- that it gets the best out of its wee players by keeping the ball on the ground. Possibly -- though it is much more intriguing to view things the other way round. What if the vision of a style, of a quick-moving ground-based game, came first? What if it was that vision that allowed those three wonderful players to develop? Players who, without Barca’s devotion to the ground game, might well, given the current obsession with size, have been rejected as “too small”?

By Paul Gardner 

 

FC Barcelona (youth academy insight) 01/25/2012

0 Comments

 

FC BARCELONA WERE CROWNED UEFA CHAMPIONS LEAGUE WINNERS, AND THE SPOTLIGHT WAS MAINLY ON THEIR FOREIGN STARS. WHAT MAY HAVE GONE UNNOTICED WAS THAT NINE OF THE BARCA UEFA CHAMPIONS LEAGUE SQUAD WERE HOME-GROWN PLAYERS, INCLUDING CAPTAIN CARLES PUYOL, LIONEL MESSI, VICTOR VALDES AND ANDRES INIESTA. BARCELONA'S YOUTH ACADEMY HAS THEREFORE BEEN AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE CLUB AND ITS SUCCESS. THE DIRECTOR OF THE YOUTH PROGRAMME IS JOSE RAMON ALEXANCO, A STAR WITH FC BARCELONA FOR 13 YEARS. HIS RECORD INCLUDES CAPTAINING THE EUROPEAN CUP WINNING SIDE IN 1992, COLLECTING TWO EUROPEAN CUP WINNERS' CUPS, FOUR SPANISH CUPS, FOUR SPANISH LEAGUE TITLES, TWO SPANISH SUPERCOPAS, AND TWO UEFA SUPER CUPS. THE MAN WHO STARTED OUT AT ATHLETIC BILBAO AND REPRESENTED THE BASQUE CLUB IN THE UEFA CUP FINAL AGAINST JUVENTUS PLAYED FOR LEGENDARY COACHES SUCH AS KUBALA, HERRERA, LATTEK, MENOTTI AND CRUYFF, BEFORE BEGINNING HIS COACHING CAREER UNDER THE WATCHFUL EYE OF BARCA LEGEND JOHAN CRUYFF. TODAY JOSE RAMON ALEXANCO USES ALL HIS EXPERIENCE AS A PLAYER, COACH AND SCOUT TO RECRUIT AND DEVELOP PLAYERS FOR FC BARCELONA. HE IS KNOWN TO HIS COLLEAGUES AND FRIENDS SIMPLY AS...Alex

1 How would you describe FC Barcelona's development philosophy and goals?

The first thing is to develop a footballer - we are not looking for results. We try to develop the footballer and the person, both socially and intellectually. We are living and working with kids from 12 to 19 years and we have to be 'parents', teachers and coaches, and we know we have a responsibility for leading them correctly in social terms. We organise meetings with the parents, and it is very important that we explain to them what we are doing with their children during the hours we spend with them at the club. We get excellent support from all the parents because they know exactly what their children are doing at any given time.

2 What is the organisation and structure of the Barca academy?

We have a coordinator who oversees the development of players between the ages of 10 and 15. They all get match play, but it is at the older level that you get more of a competitive element. We prepare them in the younger categories to be able to compete when they get older. It is at the 16 years and over stage that we concentrate on the technical, tactical and physical requirements which will equip them for the first team. The technical leaders of the club prepare the guidelines for all the training sessions. In the current first team squad, nine of the players have come through the Barca academy programme. Young Lionel Messi, for example, arrived here from Argentina when he was 12 years old. His family came to Barcelona to live and, soon after, he started training with the club. At FC Barcelona, we have 12 boys' teams and eight women's teams, although the latter are in a separate section. In the academy, each squad has two coaches and there are 23 or 24 players in each group. At least half of the coaches have a UEFA Pro licence. The club provides the budget, around six million euros per year, and is fully responsible for the academy facilities and training programme.

3 How do you deal with the grassroots and the recruitment process?

Firstly, we concentrate on technical/tactical work. We play football. We have a football school where kids can play from the age of six upwards - this is a grassroots phase below the academy structure, with 16 to 20 coaches working there. They all travel here to the club's training centre. We also have about 30 clubs throughout Catalonia that cooperate with us on a regular basis. There are also nursery teams which develop the grassroots. Barca has 25 scouts throughout Spain - at least one in each province. Elsewhere in Europe, we also have people who watch games and send us reports.

Obviously scouting and recruitment are important parts of our job. At least twice a year, we bring all our scouts to Barcelona because it is important that they see the standard of work we do here. We hold workshops and explain the criteria and the quality we are looking for in young players.

4 What qualities do you look for in a young player?

We search for players with the extremely high standard that is required by this club. We look for pace, technique, and someone who looks like a player. The speed of decision-making, the way he approaches the game, the vision to pick off a long pass - in other words, the mental qualities to go with the technical ability. These days, we do put an emphasis on speed because we think it is one of the fundamental qualities required, and when this speed is combined with top-quality technique, then we think we have the ingredients.

5 Cesc Fabregas was one of your talented academy boys. Why did he leave?

When a boy reaches 15 years old and his family decides to move residence, then under Spanish law he can go, and only a small amount of compensation for training and education can be claimed. Cesc Fabregas took advantage of this ruling and when he was 16 years old he simply moved to London with his parents. This was classed as a relocation of the family, and there was nothing we could do to stop him signing for Arsenal FC. We have just lost another two of our players - one to Manchester United and another one to Arsenal. The only thing we can do is to project the image of the Barcelona club to the youngster and his parents. We sell the idea that this is one of the best clubs in the world and let each player know that he has a great opportunity to develop by working with us. We try to create a wonderful environment for the players' football education. We hope they will stay, but legally there is nothing we can do about it if they decide to move. Cesc Fabregas could very easily have been playing here in our first team, but all we can do is keep looking for talented players and creating the best conditions for their development.

6 What is your games programme and your approach to training?

The boys play one match a week, Saturday or Sunday, and sometimes we have friendly games during the week against touring sides - many teams from places such as Africa and South America come here and want to play against our boys. We also have many of our players selected for the various national squads (even as low as Under- 12s), and therefore we have some weeks when players from every level up to Under-21 are away on international duty. In our assessment, some kids play too many games in a season. With our teams we also take part in tournaments at Easter and pre-season, and we have to be careful not to accept too many invitations. So during the season a lot of our players can play as many as three games a week. We have a close contact with the schools to get the players released for training. With players aged 12 years and upwards, we bring some of them into our residential school in La Masia, although we prefer them to be at least 14 years old before they leave home. We have about 60 youngsters in our centre at any given time. Carles Puyol, the first team captain, is a graduate of La Masia.

Regarding our methods, we use the same playing system as the first team, so all our youth teams operate a 4/3/3 formation. The development teams have to reflect the personality of the first team. This also means we have to play attacking, attractive football. Our view is that if we do everything well, the winning comes as a consequence.

By the time a player reaches 16 years, we try to have him in his best position, but we like to keep an open mind and not be too restrictive when the players are developing. We like to expose them to different playing roles as part of their education.

We have two coaching coordinators, plus two coaches with each team, and all of us are on the field every day. We work intensely on the individual skill, but also on group play, including each line of the team. We train the Barca way which involves fast movement of the ball, player mobility, use of the width, and a lot of fast, effective finishing. We get them to watch the passing movements of the first team as they provide the role model for the youth teams.

7 How do you re-train your staff coaches?

It is a continuous process for us which includes roundtable discussions. At these meetings we analyse everything and make suggestions about our training programmes. We are always trying to improve, always learning - and, of course, searching for good players who can one day play in the blue and red of FC Barcelona.

BY ANDY ROXBURGH

 

Do You Admire FC BARCELONA (attention to detail) 12/12/2011

0 Comments

 

BARCELONA’S superstar factory has a production line that is the envy of the world.And SunSport has been granted unprecedented access as the Catalan giants opened their doors to showcase football’s most successful youth system.

Boss Pep Guardiola’s side have been dubbed ‘the best team of all time’ for their epic success in the last three years.



CARD SHARP ... young ValdesLeo Messi, Andres Iniesta, Carles Puyol, Victor Valdes, Pedro, Xavi, Gerard Pique, Sergio Busquets, Bojan Krkic and Jeffren all came through Barca’s youth set-up.

The 10 of them will be in the squad for next Wednesday’s Champions League showdown at Arsenal — and eight will start.

Each is a product of what Barca call ‘futbol base’.

Today, it numbers 330 kids and hundreds of employees, costing the club upwards of £10million a year.

Central to that is La Masia, the ‘chalet’ adjacent to the Nou Camp stadium where 60 top talents — those whose families live in remote parts of Spain or abroad — reside in the hope of making the first team.

An inauspicious, two-storey building, it has one dining room, six bedrooms, a library, a computer room and a recreation room.

Just 12 of the kids sleep in the building. The rest have dormitories in the first floor of the stadium, a mere 30 yards away.

Messi, Iniesta, Puyol, Valdes and Pedro lived at La Masia for years. Krkic and Jeffren were also residents, while Xavi went there for meals, so the club could monitor his diet. Pique and Busquets lived with their families elsewhere in the city.

Guardiola spent years at La Masia as well in the 1980s before becoming a legend as a player. So did his No 2, Tito Vilanova, and the man who today heads the youth set-up, Guillermo Amor — another former Spain international. All three were in the same class of 1986-87 and today this trio runs every aspect of the club from the footballing side.



BRIGHT SPARKS ... Barca's kids live and breathe the clubA quarter of a century on, they ensure the continuity in a philosophy of excellence, both sporting and human, that has been established within the Spanish giants.

Other one-time La Masia residents include Arsenal skipper Cesc Fabregas, Liverpool keeper Pepe Reina, Everton midfielder Mikel Arteta and Atletico Madrid’s ex-Arsenal midfielder Fran Merida. The list is endless.

Even Nayim, the former Tottenham midfielder most famous for a 45-yard Euro strike against Arsenal in 1995 while with Real Zaragoza, came through the Barca ranks.

Albert Folguera, the head of La Masia, outlined the club’s approach.

He said: “It’s a system of director, teachers, a doctor, a psychologist, cooks and other workers. There are three teachers, who work in the evening with the children.

“There’s also a chief of studies and another administrative person who manages all the purchases, tickets and all the kinds of thing the children need for their recreation and studies. We also have three cooks and six kitchen staff.”

Current maestros like Xavi and Iniesta always rave about their La Masia years.

Folguera added: “Xavi speaks about values we instil here — sharing things, camaraderie, friendship, laughter. You can’t learn that, you live it.

“Do we have problems of adaptation with some kids? Obviously. They come here aged 12 and are away from their families. It’s difficult but it’s part of the process.



CLASS ACT ... next stars listen up“For Iniesta, the first months were a real struggle. He missed his family, 700km away in Albacete, terribly.

“Leo Messi also. His mother and brother were in Argentina. He was only 12, had growth problems and couldn’t play official matches for a year because of a documentation problem. It was soul-destroying for him.

“Victor Valdes had to go home after a season. He missed his family so much.

“Here, we manage emotions. To be made to feel at home and to be among so many people makes the children not feel isolated.

“It’s more like a family. The doctor, the psychologists, the teachers and, at times, the coaches come here to eat, so the kids feel more supported.

“All the current stars who suffered away from their loved ones became great champions. They had the character and guts to overcome the difficulties.”

Surprisingly, most of the day is spent on school studies. Only two hours are devoted to training in the evening — and ‘always with the ball’.

Folguera declared: “This is the best time for La Masia since it was created in 1979 and also in Barca’s history.

“The three men responsible for every aspect of FC Barcelona grew up in this home. The first team has 10 players from the academy, the majority of them from La Masia.

“In Barcelona B, the reserves, 12 players go to university.”

Outside the windows, the only thing the talented interns can see during their long hours of study and additional home teaching, all paid for by the club, is the Nou Camp. A dream within touching distance and yet so far.

Only a fraction make it to the very top but they prepare the kids to be well rounded, well educated individuals first and athletes second.



Their education will allow them to make it in other areas if, in the end, their talent is not enough or an injury prevents them from realising their ambition.

All under the watchful eye of Guardiola. Folguera said: “I speak with Amor once a week and he informs Guardiola. Pep was here 10 days ago and we had a chat about everything. He does that a few times a year.

“Since Pep has been the coach, more 17 to 18-year-olds have trained with the first team than in the entire 32-year history of La Masia. He is the first to correct them and advise them.

“The first thing Guardiola, their youth coach and I tell them when they come back is, ‘Listen. Now when you return to the youth team you have to be the one who works harder than anyone else. Don’t get carried away’.”

Competition is fierce and, once deemed good enough to enter the youth set-up, some pushy parents become desperate for their offspring to continue right to the top. That is why the club has banned mums and dads from training.

Folguera concluded: “La Masia is about education at all times — in the dining room, at training, in the home teaching classes.

“We tell parents, ‘What we will value in your son is character, humility, hard work and discipline. But we also want him to have fun on the pitch, to have creativity and freedom of spirit.

“If you transmit that to your kid, and I transmit the same values too, that is what your son will grow up to be like.

“Xavi comes here all the time to talk, listen and advise the youngsters. Andres comes when the kids are away at school and brings boots and all kinds of equipment. They all do. They still feel part of the family.”


RSS - SUN

 

UEFA surveys youth players - 11/09/2011

0 Comments

 

Top 5 Reasons Kids Quit Playing Youth Football

Few parents want their kids to up and quit an activity they’re good at or used to enjoy. It’s hard watching your player lose their love of youth sports and decide it just isn’t for them anymore. As parents we can’t influence kids to play youth sports, but we can do our best to understand why sports just don’t have the appeal that they used to. Here are the top five reasons most kids quit playing youth sports:


1. They lost interest.

Sometimes it seems kids have the attention span of minutes not hours. One minute they dream of being the next Messi and their room is full of football memorabilia, the next they want to be something else and football is replaced with an other attention getter (eg) video games. 

2. It was no longer fun.

It’s hard for a kid to commit to any activity they don’t enjoy doing. In fact, most youth athletes would probably tell you the main reason they decided to join a youth sports team in the first place was because they wanted to have fun and hang out with their friends! Once sports stop being fun and becomes something like they feel they are forced to do, most kids aren’t interested.

3. It was too big of a time commitment.

At some level of play, being on a youth sports team means giving up on other activities. It’s hard to be on a academy football team that goes to overnight tournaments every weekend and have time for much else. When your youth athlete reaches that point in their sports career, they may decide sports just aren’t for them. If they still love to play, just not at the fast-paced level of a high-powered academy team, they can also play community sports or just pickup games with their friends.

4. The coach played favorites.

It’s really hard for youth athletes when they feel like they can’t earn their spot, not matter what they do. Coaches, at the end of the day, are people too and sometimes people play favorites. If your youth athlete spent more time sitting on the bench than on the field (through no fault of their own) and they suspect it’s because the coach only wanted to play his star players, it’s no surprise they no longer love the game.

5. They had bad coaches.

One bad coach can sour a kid’s opinion of youth sports for the rest of their life. If it wasn’t fun, they didn’t feel like they learned anything or their coach kept them on the bench, most kids aren’t willing to risk a second year of the same. A coach really can make or break the season for a youth athlete.

There is nothing wrong with your child wanting to quit playing youth sports if it no longer interests them, but you should probably have them finish the season. Explain they made a commitment to their team and they can’t walk away until it’s done. One of the great life lessons youth sports teaches kids is that they have to stick to their commitments.

What are your thoughts and/or comments as to the above 5 ideas - direct findings come from a 2011 UEFA youth study outside of academy programs within 10 countries and over 1000+ coaches/parents and most importantly 761 youth players between the ages of 9-14 were spoken to and surveyed with the top 5 reasons which were formulated. 

 

<< Previous