Reader,
I was on the grass this week with a coaching colleague, and we had an interesting conversation about the role of unopposed or isolated practice in our programmes.
To be clear, I believe in football training sessions including realistic information that ensures players have to make decisions based on tasks that are representative of the game.
This is especially important in amateur and grassroots settings where we may only have limited contact with players. It’s also important to remember that game-based and opposed sessions are often more enjoyable, engaging and demanding for players.
This topic can polarise coaches, those who believe in one, or the other, but the best coaches I know have always seen practice design as a spectrum, all of which can come with trade-offs.
It can be argued that reducing realism (opposition, direction, consequence) is a negative trade-off. However, if we take a simple passing practice, for example, we dial up repetition in this moment, allowing players to refine receiving or releasing skills. During these moments, we can really coach detail.
I have seen some world-class coaches deliver unopposed practices over the years, while it’s not my personal preference, one thing is critical. If we head down this end of the practice spectrum, detail is everything.
Are we reinforcing weight, shape, and type of pass? Are we encouraging players to receive on their back foot, and finish with accuracy, power or guile? Can we design unopposed or interference practices to ensure players create good habits around good body shape, receiving on the back foot, scanning or facing forwards?
It’s also worth considering how we can constrain these practices to ensure quick decision-making or individual challenges.
I have wrestled with these concepts during the season. On a handful of occasions, I dialled things back to unopposed or semi-opposed practices, even passing patterns, primarily so my players could get a feel for the ball, or get successful reps of passing, receiving and finishing.
But when it came to introducing opposition, very rarely did the same pictures (or patterns) emerge from one practice (unopposed) to the next (opposed) due to the unpredictable nature of the game. This reinforced my beliefs about the importance of practice looking like the game. So, with all this considered, when might we dial it back?
Three things to consider
- As above, if we want players to develop a feel for the ball, get higher reps or succeed at a skill, perhaps we go unopposed. This could be as simple as finishing practices where strikers get high reps hitting the back of the net as it can build confidence.
- We might consider physical loading, or recovery after a match day. These moments present chances to implement active recovery or lighter, unopposed sessions based on physical needs.
- Warm-ups, football movement or conditioning activities that include a ball (in my view) are much more valuable. I believe you can get most physical outcomes in football with the ball included somewhere in the activity, but warm-ups might be the time to work down the unopposed end of the spectrum while the remainder of the session focuses on more realistic tasks.
One thing for you to try this week.
Experiment in your practice design.
What differences do you see when you deliver a passing practice or something similar versus a small-sided or positional game?
Resist the temptation to jump in and coach, but instead observe and listen. How engaged are the players? Does the tempo increase or decrease when you intervene or step out? What decisions do the players have to (or not have to) make depending on the practice?
This can be a powerful exercise in getting clear on what you believe and the trade-offs of moving between practice types
One critical resource on the topic.
Check out this superb article from world-class academy coach, Dan Wright, ‘Develop a Feeling‘ which beautifully describes the value of the coaching spectrum and how coaches can manipulate it.
