Comments on: Why 99% of Soccer Coaching Sessions Suck…

By: Pavl Williams

Pavl Williams — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:18:00 +0000

I completely agree with you. I think the point of the article really is to say ‘think about the reasons you are doing things’. If you’re philosophy is simply about letting kids enjoy themselves and play as much as possible then scrimmages are perfect.

You’re also right to say there’s a role for scrimmages at the end of sessions and for occasional variety.

I think SSGs *are* better for development – that is to say for improving technique and tactical understanding – but there does also need to be a realistic game at the end of the practice for players to test their skills in.

Also love your line about it being “THEIR time”! I have tried to separate the ideas of ‘coaching’ and ‘playing’ in the article but you’ve hit the nail squarely on the head.

By: Pavl Williams

Pavl Williams — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 09:18:00 +0000

You’re also right to say there’s a role for scrimmages at the end of sessions and for occasional variety.

Also love your line about it being “THEIR time”! I have tried to separate the ideas of ‘coaching’ and ‘playing’ in the article but you’ve hit the nail squarely on the head.

By: Titilatruite

Titilatruite — Fri, 24 Dec 2010 08:46:28 +0000

There is place for 3v3, 5v5 and full field scrimmages.We tend to offer the full scrimmage as reward to the kids who INSIST on it.If its done at the end of the practice session, its usually 15mins, we let one of the players referee (we insist that all our kids have experience to see how hard it is and to learn the game) and we stay out of it….its THEIR time to have fun.Waaaaaaay too many coaches totally forget that part AND that's why most practices suck.We also use full field scrimmages sometimes to teach position play and situations. Midfielders position seem to be left out in the minigames setup. You cant teach spacing, collapsing on the ball handler, supporting or releasing a fullback with mini-games.I know youre talking about the old 'give them a ball and theyll learn as they play' mentality but small sided games are not better, they are DIFFERENT. Cutting out full scale scrimmages would be wrong.

By: Daniel K. Theemann

Daniel K. Theemann — Fri, 08 Oct 2010 16:15:27 +0000

Every week I coach my boys in a match related small-sided game with a goalkeeper to improve some situations, that often arise during a match. These situation vary from 1v1, 2v1 (att.), 3v2 (att.), 4v4, 6v4 (att.). All these situations have a greater purpose for me. I focus on both defending and attacking, but only one of them from time to time.Here the attacking team starts with the ball from the mid-line and plays in direction of the goal. The defending team (defenders + goalkeeper) defends the 11-goal.You can play scrimmage with 7v7, 8v8 or 9v9, but then I have discovered that setting some rules make it look more match related. These rules are concepts from our chosen style of play.

By: Pavl Williams

Pavl Williams — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 18:10:59 +0000

I agree with you there David!I don't know about you, but one of the most common objections coaches raise is that they feel the need to put dedicated fitness exercises into their training sessions. In fact, simply by playing the game for extended periods of time players will develop their stamina, strength, suppleness, speed etc in a very soccer-specific way.

By: Dave Clarke

Dave Clarke — Mon, 09 Aug 2010 14:09:01 +0000

The small-sided games approach is also useful for coaches to work out their players' levels of fitness, as the youngsters are having to run and play at a constant pace – there's no scope for hiding and sloping off to the sidelines.

By: Expert Series: Arsene Wenger Interview – Better Football | Soccer Coaching Drills, Games, Techniques & Tactics

Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:06:05 +0000

[...] the discussion of small-sided games and how they develop better footballers, I thought I’d post this video interview with Arsenal manager Arsene Wenger in which he [...]