Losing the Dressing Room - a Tale of Two Teams

Throughout the years there have been many famous leadership figures in football. Some that have inspired a generation, others who represent a snapshot of a time gone by. In British football we have become synonymous with the fist pumping, all action, swash buckling captain characterized in the likes of Terry Butcher, Stuart Pearce and Brian Robson. These players lead through combative play, and were equally militant in their demand of a team mates performance. In contrast the Italians have a much calmer, serenely cerebral and cunningly astute figure. Bepe Bergomi, Fabio Cannavaro and Franco Baresi all symbolize Calcio's traditional Libero, embodying artistic intelligence and unbridled callousness in equal measure. Other cultures have embraced a different leader, those who represent true genius. Johan Cryuff, Michel Platini and Diego Maradona may not have purveyed in the furrowed brow and battering chest methodology; but with a sashay through midfield and a geometrically accurate chip later, they could have the masses glued to their every touch. If we are to believe that a player's leadership lies within visible influence and inspiration, how then can we illustrate those who are by their very job title, leaders. The coach is someone that imparts so much of the approach and strategy onto a team, however on match day stands idly by on the touchline almost powerless as to the events unfolding in front of them. How then do coaches manage to captivate their audience and delineate tasks successfully, when in essence they are selected to principal position rather than elected. It takes a certain type of person to lead a group of individuals, regardless of the setting, however within the context of sport it conjures up a cornucopia of faculties that are required to be successful. In this piece I intend to explore what leadership truly means in the world of a manager.

Home is where the heart is. A much fabled line, yet against the backdrop of a football club it serves to the belief that a sense of wellbeing at the workplace can heighten a players affection toward their craft. The environment in which a manager sets for everyone associated with the football club, is in its purest form, his most potent form of leadership. This isn't always found in the lavish 6 star hotels, Learjet's and pristine practice complexes that some premiership clubs could claim to portray, its merely the environment that is predicated by the manager and transmitted to all that come in contact. What some struggle to conceptualize in this realm, is that trying to pre-fabricate an on edge world where everyone is "kept on their toe's" in actuality does nothing but fester negativity. Players need to feel comfortable enough to know their efforts aren't in vein, yet confident in the notion that there is a collective air of desire amongst the group. In his recent autobiography - RED, Gary Neville speaks of Man United's training mentality as one of almost self policing.

"Every second of every training session at United had to be treated like a cup final. At an England gathering some of the other lads were shocked at how hard me, Butty and Scholesy were going into tackles. Our attitude was that if you weren't full on in practice, it was no preparation for Saturday."

What's abundantly clear in Neville's many paragraphs on life at United, was that each player bought into the club concept that they had high minimum standards of each other. Ultimately Sir Alex Ferguson could shout from the rafters on a daily basis, but it would have all been squandered had his players not applied his mindset into their way of life. Many see Ferguson as some belligerent dictator out to chastise his players at every opportunity, yet if you dig a little deeper you'll see that he has cultivated an identity to which his players thrive within a competitive atmosphere. They enthuse each other to go the extra mile, which builds mental & physical collateral that can be cashed in during encounters of the highest importance. We've saw United grab late victories so often down the years, and it's simply derived from an appetite that is intrinsic to their daily routine.

Football at its very core is an inventive sport, and as such a manager has to balance being able to augment a player's creative pallet, while being able to articulate their assessment effectively without stifling creativity. Performance is how we as coaches grade the correlation between development and understanding, yet it's the emotion behind the appraisal that can influence the player more than any game experience. Too often in football we see coaches becoming physically angry with players, screaming and shouting from the touchline, as if it will serve to impart verbal impetus onto them. In actuality this probably blocks the connection between player and coach, at a time when it's at its most needed. True leaders can communicate with players effectively in any setting, good or bad, win or lose, agreement or disagreement. Let's take Pep Guardiola for instance, who has entered into Bayern Munich, an already very successful and established team, and has transformed the way they operate. He has been able to communicate his philosophy in a clear and concise manner, but more importantly has not served to patronize the players. Both parties could have propagated past success with two very different playing styles, but what remains impressive is how one man transitioned a group of individuals to perform so differently. Guardiola has had to be consistent with his philosophy, and ensure no stone was left unturned during the initial stages of his tenure. His attention to detail & ability to motivate others has since paid off, and Bayern have continued to intensify their grip of world football as a result.

A team captain is habitually selected on the basis of a number of attributable factors. Tenure, experience, ability, personality, all come to the fore when the alpha amongst the group is established. While a manager's make up is derived from similar principles, their appointment is certainly not as organically selected as that of their team leader. Being thrust into the limelight provides the manager with a set of challenges that test even the most resolute of characters. In any position of power there will be detractors and there will be supporters, it's those who can unite the body politic of the group that will invariably be successful. Each Premiership game day the manager serves to alienate 14 of his 25 man squad when he announces the starting line-up. He therefore has to draw upon reserves of trust amongst his players, built up through key encounters, that will allow him to call on those 14 surrogates when they are needed most. Managing individual personalities requires a personal touch, an ability to listen, yet more importantly the respect of the receiving individual. Investing in our players away from the field is an attribute many coaches forego, and as such fail to connect with the individual beyond a series of one way informative dialogue. While leadership can be depicted through actions that attract others to follow, there needs to more substance to the relationship. Often coaches feel that by displaying an enhanced understanding of the game, or indeed portraying past success as a player, they should be afforded the respect of the group. In reality this does little to correlate individuals, and if anything probably veneers the coaches inability to connect on a human level. We have witnessed many instances when a manager "loses the dressing room", which could probably be the worst phrase in football, yet underlines how quickly a group of individuals who are built to unite as one, can do so in such a self deprecating fashion. The Manager is part of the team, yet if they do not carry the respect of the players they too can become a further opposition for the collective to conspire against, with as much gusto as a same city rival.

In every successful Manager, regardless of where they may hail from or when in time they operated, each possesses a trait that is undeniably comparable. They all display an ability to inspire. It's inspiration that allows our game to develop, and we as trainers have the ability to do so in everything we do. This stretches way beyond the top level of professional football, starting with community schemes and junior football clubs through to the Academy programs that make up the football community in the country. Everyone at every level has the chance to achieve success with their group, yet we cannot continue to equate success in leadership as champions medals & table topping finishes. Success for me is charting a generation of footballers who have learned to love the game through the teachings of a vast array of trainers, who are dedicated to leading their players to enlightenment. We all have the opportunity to build our own learning environments, whether it's a fresh start or an adaptation of a previous encounter, and we can do it starting tomorrow. By devoting time to challenging our own philosophies, and how they apply within our group, we can start to look beyond players "Not getting it" or "Not being good enough". We ask our players daily to be creative and think outside the box, however most of us are sticking with the tried and tested, which inevitably does our players a disservice. Leading our players to better things requires us to drive that vehicle, therefore if we remain stagnate so will our players. The next time you feel yourself coaching too much on game day....stand back.....take a breath, and think to yourself....have I really prepared them correctly if I'm standing here barking out orders all game? Leadership starts from assessing your own conduct, and in turn displaying inner strength onto others. A positive leader is not a coach that wins every week, but one that inspires their players to come back stronger next week despite the result. We spend all our time teaching others, stop and listen to your players for a minute.....you too may learn something.

Building from the Ground Up

This week saw the release of a cinematic documentary entitled "The Class of 92." The film charts the rise of 6 players from the Manchester United youth team of 1992, with the narrative centering on the social & cultural shift within Britain during that time. The club itself had gone through numerous face lifts prior to their inclusion, however it was the vision of Sir Alex Ferguson that allowed these players to become the spine of a club for over a decade, and elevate them to the top of European football. Fast forward to the current day and as the necessity to buy big grips our managers like a vice, are the days of a youth team graduate a distant memory? Is it a fallacy to think our Academy system isn't producing players, or are they simply not being serviced properly? In this piece I intend to explore how our top level game is becoming increasingly disconnected from its own youth programs.

The Youth team model has been an intrinsic part of the British game in the post war era, as it has provided clubs with a platform in which to cultivate young talent, and school them in their philosophies for a fairly low expense. These "Farm Teams" often play the same system as the 1st team, so it provides each player with an environment they will encounter should they be promoted up the ladder. The evolution of the academy system has taken a few twists and turns over the years, with its current incarnation being arguably its most convoluted.

- Clubs have dropped the age of entry significantly, and can now field teams as young as under 12 into competitive match play. This has created a highly aggressive market in which players are "recruited", when they are barely old enough to cumulatively understand the process in the first place.

- Clubs have been known to procure families to re-locate to within a designated "Catchment" area, so the player qualifies for participation. The costs of such a venture are often picked up by the clubs.

- Pro Level Youth teams now have a transfer budget, which has saw them enter the trading market, and populate their side with an array of international players.

This leads me to question whether our clubs are simply using the youth team model to further their "brand" rather than bring through the best local talent. The youth program was once a major artery in the bond between club & supporter, however it seems it has now degenerated into a rather expensive PR exercise.

In this year's Forbes list of Most Valuable Clubs, England had the highest representation encompassing 7 of the 20 clubs listed. Beneath these super powers, there are those who regularly compete in the top division, and are still able to turn over in-ordinate sums of money from TV revenue alone. A byproduct of this fiscal prudence has been a vast increase in the level of infrastructure at our clubs. From immaculate training complexes, to sports science & education facilities, our clubs have unparalleled access to world class resources. Rewind back to the time of the "Class of 92" and they were turning out at United's age old training ground "The Cliff", which in comparison to Carrington is a throwback of Dickensian proportions. With the inception of younger teams, players are now at clubs for longer periods of time, and are therefore exposed to more high level coaching in their formative years. In yester year a junior player may have never met a professional coach until 16, so their chances of "making it" relied largely on their ability to integrate quickly. In past endeavors a youth team would be managed by a former 1st team player, whose career was harrowingly cut short, but had went onto "work with the kids." Now our top teams scour the globe for coaches who are highly qualified, both in licensure & in age group specific training. So if we are to view the current landscape as one of an improvement upon times gone by, then why has there been a decrease in home grown talent in our top sides? Surely youth players must now be benefitting from heightened levels of professionalism? The statistics would exclaim otherwise.

Arsenal, Chelsea, Man City & Liverpool form the top 4 of the Barclays premier league, and year on year invest vast sums of money into youth development. At the start of this season each of these clubs were permitted to select 25 players that would form their 1st team squads. Of the combined 100 players who were selected, a total of only 15 had been part of their respective clubs youth program. More interestingly only 6 of the 15 had made more than 10 appearances for their clubs 1st team. A similar story can be told of the BPL's bottom 3 clubs Sunderland, Crystal Palace & Fulham. At 1st glance they may seem more "Community Based" in their size and stature, however after bypassing this notion, it allows us to derive a different outcome. Of their combined 75 players selected, only 4 in total were part of their club's youth set up. These statistics lead me to question why our top clubs even bother with youth programs? If there is such disparity throughout the league, then surely the expense of such an exercise would be better spent elsewhere?

At board level in England there has been a direct shift from strategy to preservation in the last decade, with the seemingly relentless hiring/firing of managers being its end result. Attaining/preserving Premier League status is for many clubs it's singular focus, therefore this short term view renders a majority of the Academies work meaningless. If a manager's performance is graded on little more than 10-12 games, we cannot be surprised that he would favor spending money on a short term fix. In short, his tenure decides which policy to emply. There are examples of clubs who have laid solid foundations for the future, with Southampton being a beacon in rather cloudier times. They are a club that completely restructured their organization after being relegated to League 1. Seeing the errors of their ways, their owners spent significantly on building a development team, that worked tirelessly to produce young players who could impact the 1st team. Allied to this there fan base championed these young stars, giving them the support to propel themselves to new heights. Managers have came & went during this period, but all have shared a consistent view that youth players are an integral part of the club. Now in the Premiership the club are enjoying new levels of success, with their main protagonist of the youth academy, Adam Llana, recently representing the English national team.

What's abundantly clear is that there has to be a mentality shift in how we perceive the academy system, at all levels of the game. Simply viewing these as teams affiliated to the club provides us with little structure, and endangers both the security of the club & prosperity of our national game. Winning a youth championship should serve the manager with 4 to 5 players who he can integrate into a 1st team, not act as another statistic on the clubs honors list. We as fans must remove ourselves from the search for this fictitious "Next Level" we seem to aspire to these days. Spending big is a frivolous use of monies that may not be at our disposal in years to come. Therefore we must employ a renewed focus on youth development, and see integration as a key stage in the process. If we are to see anything like the "class of 92" again we need to place trust in our young players and have faith in a holistic model that, given time, will benefit our national & international game for years to come.

A Little Piece of Knowledge is a Dangerous Thing

Like many coaches in the UK I started at the very bottom of the ladder, entering level 1 of the coach education structure of the Scottish Football Association. The SFA, like many associations  around the world, have implemented a coach education system that forms a pathway in which trainers can enhance their learning. Here is the pathway in its entirety, and the costs associated:

Level 1 - £40

Level 2 - £50

Level 3 - £55

Physical Prep - £72

UEFA C License - £ 228

UEFA B License - £1626

UEFA A License - £2100

UEFA Pro License - £5200

In theory the £9,371 that it would cost a coach to achieve these qualifications pales in comparison to that of a masters or doctorate degree, that could easily stretch into 5 or 6 figures depending on the school attended. To compare the two may seem largely irrelevant, however both are akin to a conclusive standard bearer, that attributes the holder to a position of understanding within a specific field. Many would argue football coaching contradicts the process of progress, as many only complete a few of the regional courses then dip out when the costs increase significantly. Conversely, we see many former professionals who are spooned into the higher levels, without having to complete the introductory stages. This leads me to question if we are truly respecting the process, or are simply using educational courses as symbolic forms of accolades?

At the "grassroots" of the game coach education has been an intrinsic part of our desire to increase standards. In many youth competitions there is now a criteria coaches must meet to simply work with a team, which thankfully has eroded many of the "Socks over track pants" dinosaurs that filled the sidelines in the UK.  As we continue to develop our youth coaches, the FA does need to keep a close eye on the administration of new coaching standards, as a worrying by-product has started to emerge. The coaching course era has witnessed the creation of "Coach Jimmy." You know the guy I mean. Shows up 4 hours before a U9 game to plot out his cunning plan with violent black marker lines scribbled all over plush white boards. He tries to copy Rafa Benitez with weird finger wagging movements when talking to players, and who waxes lyrical about 3rd man runs & overly elaborate patterns of play to 8 year olds. While I am in total harmony with the concept of a base line vocational qualification, this should not detract from the fact coaches at the entry level of the game, are responsible for fostering a love of the game and forming a connection with the sport through enjoyment. As coaching standards improve this should hopefully see an increase in player participation, as more kids should want to play for better coaches. What we cannot afford is to breed a generation of frustrated Adult coaches, trying to re-create the Chelsea 1st team through 11 year olds.

It's been 12 years since I took my SFA level 1, and since then I have been on courses administered by 4 different football associations throughout Europe & North America. During this time I have found myself involved in discussion with many coaches who believe that trainers who once enjoyed professional playing status, are able to be fast tracked through the licensing process. While I don't subscribe to many forms of cynicism, in this instance it's tough to derive any other outcome. Some high profile examples include:

- In 2006 Middlesbrough appointed their former captain as Head Coach, who at the time did not meet the league criteria of a UEFA Pro License. After leaving Middlesbrough The English FA went on to appoint him as Head of Elite Development, having only had 5 years of coaching experience. He now is the Head coach of England's U21 team.

- In 2008 Blackburn Rovers appointed a manager who didn't hold any professional licensing. Special dispensation was granted on the basis he would be grandfathered onto the UEFA Pro License, 3 levels above his current license, and be able to complete the qualification quicker than the original course length of 1 year....He lasted 5 months in the job.

- PFA Scotland (the Professional Footballers Association) now run a coaching symposium through the SFA, which allows professional players to start out at the B License level, for which they also provide financial assistance.

The education system is in place to provide an alignment in standards of teaching, as set by the countries Football Association. Allied to this is the requirement of the coach to attain experience by working with players, and build up a body of work that serves as a tangible portfolio by which further education can enhance. It would therefore seem strange that anyone could substantiate the notion that a former professional should somehow be further along in his development as a coach, when he has little actual coaching experience to draw upon. Coaching is by definition an ability to articulate knowledge, therefore it's a skill set that takes time to enhance and experience to build upon. Regardless of where you enter the Licensing system, it's simply not enough to gain a qualification and expect that to translate into pure ability. The UEFA Pro course is an acceptance based course, therefore if the governing body don't feel you "fit the bill" you cannot gain entry. That criteria aside, one other factor to consider is that the course does not provide any participants with a "Failing Grade." It's teachings are of sound standing I am sure, but is there really any substance to a qualification that doesn't require a testing phase to evaluate competence?

If there's one thing we can all be certain of, it's that without education our world would simply cease to exist. The wheels of industry turn on our ability to enhance our understanding, yet it's our application of experience that binds the working parts together. Football's evolution will continue to propel at an expeditious rate, therefore it's vital that those at the top of the game trust in coaches who have applied themselves to being part of that evolution. If we are to truly increase the density of our football footprint, we as a nation have to place more emphasis on the learning process, versus the learning outcome. We as educators need to look beyond the pre-requisites' and the minimum standards and pursue goals that far exceed the norm. In turn we will provide our players with transformative learning that can motivate a generation to conceptualize the game more efficiently, and revel in the journey to betterment.

"We learn by pushing ourselves, and finding out what lies at the outer reaches of our abilities."

Josh Waitzkin

The Numbers Game

We live in a world where numbers are everything. From the per capita ratio's to which we grade our economies, to the algorithms scientists construct when searching for automated reasoning. They're the basis in how we formulate structure, sequence and can even be found in how we analyze performance. Statistical evidence is becoming more prevalent in football, but one compilation of figures remain at the heart of the game...and it's in what we call "formations."

Formations are the starting point for many who wish to learn to articulate the game, and for the most part is a solid grounding in how the game functions. 3-4-3, 4-4-2, 4-5-1, 4-3-3, we've seen them all; but while there are thinkers on earth, we'll undoubtedly see variations crop up from time to time. With a football fanbase growing by the second, our game has a wealth of resource available to anyone who wishes to delve deeper into each systems nuances. At the click of a button we can access endless TV companies coverage of specific instances, and before our very eyes we have beautifully presented breakdown of each players movement and how that relates to the overall team shape. Where they started, where they went, where they should have went....it's presented normally as fact rather than conjecture, but never the less, those watching now feel more informed as a result. What's becoming slightly worrying, is the growth of the "educated" football fan has brought an air of confidence that is often unsubstantiated. Some feel obliged to comment on a particular manager's "Tactical Naiveity" for example. Petulance aside, has our game become too much about the numbers & not focused enough on how we actually set out to win the game? Have we became clouded as a nation as to what "Tactics" and "Formations" really are, and what the numbers actually translate into? In this piece I intend to challenge how we should shift our attention onto how we achieve our goals, rather than what instrument we use to get there.

Methodology: a system of methods used in a particular area of study or activity.

In football coaching terms methodology is derived from a portfolio of experience, education & ability to communicate. A methodology that is implemented effectively manifests itself into a strategy that is a bridge between concept and reality.

To highlight some instances of methodology I'd like share a small extract from Dennis Bergkamp's autobiography, Stillness & Speed.

"Cruyff's coaching is based on how he was as a player; adventurous, spectacular and offensive. He doesn't analyze so much, it's more instinct & technique. Van Gaal is didactic, he gives his players instructions they need to perform to make the system work; as the system is sacred."

Bergkamp's experience tells of his time at Ajax where he played under both Van Gaal & Cruyff. Clearly two very different coaches, yet both achieved a similar level of success. What's important to remember is that both coaches employed the clubs favored system of play (3-4-3/4-3-3 variant). Therefore the structure was largely the same, however what's abundantly clear is how each coach managed to gain success through their own methodology.

Van Gaal's ability to process & transfer information is on par with any coach that has or will likely operate in the sport. Deploying such an in depth systematic approach relies heavily on his ability to build a format that players can adhere to, but more importantly transmit this in such a fashion that players comprehend clearly. Cruyff's coaching style has been replicated by many, but truly mastered by none. His ability to show belief in his players has allowed him to cultivate success through individual brilliance, and build into others qualities that he himself embodied. Cruyff challenged his players to draw confidence from their superior technique, but also afforded them the opportunity to play with freedom and trust their own judgment.

Both coaches demonstrate that there is more than one way to skin the proverbial cat, however to return to the notion that somehow their team system or formation predicates how their team operates, is one we should consider closely. Van Gaal's principles & style of play differ greatly from Cryuff, yet both of their Ajax teams stood in the same starting positions each week. Lets suggest for a moment that they did differ, 4-4-2 vs a 4-5-1 lets say....Van Gaal's wingers will still track back a little more, and Cruyff's full backs will still be more adept to filtering forward during attacks. These coaches are examples of men that have not only developed a successful methodology, but have also attributed a level of ability that allows them to imprint their style of play across many platforms. They don't feel shackled by a pre-set formation of numbers, that in turn decides which way the team should operate.

What we must work hard to do is to re-program how we envisage systems of play, and instead conceptualize how a framework can be enhanced by a style of play. Moving to a 4-5-1 shouldn't instantly transmit we want to "Shut up shop." There are a whole host of variations out there if we as coaches are willing to challenge our own ideas. Guardiola's Bayern Munich have played the vast majority of this season in a nontraditional 4-5-1, with Ribery & Robben taking up deeper starting positions at Right & Left midfield. This often affords then more space to cut inside onto their favored dominant foot, and draw pressure from further away, creating larger holes in the opposition back line. Neither are really known for their defensive qualities, nor is Guardiola for that matter, but if a deeper starting position gets them on the ball more often then why not? Moving to a back 3 is a concept that frightens a lot of my generation of coaches, simply as many were not around to see this set up in its previous incarnation. No fullbacks? Surely not? How would we do that then?.....I hear you cry. Juventus are the flagship of a team that provide a true "back 3" set up. Antonio Conte's recent 3-3-4 variant is one that better tacticians than I are probably better served to offer a clearer insight on. What is clear to me however is that there is a renewed impetus toward setting up in a back 3, such is the want for an increase in fluid attacking play.

I leave you with a quote from the great Sun Tzu

“Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory.
Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.”
                      --Sun Tzu, c.544-496 BCE (traditional); Chinese Military General; Strategist and Philosopher --