It's all three pointers and layups now. No more mid-range jump shots. Very robotic, with little improvisation.
Are players over coached now?
- Thread starter Berbaclass
- Start date
I think in general junior and youth coaching courses are providing coaches with the sorts of tools that help players improve. There are coaches who dont follow whats being taught and try to win over development but I dont think they are the main problem. One problem is the rapid increase in competitive expectations as the players get older. I dont know what the answer to thats is because for players in the streams trying to get to the top the natural order of things is to compete at training and on the pitch. Its the players, parents, coaches, schools, clubs all wanting to win. Win on many levels, not just games.
I wonder if its a bit of a double edged sword in that we are now producing players with more technical ability and skill than when I was a kid but the game has also become more intense and faster so players rarely get to settle on the ball. From as young as 12 players are learning about nutrition, hydration and stretching before and after games at a level that wasnt there 30 years ago. It all adds up to a change in how we feel the game is at the top level today. I dont think the things people are complaining about with respect to how the top level is played is because of how the kids are coached, I think its because each and every aspect of football at the top is so much more skilful, faster and well prepared. Teams now have video analysis tools available to them which means managers are given video presentations about how an opposing team plays against different tactical approaches. Its 20 years since i was involved in providing video footage of games for our national team and all I did then was shoot from a high vantage point showing the entire pitch for the manager. That is now long since gone with computer tracking of players done so easily via software and applied to multiple angles of a games play. Players wear body monitors that track how far the run, how often the sprint and how fast the recover from a short burst of intensity. They dont just wear them in a game, they also wear them in training. Players have weekly urine tests that help the medical staff warn a manager that the player is likely to head into a period of low form. Players have their fat levels measured daily, they have their liquid intake recorded for every training session. This is all at the top level. All of thats a function of every single team trying to gain a tiny advantage and so players really cant make mistakes, they have to be more careful. The demands on players at the top level are now at the extreme level of scrutiny. I dont know what the answer is, its how the game has evolved.
Thank you for the informative response.
That is sad.
But if you're "correcting" them at 14/15, i.e. stopping them doing flair activities, what's the odds in doing it earlier?
At least they would have some time to develop imagination and improvisation on the ball.
It's like telling kids stories and fables before teaching them sciences and history.
GAA is the same. All the points are nearly scored from the middle, ball is worked endlessy until it's got into a scoring position almost right in the middle of the goal with a player in loads of space to shoot. You will even see players not take on shots and turn up good scoring positions to turn back and recycle the ball. I was told by a guy who's brother worked in stats for one of the county teams that they are told not to shoot from certain wider areas.It's all three pointers and layups now. No more mid-range jump shots. Very robotic, with little improvisation.
Yes, same as basketball it's a higher % scoring range, but it takes something away from the game as a spectator sport.
Teams realized somewhere in the mid 2010s that in the long run, you maximize your team's chances of success when you prioritize shooting the 3 and finishing at the rim (hello!), primarily because compared to those 2 shots, shooting from the midrange is inefficient. And most teams went headlong into the trend. Because that maximized your chances of winning a lot of games in the regular season, which gave you a good seed.It's all three pointers and layups now. No more mid-range jump shots. Very robotic, with little improvisation.
Until the playoffs.
When teams in a 7 game series figure out your strengths, and create defensive schemes designed to take away those strengths. And if you can't keep those teams honest by mixing up your game, you crash. Referring to the Houston Rockets and the Atlanta Hawks here (they ran into great teams but couldn't adjust appropriately). And that's the value of the likes of Kawhi, Durant, Booker... They're money in spots analytics has de-emphasized, and there is an arbitrage opportunity there. Players like Kobe would have feasted in this era.
In relation to the topic of this thread, that has not happened in soccer/football yet. System oriented football, all things equal, beats "vibes and inshallah" football, and the training of young ones reflects this. Most people realize that youth should first focus on training fundamentals (first touch, etc) but once of age they'll need to understand how to fit in rigid tactical systems.
But maybe it doesn't have to. I think the overemphasis on tactical discipline has resulted in a glut/underutilization of players who would have been adored in years past as no 10s or mazy lazy wingers or technical savants, but today are dismissed because of their lack of work rate or whatever. I'm sure if desired, some football savant (fao @Fortitude) could figure out tactics that would enable such a collection of players to sufficiently counter the best system football has to offer, and exploit it's weaknesses. The longer this isn't exploited, the more "gone" the game has become
I personally think someone like Diniz is a breath of fresh air and has the right ideas, which are to re-introduce spontaneity into the game at the highest levels without looking naive (failed against City, but at least he gave it a go with a vastly inferior team). And instead of the likes of Scaloni bitching about it, why not accelerate the effort to create training programs that create players capable of playing spontaneous AND winning football?
If I had the time to do my badges at Coverciano my thesis would be on this topic.
This happened with Catenaccio, with early 2000s football (cf Jorge Valdano's "shit on a stick" jibe)
And in all those instances, it took someone/people with cojones to introduce something new. Or people good at the vogue style just retired or died
Will be the same with today.
There will be a day someone will assemble an over coached 11 messi's. It will be so beautiful it will put the argument of 'over coaching' forever to rest.
This attitude first raised its head 2 or 3 years ago in terms of an in-depth look by coaches, to the point where a lot of academies are now getting kids who can dribble and shoot but can't pass, receive or work in a collective properly.
Small pitches,.3 vs. 3 on 4 mini goals is generally how I try to coach a lot of times, Rondo as an activation, a multi directional SSG for some low level tactical concepts and then the 3 v 3 stuff has a lot of passing, moving, rotations as well as pressing,.cover shadow/spatial awareness. As @Oranges038 pointed out above, teaching kids doesn't need to be difficult. There is a place for the higher level tactical stuff but that is for Development Phase, not Foundation.
There are a lot of careerist UEFA badge holders who just want to win to go up the ladders of whatever academy or association they are a part of, all the while kids drop out and lower league academies especially end up wondering why they aren't producing first team players despite relatively good results at their level.
Small pitches,.3 vs. 3 on 4 mini goals is generally how I try to coach a lot of times, Rondo as an activation, a multi directional SSG for some low level tactical concepts and then the 3 v 3 stuff has a lot of passing, moving, rotations as well as pressing,.cover shadow/spatial awareness. As @Oranges038 pointed out above, teaching kids doesn't need to be difficult. There is a place for the higher level tactical stuff but that is for Development Phase, not Foundation.
There are a lot of careerist UEFA badge holders who just want to win to go up the ladders of whatever academy or association they are a part of, all the while kids drop out and lower league academies especially end up wondering why they aren't producing first team players despite relatively good results at their level.
Remember when the only skills you had to learn was passing, shooting and dribbling through cones. And the extra skills are only Rabona or stepping over 500 times like Ronaldo without any benefit whatsoever.
I'm always amazed when I see the top shooting locations in modern basketball. It's such a fluid sport but the way they score is so robotic.It's all three pointers and layups now. No more mid-range jump shots. Very robotic, with little improvisation.
I guess the argument is that there wouldn't be a Messi if he was over coached. He'd just have been forced to pass constantly and never dribble. Even Pep constantly wants his wingers to pass the ball inside or back.
Defenders have become better, that was my thought. As soon as other types of outfield players catch up, it will be more like the 'warts and all' type football that many cherish, with horrendous defending etc.
Serie A coaches from the 90s were implementing tactical instructions for all of their players. Winning 1-0 was more robotic than what is happening now. Or maybe it is a different part of football that has become regimented; a bit technical, and a bit tactical aspect.
Serie A coaches from the 90s were implementing tactical instructions for all of their players. Winning 1-0 was more robotic than what is happening now. Or maybe it is a different part of football that has become regimented; a bit technical, and a bit tactical aspect.
I did hear someone argue that increasingly its the defenders who are the playmakers while forwards are just pressing and chasing after the opposition. Maybe that's where football is going. Playmaking holding midfielders and workhorse strikers.
Yeah, pretty much. Thanks for the reply.
Football is a team sport. The only real purpose is to win. Everything else is just noise
Football is a spectator sport, part of the purpose is to entertain.
That doesn't mean that players should start randomly trying nutmegs 5 times per game but I think the fact that football has become a bit more boring does merit discussion.
I'd love to see tactical fouls be punished more seriously for starters. That would help a lot.
There are no incentives for entertaining. There are tons of incentives for winning.
Regarding the bolded, they are.
"More seriously"
I don't think football is more boring. I also think the better organization of football teams these days leads to more entertainment as it leads to more goals and attacking situations overal
Written by "Football Statistics Dork" from Germany
(sorry)I honestly don't know if football is more boring now or if it's just my nostalgia talking, but there does seem to be fewer flair players nowadays? Flair is only allowed if you can compliment it with blistering pace and efficiency like Mbappe, Salah, Vini etc. Football has generally been more team-oriented in the last 10 years. You still have big name individuals, but they seem to be boosters rather than carriers. Now if I was a coach I would absolutely love this. This is how a team sport should be. But as a spectator? I'm not so sure...
Last edited:
This is something I like about Real Madrid: never overcoached.
No worriesWritten by "Football Statistics Dork" from Germany
I honestly don't know if football is more boring now or if it's just my nostalgia talking, but there does seem to be fewer flair players nowadays? Flair is only allowed if you can compliment it with blistering pace and efficiency like Mbappe, Salah, Vini etc. Football has generally been more team-oriented in the last 10 years. You still have big name individuals, but they seem to be boosters rather carriers. Now if I was a coach I would absolutely love this. This is how a team sport should be. But as a spectator? I'm not so sure...
I think the club I support is a good example. Two years ago we had a coach that gave the players much freedom. They took long shots all the time, they tried to dribble down dead ends, attempted hollywood passes etc. and personally I hate that. I get that the results might be entertaining but I find it extremely annoying when players constantly make dumb decisions and sometimes I was even a bit disappointed when such a decision lead to a goal because I knew the player in question would now feel incentivized to keep making these decisions. If you have a selection of naturally intelligent players, it is a bit different. But I think our football is so much more enjoyable now that we play highly organized positionally and build up very methodically as we get flair players such as Wirtz and Boniface into great positions much more frequently and in total produce more dribblings, through balls, great combinations, beautiful goals, you name it. Plus I absolutely love it when a team frees itself from pressing opponents by great combination play or a clever turn, one twos, building triangles, etc. I'm a bit undecided on the fewer flair players part, though. On the one hand, I think there are still so many interesting players and talents to follow (in the Bundesliga, I love watching Wirtz, Simons and Musiala for instance) but the associations definitely see this problem as well. The DFB e. g. changed its youth concept and postpones tactical training now to set a stronger emphasis on technique and creativity during childhood years which is the right decision, I believe.
I also believe many dislike the "overcoaching" because it sucks to be at the receiving end of a well drilled squad that completely suffocates you. But that's competitive sports, isn't it? Tactics have improved so much over the last 1.5 decades that you need them now to get the most out of your individuals. But once you do, it is great to see
I wouldn't call it over coaching. I'd day its the new wave of automatism coaching. The prevailing thought in the game is coaches with fixed patterns of play and styles are "best". Coaches who literally tell the players every thing to do, with almost no freedom to think for themselves are considered " modern'.
Thus coaches like LVG, Ancelotti, Zidane who cut the style according to the players available, and focus on creating a base system to enable players express themselves and come up with solutions on their own, with the information they are given and trained on, a through back to the likes of Fergie, are fast becoming extinct
Thus coaches like LVG, Ancelotti, Zidane who cut the style according to the players available, and focus on creating a base system to enable players express themselves and come up with solutions on their own, with the information they are given and trained on, a through back to the likes of Fergie, are fast becoming extinct
And what is your frame of reference? Do you recall games before automation was ushered in and the system took precedence over the individual?
Do you know of the times when people would be waiting for weeks in advance of glamour ties with a marquee entertainer - or set of - about to take centre stage in front of the world? When Zidane was at Juventus alongside pre-injury Del Piero and putting on performative displays that left the masses in awe, or peak Ronaldinho, whose every game was a showcase event - when he was putting on performances and goals like he scored vs Chelsea with the shimmy and sudden toe poke? It goes on, but those two are the apex of a discussion like this because it’s likes of those being the first to perish or being told to only do the most efficient rather than most creative thing at every turn, to the point of suffocating imagination and making for a more uniform and predictable game.
Games generate entertainment because we want to see who will win; the product on the pitch can be of variable quality, but ultimately, we want to see how things will conclude, which is why these things are muttered about before being swiftly moved on from. There is a considerable reduction in actual styles of play - no longer do we have specialists of a vast array of schools of thought or how X deals with Y; there’s very little variance in roles on the pitch, either. The game has become more about how you use your pieces on a default board than all the tactical delights of times gone by. The elements of cunning and surprise have also fallen through the floor, so it’s not a uniform improvement, rather, some things have been sacrificed to make way for others.
We all love football and you’d have to be a real purist to dislike this age to the point you stop watching, but the amount of individuals of outstanding quality are at their lowest ebb, in lieu of that, the uniformity and improvement of the collective level is at an all-time high. I think it’s pretty obvious what is more workable for clubs en masse who no longer have to wait for 1 in a million players to be highly competitive; with systems as king players feel less demoralised and always have a sense of purpose. It’s a different landscape and the ‘old times’ seem more fractured than ever.
No it is not. Supporters want their team to win first and foremost no matter how they win. Winning is entertaining. Seeing a well executed move turn into a goal is as satisfying as an individual goal. And there will be moment of individual brilliance no matter how well coached a team it.
I grew up idolising Ronaldinho and remember how I used to visit a website called soccerclips.net to download highlight compilations of him, Zidane and co. in the pre-YouTube era
So yes, the early 2000s were actually my formative years.In my opinion this debate is hugely driven by nostalgia. I fully understand that people glorify for instance Ronaldinho and Zidane from the 00 era but that's where it stops for me. Neymar and Hazard for instance were IMO both better and more entertaining than Kaká, Figo, Rivaldo, etc. If we don't go by longevity, we also had Isco in the modern era who was almost as good as Neymar in terms of skill moves. Speaking of which, I doubt you can find a career compilation with better skill moves than Neymar, not even Ronaldinho has as much footage. Or Thiago who is probably the CM with the most flair in history with elasticos, step overs, croquetas, trivelas etc. being a nonchalant matter of course to his game.
And I think the current generation of talents looks amazing as well. In Germany we have Musiala and Wirtz who are the most exciting German youngsters I've seen in my lifetime, especially in terms of flair. We always had very sophisticated and clean talents such as Kroos, Götze, Havertz or Özil but never players who were such spectacular dribblers. And then there are Bellingham and Vinicius in Madrid, Pedri, Gavi and Yamal in Barcelona. Endrick could come amazing as well. If he stays fit Duranville could be an absolute joy to watch. And the list goes on and on.
I think people should stop living in the past and start appreciating players way before hindsight kicks in. I've just watched a compilation of Thiago Alcantara for instance since he's about to return from injury and he's simply marvellous. That by the way also has to do with the cynicism of the internet era. So many people hate Neymar and would never acknowledge him. In a United board, you'll have a hard time praising Thiago as well. Many fans are so full of spite that they aren't capable of enjoying the brillance of players even if they dislike them for whatever subjective reason.
I mostly agree with this. Though, I’m not sure the Zidanes and Ancellotis are becoming extinct (they have 7 CLs between them, with 4 coming fairly recently). I think it’s more that their achievements are constantly downplayed.
I’m very biased here, but I think the same happened with Wenger. It’s simply not possible to go 49 games unbeaten and be as tactically naive as he was often described as being. He just preferred to set up his team through a framework of shared understanding, rather than a series of rigid actions and reactions. His style failed in his later years, but that was more due to lack of resources than tactical acumen.
I’m in the creative industry and you see the same thing there. We fawn over acting that you can instantly “see” (weight gain / weight loss / accents / depiction of real life persons) and often under appreciate performance that are more subtle.
Interesting that you feel qualified to speak for all supporters everywhere, ever.
Most teams never win anything of note. If you don’t support a top team, you may literally never have seen your team win a major trophy in your entire lifetime.
Real Madrid fans gave Ronaldinho a standing ovation.
Tottenham fans love their team at the moment, despite sitting in 5th. Would the majority of them swap what they have today with a 4th place finish under Conte? No.
I’m and Arsenal fan that loved watching his team last season.
Other teams only accept players that come from the local region.
United lead the way in always having academy players involved in the first team.
German team prioritise clubs being tied to their area though the 51% rule above all else.
There are countless examples of things being more important to supporters than winning the game they’re watching. That may be the only thing that matters to you. If so, that’s totally fine. Though I would suggest that there may be more meaning be found in finding joy in the journey rather than just the destination.
Supporters want their team to win but if I'm watching a game not involving united, I want entertainment.
Red cards, fines, it being shamed out of the game rather than talked about as some kind of smart thing to do.
Any of the above or a combination of all 3.
I actually think yellow cards would do it. It’s pretty rare to get booked for a tactical foul in the first 30 minutes of a game. Why? What’s so magical about the first half an hour? If players were consistently booked early for it, they would stop.
Someone said something interesting on Twitter the other day, and I don't know how true it is, but it was something along the lines of:
"If you find yourself enjoying football less, then you are probably watching too much football."
I think enjoying football is not a static thing that is on the same level for everyone, same for people who are into music, photography watching films etc. There comes a burnout point, and I imagine that for some people, that is the level they have reached.
The number of players like Writz, Musiala, Mitoma, etc., who are all fantastic on the ball and can do special things, are all still present. But the continued democratisation of elite standards through things like more qualified coaches, and more video/data analysis means that the talent floor is rising before the ceiling has had a chance to move in relation to it. Those true game-breaking players aren't quite as effective right now because at the top level, the difference between the very worst and very best is smaller than it has been for a long time.
"If you find yourself enjoying football less, then you are probably watching too much football."
I think enjoying football is not a static thing that is on the same level for everyone, same for people who are into music, photography watching films etc. There comes a burnout point, and I imagine that for some people, that is the level they have reached.
The number of players like Writz, Musiala, Mitoma, etc., who are all fantastic on the ball and can do special things, are all still present. But the continued democratisation of elite standards through things like more qualified coaches, and more video/data analysis means that the talent floor is rising before the ceiling has had a chance to move in relation to it. Those true game-breaking players aren't quite as effective right now because at the top level, the difference between the very worst and very best is smaller than it has been for a long time.
It's just the natural evolution of any sport when money comes in. What is the lowest risk action in every situation? How do you mitigate risk yourself? It's never through dribbling at a player one on one.
The big difference for me now is the gap in athleticism, not footballing skill, is so much closer. Let's be honest, looking at the full backs and CBs Messi and Ronaldo would run at and skin in one on ones, they simply would have less success today because almost every full back is fast, most keepers sweep and teams are vastly better coached defensively. Think of the PL, G Nev, Finnan, Baines, Carr, Ferreira etc. were great full backs but the profile of that player is waning, it's all about pace and power now and, whilst there are still a couple of classic FBs around like Trippier and Coufal who hit the byline and whip the ball in, I do think it's a dying breed of player.
The big difference for me now is the gap in athleticism, not footballing skill, is so much closer. Let's be honest, looking at the full backs and CBs Messi and Ronaldo would run at and skin in one on ones, they simply would have less success today because almost every full back is fast, most keepers sweep and teams are vastly better coached defensively. Think of the PL, G Nev, Finnan, Baines, Carr, Ferreira etc. were great full backs but the profile of that player is waning, it's all about pace and power now and, whilst there are still a couple of classic FBs around like Trippier and Coufal who hit the byline and whip the ball in, I do think it's a dying breed of player.
TBF I'm using "extinct" in the sense that few and fewer coaches are being modeled after them. For example right now apart from Zidane I don't see any young coach mirroring the methods of an Ancelotti.
Most right now are variants of Pep and Klopp styles or straight up hybrids.
I'd say due to sheer sturbborness. Not even naivety. When resources became too inferior he didn't adjust to the reality. Which is a trait I see in many automatism coaches of these days. They rather die on the hill that is plan A that ever adjust.
A very astute take on things.
I have a Bobby Charlton soccer schools book and the first page it says "if you can't pass, you can't play".
My approach is that football is a lot like school, reading and writing are the building blocks for everything else to come after. With football ball control and manipulation (kicking, dribbling, passing etc) are the same as reading and writing, once you can use and pass a football and do it quickly and accurately, everything else becomes much easier later on.
I have 2 very good books that I use regularly for advice and drills etc. When you see it written down by someone who has the experience of guiding players to the top of the game, it all makes much more sense.
Is it overcoaching or is it just coaches having more access to information and are better informed of what they do well and what they dont, allowing them to focus more on what the team doesnt do as well?
As im writing, i dont think there can be such a thing as overcoaching, feels a bit like, overstudying for an exam (ie you cant do too much study for an exam)?
As im writing, i dont think there can be such a thing as overcoaching, feels a bit like, overstudying for an exam (ie you cant do too much study for an exam)?
That problem exists in Germany as well. Coaches trying to make a name for themselves by winning stuff and prioritizing that over youth development. For instance, many of them doubled down on playing high long balls and then counter press the area. It works out because children are generally worse at defending those passes due to miscalculations of travel time and path and if I'm not mistaken they aren't allowed to head at this stage. But those tactics a) obviously don't apply to senior football and b) don't teach the skills that make the difference later on.