Love it. I also always smile when you give the “girl galloping on the downhill” example, because the most powerful “superpower” tool I have with the horses is a downhill. Important movements that I could spend months - YEARS even - trying to “teach” them on a flat surface will authentically emerge on a down slope.
17:12 Huge fan of implementing a CLA in our practices. The players seem to have a lot more fun, except when the constraints make the game too hard or confusing.
My favorite presentation so far Rob. I feel we can almost swap out soccer here for every other sport. You also sounded unusually provocative.... lol. Love t
@ 9:05, while you do point out that the technique is different between all three players, they do have common elements. All players have their arms out for balance, front leg is bent, eyes are down, etc. If these elements are consistent, would there be no value in isolated training using those coaching points (I.e. “keep your arms out for balance “)?
It's a rehash of the Dutch Vision. Rob, this battle was fought 35 years ago and the "constraints-led, SSG" crowd lost. Before you go down this path consult with those who went before so that you don't make the same mistakes. It's political, not humanistic.
I can't speak to football, but in ice hockey we're winning this battle, at least in Finland. The problem now is people are using small games without understanding what they're changing or how it affects the learning landscape or training outcomes. Basically we've just exchanged one set of problems for another without understanding why there were problems in the first place.
@@BBB-zy6er Interesting. I am finding success with it at my own martial arts school. Roundly losing the battle in the wider community however. Understandable, I very much wasted years myself with all the Wax on Wax off Mr Miyagi bullshit. Even if an ecological approach merely offered the same performance/learning outcomes. The fact that it's so much more fun and engaging is a good enough reason to adopt it IMO.
@@matheusmoraisrentero5132 The most dangerous thing is a half-truth. I used that same argument for years and can say the same thing for 10,000 hours of deliberate practice. See Brian Sutton-Smith, The Ambiguity of Play for the flaw in your argument. No lines, no laps, no lectures has been around since the State Associations were formed in the early '70's and yet they persist.
@@mcnoodles76 Why? Political. In 2009 USYS came out with their SSG's Manual. My contributions are mentioned on pages 33 & 59. This presentation is rehash of it and the National Youth License. Youth soccer exists because of the endless supply of newbies so repackaging old ideas is cheap and easy. USYS created this conundrum in the early '70s with their game for all kid's approach ignoring the group that favored a meritocratic approach. It's a complex problem that defies simple solutions.
I think the whole point of moving the ball in the space between the cones is to learn how to move the body and the ball together competently *in free spaces*, timing the touches to avoid obstacles. Using the ideas of the stages of motor learning (coordination, control, skill) this activity very effectively reduces the DOF for those learners in the coordination and even the control stage of learning. If you try to introduce individual tactics to those learners who can't competently even move the ball around obstacles with intention or who lack the touch to keep the ball under some measure of control against stationary objects, how are they going to have the capacity to do that against non-stationary objects (opponents)? "One must walk before they can run" is absolutely true, but it doesn't mean that one must perfect balance and walking before they try running, nor ignore walking or balance once they can run. One slide shows the player looking down. Well, even Ronaldo looks down: ua-cam.com/video/4achmhzLNoY/v-deo.html He's looking at the ball, the defender, and *the open spaces*. For those learners who can't move the ball under control isn't it too much to expect that they will be able to address the additional DOF introduced by a moving opponent? There are a multitude of variations of this activity that one can use that very clearly nullify most of the objections against using it. For example, how about random cone placement with the athlete choosing their own path? Specifying different actions to be taken against different color cones? Have an opponent chase them from behind? Multiple players doing the same activity without being an opponent? Using time constraints to make them execute the activity under pressure and get them out of their comfort zone, maybe moving faster than they would even against an opponent? Time is a constraint. So are cones. As are any prescriptions for an activity or rules in a game. All constraints. Then there is the issue of learners waiting in line. There is nothing wrong with this provided it is managed with intention, such as work-rest ratios or activity organization. Even when using other modes of activity such as small games or the activities promoted in this presentation, players will still need to rest, and that means waiting for their next bout. Waiting is waiting. Obviously when organizing practice where there is the possibility for games and opponents, it doesn't make much sense to spend very much time on individual activities. But that's a problem of organization and not of the activity itself. When the players are indeed alone, it makes very much sense to attack the cone. Individual activities allow the coach to observe each player's development. This is very difficult to evaluate in more open environments. How about addressing asymmetries in coordination? Requiring the players to move side-side through the cones also requires them to use both sides evenly. Given a more open environment, there is no guarantee that they will be exposed to situations where this will occur with any regularity, regardless of the fact that most people tend to rely only on what they are already good at, especially in competitive, open situations. Want variability? Throw swiss balls at them or have them go under hurdles while moving side-side. I understand and agree with most of CLA, the paradigm and the ideas are immensely useful. However, the fact that someone uses a tool without understanding doesn't mean that the tool itself is a bad tool. The problem is the lack of understanding. Constraints-led approaches can help provide some of that understanding, and in the process introduce some new tools.
@@matheusmoraisrentero5132 Solving the problems of the game is done *through movement*. Coaching movement and coaching problem solving are *not* mutually exclusive paths. We are not limited to choosing only one of these two options. Indeed, I have seen on this very channel videos showing how to coach movement skill using physical constraints instead of verbal instructions in isolated "skill" practices. Just because there is "no one right way" does not exclude the fact that there is a set of optimal ways to solve a problem, or that there are still an infinite amount of wrong ways that are not worth exploring. Most of those are taken care of with the environment and the movement goals. The trick is to *use* those effectively as a coach so that the optimal movement given the constraints is produced. But of course, defining what we mean by "optimal" is important.
@@larrypaul8688 Yeah, I was acquainted with it some while ago (at least the wikipedia version), but I'm not intentionally channeling it here. I said many things, to what part do you think there is a relation?
@@BBB-zy6er "Just because there is "no one right way" does not exclude the fact that there is a set of optimal ways to solve a problem, or that there are still an infinite amount of wrong ways that are not worth exploring. Most of those are taken care of with the environment and the movement goals. The trick is to use those effectively as a coach so that the optimal movement given the constraints is produced. But of course, defining what we mean by "optimal" is important." Consider that passage to an aerial dog fight which the OODA came out of. About the only thing missing is the how of thinking which Boyd spelled in Destruction and Creation. My only question would be on the term optimal. For that you can go to Gary Klein and Gerd Gigerenzer who would argue against it, heuristic based decision making.
@@larrypaul8688 Robert Miles has some good content on optimization, however in an AI context. In his videos he discusses in particular how optimization around a small or singular group of values can easily become counterproductive or possibly even dangerous. His channel: ua-cam.com/channels/LB7AzTwc6VFZrBsO2ucBMg.html I rather like Herbert Simon's "Satisficing", where a solution is measured on its just barely succeeding. Gigerenzer's Bounded Rationality also heavily influences my thinking on what is "optimal". My favorite Simon quote: "A wealth of information creates a poverty of attention." I like to think of coaching as the education of attention. Thinking of constraints, instructions, hints, or feedback on skill execution or tactical movement in this way really helps the coach bring added value to the learner. ramble, ramble ....
Love it. I also always smile when you give the “girl galloping on the downhill” example, because the most powerful “superpower” tool I have with the horses is a downhill. Important movements that I could spend months - YEARS even - trying to “teach” them on a flat surface will authentically emerge on a down slope.
I love the way you present information, very good communicator. I want to take your class next year!
17:12 Huge fan of implementing a CLA in our practices. The players seem to have a lot more fun, except when the constraints make the game too hard or confusing.
My favorite presentation so far Rob. I feel we can almost swap out soccer here for every other sport.
You also sounded unusually provocative.... lol. Love t
Excellent, Way to go !!
@ 9:05, while you do point out that the technique is different between all three players, they do have common elements. All players have their arms out for balance, front leg is bent, eyes are down, etc. If these elements are consistent, would there be no value in isolated training using those coaching points (I.e. “keep your arms out for balance “)?
It's a rehash of the Dutch Vision. Rob, this battle was fought 35 years ago and the "constraints-led, SSG" crowd lost. Before you go down this path consult with those who went before so that you don't make the same mistakes. It's political, not humanistic.
Larry. That's interesting. Can you elaborate more on why that side 'lost'?
I can't speak to football, but in ice hockey we're winning this battle, at least in Finland. The problem now is people are using small games without understanding what they're changing or how it affects the learning landscape or training outcomes. Basically we've just exchanged one set of problems for another without understanding why there were problems in the first place.
@@BBB-zy6er Interesting. I am finding success with it at my own martial arts school. Roundly losing the battle in the wider community however. Understandable, I very much wasted years myself with all the Wax on Wax off Mr Miyagi bullshit.
Even if an ecological approach merely offered the same performance/learning outcomes. The fact that it's so much more fun and engaging is a good enough reason to adopt it IMO.
@@matheusmoraisrentero5132 The most dangerous thing is a half-truth. I used that same argument for years and can say the same thing for 10,000 hours of deliberate practice. See Brian Sutton-Smith, The Ambiguity of Play for the flaw in your argument. No lines, no laps, no lectures has been around since the State Associations were formed in the early '70's and yet they persist.
@@mcnoodles76 Why? Political. In 2009 USYS came out with their SSG's Manual. My contributions are mentioned on pages 33 & 59. This presentation is rehash of it and the National Youth License. Youth soccer exists because of the endless supply of newbies so repackaging old ideas is cheap and easy. USYS created this conundrum in the early '70s with their game for all kid's approach ignoring the group that favored a meritocratic approach. It's a complex problem that defies simple solutions.
I think the whole point of moving the ball in the space between the cones is to learn how to move the body and the ball together competently *in free spaces*, timing the touches to avoid obstacles. Using the ideas of the stages of motor learning (coordination, control, skill) this activity very effectively reduces the DOF for those learners in the coordination and even the control stage of learning. If you try to introduce individual tactics to those learners who can't competently even move the ball around obstacles with intention or who lack the touch to keep the ball under some measure of control against stationary objects, how are they going to have the capacity to do that against non-stationary objects (opponents)?
"One must walk before they can run" is absolutely true, but it doesn't mean that one must perfect balance and walking before they try running, nor ignore walking or balance once they can run.
One slide shows the player looking down. Well, even Ronaldo looks down: ua-cam.com/video/4achmhzLNoY/v-deo.html
He's looking at the ball, the defender, and *the open spaces*. For those learners who can't move the ball under control isn't it too much to expect that they will be able to address the additional DOF introduced by a moving opponent?
There are a multitude of variations of this activity that one can use that very clearly nullify most of the objections against using it. For example, how about random cone placement with the athlete choosing their own path? Specifying different actions to be taken against different color cones? Have an opponent chase them from behind? Multiple players doing the same activity without being an opponent? Using time constraints to make them execute the activity under pressure and get them out of their comfort zone, maybe moving faster than they would even against an opponent? Time is a constraint. So are cones. As are any prescriptions for an activity or rules in a game. All constraints.
Then there is the issue of learners waiting in line. There is nothing wrong with this provided it is managed with intention, such as work-rest ratios or activity organization. Even when using other modes of activity such as small games or the activities promoted in this presentation, players will still need to rest, and that means waiting for their next bout. Waiting is waiting.
Obviously when organizing practice where there is the possibility for games and opponents, it doesn't make much sense to spend very much time on individual activities. But that's a problem of organization and not of the activity itself. When the players are indeed alone, it makes very much sense to attack the cone.
Individual activities allow the coach to observe each player's development. This is very difficult to evaluate in more open environments.
How about addressing asymmetries in coordination? Requiring the players to move side-side through the cones also requires them to use both sides evenly. Given a more open environment, there is no guarantee that they will be exposed to situations where this will occur with any regularity, regardless of the fact that most people tend to rely only on what they are already good at, especially in competitive, open situations. Want variability? Throw swiss balls at them or have them go under hurdles while moving side-side.
I understand and agree with most of CLA, the paradigm and the ideas are immensely useful. However, the fact that someone uses a tool without understanding doesn't mean that the tool itself is a bad tool. The problem is the lack of understanding. Constraints-led approaches can help provide some of that understanding, and in the process introduce some new tools.
@@matheusmoraisrentero5132
Solving the problems of the game is done *through movement*.
Coaching movement and coaching problem solving are *not* mutually exclusive paths. We are not limited to choosing only one of these two options. Indeed, I have seen on this very channel videos showing how to coach movement skill using physical constraints instead of verbal instructions in isolated "skill" practices.
Just because there is "no one right way" does not exclude the fact that there is a set of optimal ways to solve a problem, or that there are still an infinite amount of wrong ways that are not worth exploring. Most of those are taken care of with the environment and the movement goals. The trick is to *use* those effectively as a coach so that the optimal movement given the constraints is produced. But of course, defining what we mean by "optimal" is important.
@@BBB-zy6er Are you familiar with the OODA Loop model? It's what you're driving at.
@@larrypaul8688
Yeah, I was acquainted with it some while ago (at least the wikipedia version), but I'm not intentionally channeling it here. I said many things, to what part do you think there is a relation?
@@BBB-zy6er "Just because there is "no one right way" does not exclude the fact that there is a set of optimal ways to solve a problem, or that there are still an infinite amount of wrong ways that are not worth exploring. Most of those are taken care of with the environment and the movement goals. The trick is to use those effectively as a coach so that the optimal movement given the constraints is produced. But of course, defining what we mean by "optimal" is important."
Consider that passage to an aerial dog fight which the OODA came out of. About the only thing missing is the how of thinking which Boyd spelled in Destruction and Creation. My only question would be on the term optimal. For that you can go to Gary Klein and Gerd Gigerenzer who would argue against it, heuristic based decision making.
@@larrypaul8688
Robert Miles has some good content on optimization, however in an AI context. In his videos he discusses in particular how optimization around a small or singular group of values can easily become counterproductive or possibly even dangerous. His channel: ua-cam.com/channels/LB7AzTwc6VFZrBsO2ucBMg.html
I rather like Herbert Simon's "Satisficing", where a solution is measured on its just barely succeeding. Gigerenzer's Bounded Rationality also heavily influences my thinking on what is "optimal".
My favorite Simon quote: "A wealth of information creates a poverty of attention." I like to think of coaching as the education of attention. Thinking of constraints, instructions, hints, or feedback on skill execution or tactical movement in this way really helps the coach bring added value to the learner.
ramble, ramble ....