Classroom Experiment: Creating Footballers Who Can Reflect and Analyze
My players require a different approach to learning and development. Many of them chose to skip school and play football instead. We recruited them based on their footballing ability, so, the drawback is often their level of education and what they can/can’t understand.
At Ascent Soccer we work very closely with the education department so that we can get the most out of players on and off the pitch.
Some of this cooperation comes in the form of classroom football sessions led by a team’s head coach. I’m working with our U15 group and have decided to take an idea from the education department and document the progress I saw across nearly two months.
This is what I found.
Note: I’m not sure how much of this is backed by research. I got the idea from our Head of Academics Matt Harris (formerly of Right to Dream) when he shared a new approach to teaching our players in the classroom.
Source: Thinking Classroom in Mathematics at Chestermere Lake Middle School
The video follows a Peter Liljedahl (@pgliljedahl) style of teaching in a math class
This article talks about the idea I based my experiment on in more detail:
Coaching and teaching are the same
When you view coaching and teaching as the same you can approach a cycle of training differently.
I used to be interested in new rondos or possession games, now I’m more interested in learning how young people learn and what I can do to get the most out of my players.
I’ve discussed my appreciation for “layering the learning process” before and this experiment did exactly that. That said, this experiment wouldn’t have even happened if I didn’t approach it from the angle of teaching how to think about problems.
The experiment outline
I wanted to create a group of young people who were able to reflect on and analyze their own performances on the football pitch as well as their teammates. To give further context, football players generally do not connect football to learning.
Every week in football class I split the players into small groups, handed each group their own white board and markers. I then removed chairs so that they had to stand. This chair removal encouraged players to look at other boards (a behavior I encouraged but didn’t force.)
I also never stayed in one spot. I constantly changed points of engagement to “defront the room.”
Then I created and followed the following steps:
Step 1:
Categorize what was done in training into four categories: physical, technical, tactical and mental/communication. This achieved a clear sorting system for my players as well as sparked some debate as to what is a technical idea or tactical idea (ex: cutback chances.)
Step 2:
Let the players create their own training plan and put the exercises/movements into the four categories.
Afterwards, have their peers judge and vote on what is the “best” training session. The ”best” group would then lead the following week’s training session using their plan.
Afterwards, we would discuss what went well and what didn’t in the football class a few days after the session.
Step 3:
Introducing match analysis. Players can write whatever they want.
Step 4:
Continue match analysis. Explain what I see as their coach and encourage them to give more detail.
Step 5:
Continue match analysis. Help where needed but back off more and allow players to communicate their ideas across the groups to find solutions.
This is a loose approach. It took seven weeks to see results. I may have missed some steps; I definitely repeated some.
The experiment
Week 1: Step 1
It was a very easy process to get players on board with this new way of learning. I wrote on one communal white board the four categories discussed above and handed out seven or eight markers for people to use at will.
The question I asked them:
“What did we do in training and where does what we learned fall under? Be as specific as possible.”
Some of the early answers were:
Running fast
Shooting
Passing
Dribbling
Very disheartening considering we were working on playing through the lines.
This process took about 25 minutes before all the players agreed that everything that was on the whiteboard was what we did in training.
I immediately learned that my players were repeating buzzwords the coaching staff had said before and that the majority of them cannot recall what we did in training.
Afterwards, I sent them into small groups — no whiteboard, to go into as much detail as possible. I got very little to no improvement in the quality of answers.
Week 2: Step 1 & Step 2
I started the class with the same whiteboard and question as the previous week. The answers were better — much better.
A few of the players admitted that during the week they met to discuss what they learned in training so that they could be prepared for the class. The reason for doing it may not be my most desired, but the idea of players talking about training outside of training is exactly what I want.
After answering the prompt I asked the players to create their own session plans with the theme “playing between the lines.”
Players had 30 minutes to create their plans in small groups — with their own whiteboards and markers. No teams looked at another whiteboard.
When asked I got told “I didn’t want to cheat” or “I didn’t want them to see our ideas.”
Once completed, groups would present their ideas to their team. Their teammates would vote on which sessions were best. The group with the most votes would lead the following training session doing their training plan.
Week 3: Step 2 cont.
This was very exciting to see unfold. For starters, the winning group did not create any exercises that me or another coach here did not do with them before.
Additionally, the exercises that were selected by the players did not align with the session theme. Unfortunately I don’t have the actual written plan anymore.
The first exercise was an up back through passing pattern that I had done with them a few months ago. The intensity was high and I was really happy to see some of the more talented players hold their teammates accountable for not taking the exercise seriously or not trying their best.
The second exercise was a 2v2 wave game where one team scored on an 11-a-side goal while the defending pair would run through gates opposite to the goal if they won the ball. This was more of a finishing exercise and did not show how they would play between the lines.
The final game was a large rondo. 5v5+5 with the only conditions being: play two touch only
The session started off well but turned argumentative at times, especially between the leading group and players. As the exercises grew in complexity the coaching points stopped, the encouragement stopped and so did the intensity.
After speaking with the leaders of the session the issue they ran into was that their teammates stopped listening to them. Additionally, the leading group was beginning to understand that their peers and myself saw that the session plan was not about the theme we had decided to use.
They admitted to feeling under pressure when they were questioned by their teammates about the session theme during the session.
After the on field session we discussed in the football class what went well and what didn’t.
What went well:
- It was fun
- It was intense
- Players felt comfortable using their weaker foot to strike the ball
- Players communicated
What didn’t go well:
- It was not relevant to the theme
- Session leaders only used one style of communication: being loud and confrontational
This discussion was done standing up with the leaders of the session having their session written out on a white board in the middle of the room.
The session leaders went around the room and discussed with their teammates questions about the session.
The questions were surprisingly detailed. Some were:
“How can we change this session to play between the lines?”
“What do you (the session leaders) think needs to improve?”
“What did you (the players) learn?”
What was curious to me is that the players asking these questions were doing so to challenge the session leaders. It seemed like they were doing it to catch their teammates slipping up because their English isn’t perfect, or because they couldn’t prepare for these questions and had to answer on the fly.
Whatever the motive was, the quality of questions was great and shows that my players can think quite critically about their learning environments on and off the pitch.
Week 4: Step 3
I broke the group into three smaller groups: defenders, midfielders and forwards.
Players put themselves in the group that they felt best represented them. Everyone was surprisingly honest.
We watched the Champions League Final between Chelsea and Manchester City. I asked them to write down anything you see the players you’ve been asked to watch doing.
Some of the answers included were:
- play wide, pitch big, play fast, one touch
These are basically all we teach our players at U12, with the exception of playing one touch.
This immediately showed me that my players can only share what they see if they have seen it before.
After the players shared their answers I walked around the classroom asking them to take 10 more minutes to give more detail.
All the groups struggled. Eventually one group asked for help!
I was happy to give some prompts to the players:
What foot do the players you’re watching use?
Where do they go when they have the ball?
Where do they go when their team has the ball?
Where do they go when their team loses the ball?
I got some good answers that answered exactly what I asked. However, without the prompt the players weren’t able to share what they saw.
Week 5: Step 3 cont. & Step 4
Same groups as last week.
I put on Swansea vs Arsenal. The one where Michu scored a brace.
I asked the defenders to watch the forwards, midfielders watched defenders and forwards watched midfielders.
I asked them to give as much detail as possible and explained that there is no limit to what you can share or how you share it.
They were given 20 minutes.
The answers were detailed considering where we started from.
“Michu stays in the middle but the defender steps up then Michu runs into space.”
There was lots of saying what happened but not why. However, the above answer was great. My player explained what happened and what the consequence of the action was.
Players were not sharing ideas across boards and remained independent. There was a sense of competition despite me not insinuating such.
Despite there only being one really strong answer, it was still a very positive class. Players presented their ideas and challenged each other in civil debate. All in English too.
I felt that everyone had a chance to say something and contribute to the discussion. Throughout this process players would ask me if their answers were good enough.
This is an example of a “stop thinking” question and is a sign that the player doesn’t trust their answer or isn’t satisfied with it.
When asked, I would push back and answer their questions with questions:
“What do you think?”
“How does your answer relate to the topic?”
“What do members in your group think?”
This is done to get the players to continue thinking rather than me giving them an answer.
Week 6: Step 1 & Step 5
We made a return to the four categories we started with to see if the level of detail had improved.
It did. Massively.
Players explained what we did in training this block in as much detail as possible. The previous week we began working on finishing, specifically finishing cutback chances.
There was a healthy debate amongst my players which talked about if the cutback pass itself belonged in the technical section or tactical section.
I didn’t intervene and let the conversations flow. I would pop in with my own opinions when asked, but otherwise just watched.
Afterwards, I asked them to reflect on if they met the standard they should train to.
Many did not agree that they met the standard of training (older players who had trained with our U18 group admitted that they trained differently in the U18 training session vs U15 training session.)
The reflection was accurate. I asked them why they thought this way and got mixed answers. Here’s some that stood out:
“I didn’t push myself, the defenders were hard to beat.”
“I wanted to save my energy for U18 training, so I made lots of mistakes.”
“I used my weaker foot and my teammates supported me, even if I missed!”
Generally mixed answers, but honest.
At this point I saw that what we had been doing was starting to prove successful. Players were now giving specific answers and reflecting on their own ability and their team’s ability in training.
Previously, players would say “I trained well but he trained bad” or “My pass was good, it’s his first touch that was bad” and so on.
A very positive football class.
Week 7: Step 5
We watched PSG vs Liverpool in the Champions League group stage. The groups were made by themselves as long as they had a player from each of the three groups: defenders, midfielders and forwards.
I gave them the freedom to look at anything they want.
As the game went on, many players had looked on other boards and asked their teammates for ideas.
⅔ groups looked at shapes in and out of possession for both teams, while one group used a very detailed picture of a pattern they saw Liverpool doing in build up from GKs (the only group to use pictures over this whole period, every other time it was written.)
When the discussions were happening, players presented their ideas with more confidence and asked their teammates what they thought of their ideas. There was no arguing, instead more questioning.
When the group that presented the passing pattern diagram, other groups would chime in to share what they saw to support their presenting teammates.
It was fantastic to see such detailed collaboration.
Discoveries
- Deep self-reflection can be taught in a critical and collaborative environment.
- Players need to see the value in self-reflection.
- Self-reflection from our football players led to more engaged training sessions.
Conclusion
I will be continuing with this method of teaching in our football class because it was engaging for my players, led to many interesting discussions and was fun to be a part of.
There were some weeks where I felt we lost progress or didn’t make progress fast enough. Other weeks felt like we were making a real breakthrough with our players.
Trusting that the process will work is what led us to these results.
When we got onto the football pitch I noticed I didn’t need to repeat the same coaching points and was able to move on to progressions sooner. It’s hard to say for certain over the course of the long term, but in the short term my players were able to understand the ideas and explain the value/intention of the ideas learned.
Thank you again Peter Liljedahl (@pgliljedahl) for sharing your ideas. They have been massively successful here in Malawi.
Thank-you for your time. Follow me on Medium to get more long form written content.
I have a weekly newsletter called The Weekly Rondo that covers coaching, analysis, my experience in Malawi and working with youth national team players.
If you want to support me consider paying for a Medium membership using my referral link: https://cameron-herbert.medium.com/membership
By using my link, I will get 50% of the fee paid. Your support will help pay for my growing coffee budget.
Follow me on Twitter for unhinged content: https://twitter.com/CamH___
