Again, not a long blog post. There has been some debate in social media about identifying a problem in a team’s game and the possible solutions for that problem. The last debate took wind from Mikael De Anna’s blog post about the complexity of floorball in which he questioned the linear analysis of Finnish Women’s national team’s head coach Lasse Kurronen (Kurronen tweeted that Finland's U19 Women's team had no chance against Sweden in World Championships final as they lost the 1v1 -situations). Another debate rose from an article written by Jussi Leppälahti in Finnish sports magazine “Elmo”, in which he stated that in modern team sports coaching it is important to acknowledge the utmost importance of optimising the time available and to do that, one should integrate the tactical, technical and physical work in game-based sessions. To no one's surprise, the statement was questioned because it was seen to understate the importance of physical training.
If we respect the complex nature of an invasion sport like floorball, we can’t simply state “Because A happens, we should do B so that A doesn’t happen”. As many things affect the outcomes of even a single moment in a game, we should work backwards from the game itself and identify the problem while respecting the complexity in any given situation.
An example
This is an offensive moment, “Build up under high pressure with three players”. First we should analyse if the players involved are respecting the team’s main principles.
Picture 1: NST Lappeenranta's main principles in build up moment under pressure
We can say that yes, the players are executing the main principles regarding their positioning at an acceptable level.
However as the game proceeds, we lose the ball. Now we must analyse why does that happen. The “simple” answer is that there is an individual mistake but in complex invasion sports, that is almost always a very lazy - and wrong - answer. The positioning is ok, the player who starts with the ball (Ere Laitimo) is doing lateral movement with the ball as is expected; we have central support (Samuli Huppunen) and also passing option in the weak side (Konsta Koskimies). There isn’t any bad (or too weak) pass, the positioning is ok but still we lose the possession (for a moment).
Now the linear answer could be that the player offering a support in central lane (Huppunen) lacks technical ability when receiving the ball and thus isn’t able to control it under pressure - he needs a lot of closed technical work with special focus on receiving. The physical “A->B” -answer could be that Huppunen lacks linear speed and needs to do a lot of strength training to improve his first steps.
But again, as floorball is an invasion sport, the key to understand the problem can be found from the interaction of the three players. If Laitimo would have made the pass half a second earlier, then Koskimies would have had a bit more space to make the following pass to Huppunen who then would have probably received the pass in front of him instead - now he has a good body position but as he receives the pass behind his body, he can’t observe the surroundings and open space very well.
If there is something Huppunen could have done, it’s that he could have observed the field better before the eventual pass and when the pass didn’t come in front of him, he could have let it slide to his other side and move forward.
Picture 2: If Huppunen (white player in the middle) would have observed the space behind him better, he would have had more options. Question, players mistake or the coaches who hadn't succeeded in teaching this?
How to solve the problem?
The linear answer would neglect the interaction between the three players. That is also why the answer would be if not totally wrong, not the best available. If there is a problem in a game, it should be dealt with game-based approach in a training session.
The best way to deal with the problem is to create a similar kind of situation in a training session and get repetitions without repetition.
3+1v3+1 build up under pressure
Set up:
3+1v3+1. 3v3 in “pressing zone”, 1v1 in the attacking zone. The coach throws the ball to play and the three players closest to the ball (yellow in the picture) try open up the play under pressure by using the team’s principles (mentioned before). To make the build up more difficult, the ball must dribbled outside the pressing zone. If the three players succeed in this and the ball is dribbled outside the pressing zone, the other players are not allowed to follow and there will be a short 2v1 -situation in the attacking zone (1-2 seconds). If there’s no goal, the coach shouts “Play!” and the game proceeds 4v4 without restrictions for a while.
Progressions:
- allow a long pass to the attacking zone
- Make the field bigger and add another pressing player
In possession (offensive organisation): always one player in the central lane, positive / side body position; immediate floorball actions with the ball
Out of possession (defensive organisation): prevent the player with the ball from moving or passing forward; cover the central lane
Positive transition: Securing the first pass
Negative transition: prevent the player with the ball from moving past you
Feedback: individual, special focus on the player supporting on the central lane (observe the surroundings, side / positive body position)
”...we should try to improve a physical quality (or a technical, tactical, or phychological one, for that matter) only if it’s a limiting factor in a game performance. The quality should also be enhanced in a realistic context that’s applicable to competition.” - Dr. Fergus Connolly (from Game Changer - The Art of Sports Science)
As we put emphasis on the game-like situations in the training session, we might notice that a player is having difficulties during the exercise. We must analyse the situation and communicate with the player what could be the problem. Usually good discussion and more practice time will solve the problem but sometimes we might identify a specific limiting factor. Then we could plan an individual specific training program (technical, tactical, physical, psychological) in which we try to concentrate on the problem at hand. The individual program shouldn’t in most cases interfere with the team’s training program. We must monitor the player’s development closely and analyse by watching the game if the player develops in the identified moment. If not, we must re-think the individual program and adjust it accordingly, then repeat.
So, there is time and place for individual work also in team sports but it should always respect the game itself.
Perttu Kytöhonka (@pkytohonka)
Sidenote
A short sidenote from the video clip. If the players weren’t trained to solve the high press of the opponent with clear principles, the moment could have easily ended up in a situation where Koskimies would have received the pass from Laitimo even later and the opponent would have been able to press him. Then Koskimies would have been forced to turn his back to the field. Then the situation would have been more unfavourable for the white team. There could have been a “1v1” situation and if lost, the coach could have made the linear conclusion, that the team needs more physical work as they lose 1v1-situations.
The game happens between the players.
As it is a team sport, you can just focus on "smartness" of the game/individual player and forget the nasty part of being an athlete?
I do understand that by training actual stress situations it is higly more likely to allow better decision making during the game. It will matter individially, but most importantly as a team. But then I don't understand the underrating of closed tecnical work and pure physics.
"But again, as floorball is an invasion sport, the key to understand the problem can be found from the interaction of the three players." True, but then no. When you restrict all the possibities to your like, you can say these three white players could have made it better as a group, but actually the only problem here was the weakest link Huppunen, who's receiving was bad and the ball bounced off his blade. The other two made it just fine. The time Huppunen took to correct the error combined that he was unable to raise his head, could have been much less by simply doing closed training for this (enough repeatings to catch the ball and still keeping his head up, faster first two-three steps) and have made it work for the group. You can find the missing time from earlier actions by the other two, but then you have to assume that the opponent would have reacted the same, which is a big, big assumption. By taking that assumption I think you are just as wrong as the people you are trying to be unidentified with, the old school coaches.
As Floorball is a complex game, you can't train for all possible situations as there will always be the aspect of the unknown. Mistakes are being made even by best players, so executing flawless combinations through a whole game isn't possible. When shit happens (and it happens many times within a single game), it would be nice to be fast, strong and have nice ball handling abilities, don't you think?
Posted by: J Juhola | 19/05/2018 at 18:21
The problem is: how does a player know now is the situation to raise your head? After that, he or she also needs to perceive critical information and (inter)act accordingly.
Also, assuming Huppunen was the only player not playing optimally in this situation, he still needs the two other players playing similarly if he "corrects" his playing in a similar setting.
About nasty training: you can easily get hard enough training in representative settings if you really think that is necessary. You may use 2 ends of the rink and the middle and get more than 5+5 players working simultaneously. The intensity sohuld be on the level of actual competition or even higher - at least on the physical dimension.
For a player to improve the physical intensity of his playing, he only needs to work at the high-end of his actual playing. Raising the playing intensity like this will cause higher intensity in the matches. No separate speed or endurance training is necessary if this happens. I think theres a quote from Jose Mourinho or someone else about playing and training intensity, saying a waiter running full intensity with a tray of drinks will not get much faster with sprint training.
Posted by: AjHanninen | 19/05/2018 at 20:25
Carvalhal (2001) in Tamarit (2014), said,
“If we want to run a distance at maximum speed, we will do it with high intensity. However, if we want to do that same distance carrying a tray full of glasses, doing that as quickly as possible without dropping any glasses, inevitably this second action, even though slower, will be more intense because it requires high concentration.”
The idea is that the coach can control the intensity of an exercise by regulating the moments and game principles included in a given exercise.
https://www.togsoccer.com/single-post/2016/02/19/Regulating-Intensity-via-Game-Moments
Posted by: AjHanninen | 19/05/2018 at 20:30
"The problem is: how does a player know now is the situation to raise your head? After that, he or she also needs to perceive critical information and (inter)act accordingly." No, it's not. Huppunen is playing in the wrong series if he doesn't know yet to raise his head having ball in front of his own goal and being under high press. This should be clear since 14 years old. I'm not saying that everybody can do it, but at least everybody know they should. Like Perttu said Huppunen could have observed his surroundings before getting the pass, but in this case it woundn't have mattered as bad receiving took so long to correct that positions on the field could have been altered. Only way to get that information would have been raising his head.
"Also, assuming Huppunen was the only player not playing optimally in this situation, he still needs the two other players playing similarly if he "corrects" his playing in a similar setting." No. There's no two identical play never ever in this game, nor there's no identical closed training situations (speed and position variations on passes, ball bouncing etc.). That is why you shouldn't underrate closed drills as they are the only way to get enough repeats to make muscular memory to work. It's a whole other thing if it's wise to use precious team training time to do this. In any case you can improve team work by making individuals better. I agree that those few times in a week when the whole team is training together, it would be stupid to use that time on closed drills when dealing with adults.
"you can easily get hard enough training in representative settings if you really think that is necessary." Well, something true there, but why waste team time for that? As you know player starts to make bad decisions when tired. To get through the whole 60 minutes without getting tired isn't something you can train just by playing for 60 minutes. For every 60min game you need 120min vomit tasting training with the intensity of not remembering what floorball even is... Maybe it isn't that important with single games, but it has a huge effect on playoffs, when you have no time for recovery. Why give that advantege to your opponent?
"The idea is that the coach can control the intensity of an exercise by regulating the moments and game principles included in a given exercise." With 5x2h=10h usable time every week and maybe 10-20% high intensity training of that(1-2h/week), you can call yourself hobbyist as that won't improve your physical skills, that's just maintain level. To be an athlete is whole other thing, but I won't go there. As long floorball players aren't athletes, there will be no mainstream interest on the game. But that's not just Perttu's fault.
To use any citate from Mourinho, you need to remember they have 8 hours available training time every day (no work, no school) plus football has very little to do with the explosiveness of our game. A citate from Petteri Nykky would be more appreciated here.
Posted by: J Juhola | 20/05/2018 at 14:17
I quote myself:
”Usually good discussion and more practice time will solve the problem but sometimes we might identify a specific limiting factor. Then we could plan an individual specific training program (technical, tactical, physical, psychological) in which we try to concentrate on the problem at hand. The individual program shouldn’t in most cases interfere with the team’s training program. We must monitor the player’s development closely and analyse by watching the game if the player develops in the identified moment. If not, we must re-think the individual program and adjust it accordingly, then repeat.
So, there is time and place for individual work also in team sports but it should always respect the game itself.”
So I’m not on a mission to forbid players from practicing outside the team sessions. But, in most cases, it shouldn’t interfere with the team’s training program and should be always worked backwards from the game itself. As an amateur sport, there are also limits what the players can do without getting them fatigued / injured.
In Huppunen’s case regarding his receiving skills, well one key responsibility for a coach is to know his/her players, their strenghts and their limits. You are not right in your assesment.
Posted by: Perttu Kytöhonka | 20/05/2018 at 14:54