A short thread: my awakening to the practicality of theoretical solutions in regions of the pitch, with the exception of the final 3rd, that unwittingly factor out intangibles like intensity, tempo & the transient nature of space.
(My personal experience.)
(My personal experience.)
One of the things I quickly realized as an observer of two critical stages of a process β a training session tailored to the opposition, and the match against that opposition β is the real possibility of there being a divide b/w what we prepared for, and what would we experience.
Multiple factors (in the sphere of session design) contribute to this outcome, and while it's reductive to number them, the characters limits can only be so generous. And so, I'll broach some of the "insufficient" causes and treat them briefly under the said constraints.
1. An unopposed design where an opposed design is necessary.
Shadow play β the idea of not playing against an opponent β owes much of its attraction to the absurd and its simplicity on the surface level, but it's not hard to see why it's not the most effective method.
Shadow play β the idea of not playing against an opponent β owes much of its attraction to the absurd and its simplicity on the surface level, but it's not hard to see why it's not the most effective method.
Cons:
β’ W/o supervision, most of its advs. are lost (structure)
β’ Doesn't account for impact oppositional pressure has on a player's decision-making
β’ Conditions for accelerating or decelerating speed of play are absent
β’ The oppβkey reference pointβis taken out of equation
β’ W/o supervision, most of its advs. are lost (structure)
β’ Doesn't account for impact oppositional pressure has on a player's decision-making
β’ Conditions for accelerating or decelerating speed of play are absent
β’ The oppβkey reference pointβis taken out of equation
2. Unrealistic re-creation of match situations.
It's like studying for exam, & the mock exam formulated to test one's state of preparedness, is a farce: it builds a false sense of security - a recipe for disaster.
Players require a degree of familiarity to perform optimally.
It's like studying for exam, & the mock exam formulated to test one's state of preparedness, is a farce: it builds a false sense of security - a recipe for disaster.
Players require a degree of familiarity to perform optimally.
The problem itself is the lack of tactical detail or reduced levels of intensity, but the driver of this behaviour is often the instructor's desire to achieve sth. Which, ironically, is counter-productive. It doesn't allow for a phenomenon called "the hypercorrection effect."
3. Losing sight of the overarching philosophy in the preparation.
It's particularly relevant b/c there's a limit as to how much information can be gathered about an opposing team - although knowing their system of play and their individuals' tendencies within it are essential.
It's particularly relevant b/c there's a limit as to how much information can be gathered about an opposing team - although knowing their system of play and their individuals' tendencies within it are essential.
For this reason, it's imperative that general principles such as numerical superiority, lateral and vertical support, width, depth, occupation of certain lateral zones or vertical lanes, complementary acts (X occupies space, Y creates it, Z attacks it), are taught intensively.
Game situations rarely occur as envisaged, but some of these principles, in whatever form they may be expressed β e.g., an overload in 1st line can be achieved via different build-up patterns β are effective regardless of the variations in the out-of-possession team's strategies.
Loading suggestions...