How to decide on training menu items [youth soccer]: You cannot decide on training without analysis

Hello, I'm Kazu, an instructor.

In youth soccer coaching, you end up thinking about "what to do for today's practice" every single time. That said, I think many people feel that no matter how much they search for or create training menus, they just can't quite find something that clicks.

For example, some of you may feel as follows.

• You're searching for a menu every time, thinking "What should I do for today's practice?"
• You don't know what training menu suits older or younger age groups
• Even when you try a training menu, something just doesn't work

I myself used to search for training menus in the same way. Even now, as a coach, when I think about new training menus, I sometimes flip through books looking for something structurally similar.

I'll write about how to prioritize what players can't do, the "reproducibility" I value in game analysis, and concrete examples of translating analysis into training menus, all based on what happens at my own sessions. If you read this article, I think it will become clear what you should think about before searching for a training menu, so please read to the end.

① "What should I do for today's practice?" and "Isn't there a good training?"

I think there are broadly two worries coaches have about training menus. One is the worry, "What should I do for today's practice?" The other is the worry, "I'm searching for training menus, but isn't there some good training out there?"

I think many people search things like "What should I do for the older age group's training menu?" or "What kind of training menu is good for the younger age group?" I myself was like that in the past. Training menus are something you can't create at first.

② Even now, I sometimes flip through books

Even now, as a coach, when I think about a new training menu, I sometimes look at books thinking, "I have this kind of image, but isn't there something structurally close?" From there, I sometimes adapt things well, and of course, I sometimes create things from zero.

In other words, searching itself is not a bad thing. However, whether you search or create it yourself, there is something you must decide before that.

③ What to decide before searching

Something you must think about before searching for a training menu. What that is, is "analysis."

Depending on what you must do as a result of analysis, the training menu gets decided. I think this is a very simple matter.

Incidentally, at the stage where you're unsure about a training menu, there is a flow that depends on the coach's experience.

① What is the background of "an exciting shooting drill"?

Let me go at it paradoxically. For example, when you think "I want a shooting drill menu that gets the older age group excited," what is the background of that?

Probably, I don't think it's "because there's a really important relegation playoff this weekend."

The same goes for thinking about "an icebreaker training menu": why is there a need to do an icebreaker? Doing that training menu should rest on an analysis of what state the team is in right now.

② The result of analysis decides what you should do

Conversely, without analysis, a training menu cannot be decided. This is something I want you to remember.

Whether it's kindergarteners, the younger age group, or the older age group. Whether it's the start of the season or the final stretch. In all cases, "because the team and players are in this state right now, let's do this" is, I think, the most basic way of thinking in analysis.

It is possible, for the time being, to assemble a training menu without analysis. There is also a method where you try a training menu first and then apply analysis afterward. Even so, the basic order is: analyze and think about the training menu, then decide the training menu.

③ At first, it's only natural to be off

However, at first, you can't do it. That's only natural. There's no way you look at the team and players, analyze on the spot, and sharply decide "this is what's needed, so this is the training."

In most cases, a discrepancy arises, and I think many people worry, "something just isn't working," and I'm sure it will always turn out that way. That is a matter of the resolution of your analysis, and I think it's a world where how deeply you analyze, how much you think, and your amount of experience make all the difference.

① With the younger age group, there are naturally many things they can't do

So, how should you do analysis? At the first stage, when you watch play, I think you can vaguely see the places where "something here isn't good."

For example, with the younger age group, it's things like "when the ball comes, they just kick it forward randomly" or "everyone swarms toward the ball." This is something I often say, but when you watch elementary schoolers, there are more things they can't do.

If you watch a younger age group match: they bunch up, they don't communicate verbally, they can't support, they can't make movements to lose their marker, they can't overlap.

They can't do control-oriented play (control in the direction that leads to the next play), they can't create body orientation from a back step, they can't communicate, they don't understand tactics. That's only natural, right?

There are more things they can't do.

② Even if there are 100, you can't solve 100

You list everything you cannot do, and even if there are 100, it is impossible to solve all 100. That is exactly why, within that, you have to think with priority about "what should I do right now, first." This becomes extremely important.

This is the same whether it is soccer tactics, technique, or team management: first, when you look at the situation, you think "let's start from here" and "next, like this."

Only here does the talk finally turn to planning. Even when it comes to planning, it is difficult if you do not understand the current state to a certain degree.

For example, looking at the team and thinking "practice doesn't look fun every time, so I want to put in a practice menu that gets them excited" is, I think, not wrong at all.

With the older age group, if you see "after winning the ball, they try to play vertically too quickly and immediately lose it," then it becomes visible that "maybe we need practice where, after winning it, they rebuild once." Only then does it become "how can we do that kind of practice?"

It is a single process: analyze, then decide the menu to do.

③ Even if you have little experience, try doing planning

Especially for people with little experience, I think they cannot do planning. Without experience, they cannot picture what state they want to bring the team to one year later.

Even so, I think you have to do it. Try making one for the time being. Try making it, and it not going according to plan at all is fine too, I think.

In my case, I do a one-year planning, and from there I roughly cut it into about 3 turns in cycles of 3 to 4 months, and create an image of "bringing them to here."

For that, I decide what to do now. While putting in the annual planning, at the field level problems different from the annual plan also come up, so I proceed with daily training in a way that balances those out.

In any case, it is analysis. It is not a difficult talk like game analysis: first analyze the team and properly look at things like "they get beaten immediately in 1v1" and "they don't compete in 1v1 at all." Whether you make a practice menu or search for one, that becomes the starting point.

As you repeat it, the resolution of your analysis gradually rises. Roughly speaking, this is the coach's basic cycle.

① Pick up what is happening repeatedly

Let me dig a little deeper into game analysis. Analysis of your own team, analysis of the opponent team, and long ago I used to do one analysis of an overseas professional team every week for my own training. Professional analysis is interesting, and it becomes your own skill.

If you have time, analyzing one match you are interested in per week and putting it together into a report, I think, makes good training.

What is important when analyzing is repeatability.

While watching the game flatly, you also look at the formation and the matchups, but within that you pick up "things that are happening repeatedly." These are things with repeatability, like "this repeatedly goes well" and "this repeatedly does not go well."

Even if you pick up things that happen incidentally, it was "just by chance," so it is hard to analyze. That is exactly why you grasp phenomena that happen repeatedly. Sometimes you mistake something and think "did this just happen by chance?" but basically it is that.

② Cut by phases

Things that happen repeatedly are picked up by cutting them into phases.

At first, I think it is fine to cut them into 4 phases: attack, defense, and transition (switching). If you look in more detail, you can also cut them into the 11 sub-phases I talk about, for example within attack: salida de balón (the way the ball comes out), progression and ball retention, and finishing.

Within those detailed phases, you pick up what is happening repeatedly.

③ Phenomena that go well are traces of intentional training

What does it mean that something happens repeatedly and has repeatability? If it is something going well, there is a high possibility that it has been trained beforehand. In short, it is being done intentionally.

You can see traces of intentional training, such as "the volante who pulls into that space is coming in."

On the other hand, for things that are not going well, you look at "why does that repeatedly not go well?" These are structural things, such as "against the opponent's two in midfield, we are dealing with them with one volante, and the slide is not working, so they are always creating a numerical advantage there."

Then, how to respond also becomes visible, and the possibility that when you respond, a disadvantage appears somewhere else also becomes visible.

"We are always being attacked on the wings, so let's change how we defend. But if we do that, a risk appears here. Which do we take?" At that point, it becomes a question of whether to change the play model.

Conversely, if you analyze by referring to the opponent's games or professional games, you look at the positive parts that happen repeatedly as "highly likely to be intentionally designed," and you investigate "with what structure is that happening?" and "what are the play principles?"

I have not asked the coach, so this is only a prediction, but when I think "this movement is good," I try to come up with a practice menu on my own that makes that play principle work. In that way, my own repertoire increases by one.

1. Make the vertical relationship between the side back and side half diagonal

Let me give one example. This is about when I used a 3-3-1, but in junior 3-3-1, the side back and side half often form a vertical relationship.

Depending on the play model, some teams adopt as a pattern the movement where the half and side back open up wide, and the side half comes inside to create numerical superiority. I often see this in my area too.

In my case, rather than doing it as a pattern, I use a method that encourages self-organization.

When I do that, I think, "I want to make it possible for the vertical relationship between the side back and side half to become a diagonal relationship." To put it extremely, I think it would be good if mobility emerged where the side back opens up, the side half comes inside, and the forward flows into that space.

2. In a 3 v 2 rondo, "outside or inside, either is fine"

So what kind of training can make it so that the two players do not both stay completely inside or both open completely outside, but can always maintain a diagonal relationship? When I think about it including the midfield, in my case I do it in a form like a 3 v 2 rondo, with the image that the supporting players use the outside or the inside, come from outside to inside, or go from inside to outside.

With a rondo of three players, I say, "Outside or inside, either is fine," "Come from outside to inside," "Open from inside to outside."

Then, in the game too, I do the same thing: "Open outside, cut off the passing course, and come inside." So that the side back and side half do not form a vertical relationship during the game either, I connect it by saying, "Either one can be inside. We did it in the 3-player rondo, right?"

As the easiest and simplest example, it feels something like that.

In any case, whether it is game analysis or a thought like "I want to make it possible to play this way," it is fine whether it is correcting mistakes or adding options, but there is something like "I want to be able to play this way," and against that, I create a practice menu.

3. Whether it is the phase that is needed right now, and whether it is feasible

That is exactly why, I repeat, even if I think "I want them to play this way," whether that is the phase that is needed right now and whether it is feasible become extremely important themes in analysis.

Doing what should not be done right now. Trying to make them do what they absolutely cannot do. Or, the analysis itself is off.

For example, if I want to "attack on the sides" and do crossing practice again and again, but they cannot break down the side in the first place, or cannot create an origin on the side, then it becomes "this is the stage before doing crosses."

If there is this kind of discrepancy in analysis, I think it becomes "even if we practice, it does not go well." First of all, what is important is to analyze the situation and context properly. As for analysis, there may be parts that are hard to understand without watching games, but I think this is probably where to start.

Summary

• Whether you look for a practice menu or create one, before that there is "analysis." Without analysis, the practice menu cannot be decided
• There are 100 things they cannot do. You cannot solve 100, so first decide the priorities of what to do now
• Even if you are inexperienced, try planning. It is fine if things do not go according to the plan
• What is important in game analysis is reproducibility. Cut it at phases and pick up what is happening repeatedly
• Phenomena that are going well are traces of intentional training. From there, probe the play principles and incorporate them into the practice menu
• Look at whether "I want them to play this way" is the phase needed now and whether it is feasible

In this article, I explained how to decide a practice menu, with a way of thinking that starts from analysis. At first, it is natural that the resolution of your analysis is not high, and I think it rises as you do it repeatedly. Please try it at your own coaching site too!

Also, if you keep the practice menu you decided through analysis together with the board, then in the next analysis you can look back and say, "Last time we started from here."