22/11/07

As the weather on the Sunday had dictated all league games in the region to be postponed, we decided upon using the time constructively in the form of extra training. This consisted of progressing the shooting drill explored in the previous session, and including a defender to put added pressure on the attacker. The inclusion of this element was an obvious and essential addition, as it gave a distinct depth of realism to the situation a player may experience during a game. This was important for both sets of players, attackers and defenders, as both were independent of assistance by a team-mate, therefore required the recruitment of their full skill based capabilities.
The focus of the task was concentration by participants, as being associative learners (Fitts & Posner, 1967), and actions not being of an autonomous nature, tended to rely on a verbal instruction as reinforcement of ability. Hogg (1995) describes how the coach’s practice should evolve from a more directive relationship with young performers to a progressively sharing relationship, and ultimately, independence for the performer. However, at this stage of development where the players are still learning new skills, I felt that the best way to assist with their progression would be to maintain the coach/athlete control balance.
In order to eradicate the self complication of the task, I instructed the players to maintain the simple nature, and ensure it was carried out effectively. This required the attackers to receive the ball, beat the defender, and attempt a shot on target. Meanwhile, the defenders duty was to prevent the attempt on goal by means of closing down play rapidly, and ensure the ball was distributed to an area away from danger. The drill progressed well, as both parties carried out instructions as requested, with all forwards forcing a save by the goalkeeper, and all defenders preventing a goal scoring opportunity once or more. One problem experienced during the session was the interruptions by some players. Such disruptions, as talking when I was directing instructions to follow during drills. This became an issue mainly due to the length of the sessions. Sharp (1992) recommended that drills are kept short due to limited attention span of young performers which makes it impossible to sustain repetitive practices for long periods. He also describes variety as being an important factor in any session for young children. However, as the players are at a level where they as individuals, and we as coaching staff feel they should be mentally mature enough to give active feedback from a drill without negative deliberation.
This disruption resulted in cutting the session short, with the threat that should this behaviour be repeated in the future, training would consist of fitness exercises, and general non-ball related drills. This acted as a threat due to the outspoken unpopular feedback given by the players on the subject. It was then made clear that should the players continue with this poor level of behaviour then they were also putting their place in the team at risk. This threat acted as an awakening to the children as they seemed to realise the implication of their actions. I found that this approach to combating their rebellious conduct could help in the short-term, however, as I was the sole management representative during the session, I felt unable to make a decision regarding long-standing punishment of the players regarding their behaviour, therefore felt the best course of action would be to consult with the manager and express my opinion.

Bibliography;

Fitts, P.M. & Posner, M.I. (1967) Human Performance, Belmont, CA, Brooks/Cole

Hogg, J. M. (1995) Mental Skills for Swimming Coaches. Edmonton, Al: Sport Excel Pub

Sharp, B. (1992) Acquiring skill in sport, Sports Dynamics