Vive la révolution! Is the era of coach-centred approach ending? (part 1)

Liberty for the players! Liberty for football!

All truth passes through three stages:

First, it is ridiculed;

second, it is violently opposed;

and third, it is accepted as self-evident

-

Arthur Schopenhauer

According to the latest data, soccer is practised by approx. 265 million individuals, of which 123,694 are at the professional level [1]. This means that for every 1000 amateurs, there are only 0.5 professional players. To get to the biggest arenas in football, it is necessary to go through a very tight gauntlet.

In addition, modern football is becoming more and more intense (more football actions per minute) and the margin of error is becoming smaller and smaller (even better football actions). Players have to deal with ever-increasing demands and coaches are constantly thinking about how to contribute to the development of players so that they can think creatively and act quickly according to the situation in this extremely dynamic and fast-paced environment.

Has the time come for modern football to emphasize the need for a paradigm shift – away from the traditional coach-centred approach that previously dominated and towards more self-regulating players?

Perception

Teams are able to defend extremely compactly, preventing the progress of opponents towards their goal as a single defensive block [2]. At the same time, the players are also able to exert pressure in the higher parts of the field, chasing opponents like a hound and forcing them to make mistakes.

The higher the level, the less space and time players have, and they have to adapt to new situations very quickly. To cope with these demands, in addition to good speed and technique, players must also possess high-level perceptual and cognitive abilities such as attention, anticipation, decision-making or problem-solving.

So, the role of perception in football is much more than just observation; it is a cognitive process that supports every decision and action a player takes on the field. Understanding the nuances of perception is critical to designing effective training strategies that allow players to succeed under high pressure..

Mid-block and compactness: The very compact defensive block that has brought great success to the Moroccan national team hinders the opponents' attacking structure. Image: FIFA Training Center

Perception (in Latin. perceptiō "to collect, receive") is the process of acquiring, (interpreting) and using information from the environment. Players' ability to perceive allows them to recognize relevant cues in play about the position, moment, direction and speed of the ball, opponents or teammates.

Various models try to explain how perception works and what factors influence it. The most important theories and explanations about perception as a process can be divided into two main groups according to the direction of information flow: "top-down" and "bottom-up".

A "top-down" indirect model of perception

According to the indirect perception model proposed by the British psychologist Richard Gregory [3], we perceive the world not as it is, but as we assume it to be, based on our prior knowledge, beliefs and expectations.

Based on implicit "top-down" theory, perception is a hypothesis based on prior knowledge.

For example, if we see a drawing of a cube, we perceive it as a three-dimensional object, even though the sensory input is only a two-dimensional image. This is because our brain uses its prior knowledge of geometry and perspective to infer the depth and shape of the cube. [4,5]

Or when we see an optical illusion like the Müller-Lyer illusion, where two lines of equal length appear to be of different lengths due to the arrowheads at their ends, we perceive them differently because our brain uses cues we already know to determine the distance and length of the lines [6].

In addition, Gregory claims that the information we have is not always reliable or sufficient. Therefore, it can be changed and improved by updating the information stored in our brain through learning, feedback or instruction. For example, players receive new knowledge (theory) from the coach before a performance, after which it is the players' task to turn this same information into a better performance in practice. A similar logic is still dominant in our education system more generally.

Implicit perception theory has its roots in René Descartes' dualistic view of man, where body and mind are separate entities. The mind can be compared to a computer that processes information and makes decisions, after which the body executes those decisions like a machine.

"Bottom-up" direct perception model (J.J. Gibson)

In contrast to indirect perception, American psychologist James J. Gibson's model of direct perception [7] states that perception is a process of direct and immediate gathering of information from the environment without the need for prior knowledge, expectations or hypotheses. We perceive the world as it is, not as we expect it to be, based on the invariant and meaningful properties of the environment that are relevant to our actions. However, the direct perception model does not rule out that perception involves some degree of abstraction and that we need some "top-down" factors such as intention.

No processing (interpretation) is required because the information we receive is detailed enough to allow us to directly interact with the environment.

According to the direct perception model, we do not perceive objects according to their physical features or categories, but rather according to their affordances, or action possibilities [8]. For example, we do not perceive a chair as a chair, but rather as something to sit on. Affordances are not fixed or objective, but rather relative and subjective, depending on our body and its capabilities (I have previously referred to this in my post on football player's running technique).

The idea that some people see more possibilities than others is central to the concept of creativity [8]

When playing football, Lionel Messi may perceive an opportunity to dribble past multiple defenders, while Sergio Busquets may perceive an opportunity to pass the ball to a teammate in the same situation. The reason is that Messi and Busquets are different in terms of their bodies, skills and abilities, and therefore they perceive different possibilities of action.

The direct perception model also suggests that perception can be improved by exploring, discovering, and interacting with the environment. A coach can create varied and challenging situations for players to adapt and perform, and encourage them to experiment and learn from their experiences. In this way, the coach can help the players develop a more sensitive and adaptive perception of the game and improve their performance.

A coach-centred approach

In a coach-centred or authoritarian coaching style [9], the coach is the primary source of knowledge and authority, while players passively receive instructions and feedback. In extreme cases the coach decides why, what, how and when the players should learn and perform, and the players follow the coach's instructions and expectations. A coach-centred approach is based on the assumption that the coach knows best what is good for the team, and the players must be told what to do and how to do it.

An example of a coach-centered approach. Video: England FA

Based on the indirect perception model, the coach-centred football environment relies on the coach's prior knowledge and hypotheses to guide players' perceptions and actions. The coach gives the players clear rules and instructions on how to act in different situations (like installing a new software). Also, the coach provides constant and immediate feedback to the players (such as praise, criticism or encouragement) to shape their behaviour and habits.

An example of a coach-centered approach. Video: Joner Football

In this way, the coach can often take on the role of a teacher, whose task it is to convey information and techniques that the players should adopt. The coach is primarily responsible for the performance and development of the players, as the players should strictly follow the instructions and expectations given by the coach.

A coach-centred approach may have some potential advantages:

• Can be effective in imparting specific pre-defined performance techniques through precise instructions and feedback.

• Contributes to short-term results by establishing a structured framework of activities, enhancing performance consistency and predictability.

• Serves as a potent means of player discipline through the establishment of clear hierarchical relationships between coach and players.

But there are also potential dangers:

• May hinder the cultivation of advanced skills and creativity by curtailing player autonomy and exploration.

• Ineffective for long-term goals and development, fostering dependency on the coach and diminishing player self-regulation and expression.

• Fosters a negative environment, potentially instilling fear of failure among players.

The role of the coach is to guide, support and inspire the player, but at the same time it is important that the player maintains his decision-making ability and independence. If the coach constantly gives instructions from the side of the pitch, in the long run it may harm the player's decision-making process rather than support it, because even if such a coaching-based interaction between the coach and the player should be accompanied by success in the younger age groups, the bigger the game format and the faster the tempo, the longer "lag" occurs between the coach's instructions and the player's actions. In the language familiar to computer gamers, due to a slow connection, the decision signal does not reach the operator with sufficient speed, which means that the efficiency of actions suffers. Thus, it may happen that the game situation has already changed significantly by the time the signal arrives, and the solution proposed by the coach may no longer bring a positive outcome.

Coach (parent) centered approach. Video: Jim Haskins

Additionally, neither the coach nor the spectators, including parents, can fully understand the player's perspective. They cannot see the situation through the eyes of the player and feel what is happening in the player's body. It's often seen in youth games when coaches or parents yell "shoot!", but the player may not see the goal, is off balance, or his step just isn't right. Unfortunately, the little ball wizards try to obey the instructions and threaten the goal even when there is no real chance.

Endgame: Self-regulating players

Coaches are looking for players who can think for themselves and act creatively on the field without relying on the coach's guidance and feedback. Furthermore, I would venture to say that thanks to the growing need for control by coaches and parents, we are dying out certain types of athletes who possess leadership qualities and are ultimately game changers. These are the players who bring the chestnuts out of the fire, our Messi's and Jordan's. These are players who acquired a large part of their football education playing hours and hours of unorganized street football with friends [10].

Self-regulating players are able to monitor and evaluate their performance and adjust and improve their actions based on their goals and intentions. Self-regulating players are also able to cooperate and communicate with their teammates and coordinate and synchronize their actions based on shared understanding and common language. Self-regulating players are better suited to fast-paced modern football because they can better cope with the complexity and uncertainty of the game and are better able to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the game.

Street football plays an important role in a player's development journey. Image: Mohamed Hozyen Ahmed

However, self-regulating players are not isolated or independent, but rather interdependent and connected. Self-regulated players take responsibility not only for themselves, but for the entire team's performance, and along the way, coaches can help them balance their individual and collective intentions.

A more ecological alternative to the coach-centred approach

An ecological approach to coaching is based on a direct perception model and aims to facilitate the development of self-regulated players. An ecological approach supports the transition to more dynamic, player-centred methods that prioritize the interaction between the individual and the environment. Drawing inspiration from ecological psychology, systems theory, and ecological dynamics theory, this approach seeks to create an environment for players that provides space for discovery and experimentation, emphasizing above all the inextricable relationship between perception and action.

According to this theory, the game itself, not the coach, is the primary source of knowledge and learning, and the role of the coach is to create game-like situations and tasks that represent the actual challenges and demands of the game. In addition, the ecological approach respects the individuality and diversity of players and allows them to express their own style and personality.

In contrast to the coach-centred approach, the self-regulating approach gives players the opportunity to actively make their own decisions on the field. Coaches change from authoritarian generals to mediators, guiding the player's attention and intentions rather than controlling them. This shift aligns with J. J. Gibson's concept of affordances, according to which players are not mere command-followers, but active perceivers and doers of the action opportunities offered in the game.

A player-centered approach to coaching. Video: Liam Shannon

However, an ecological approach to coaching does not mean that there is no feedback from the coach to the player or that it is prohibited. However, the form of feedback differs in many ways from the coach-centred approach, for example by asking guiding questions instead of specific commands and thereby trying to help the player create connections between the situation and new thoughts.

Potential strengths of the ecological approach:

Enhances the development of advanced cognitive skills and creativity by fostering player autonomy and fostering exploration and discovery.
Facilitates the attainment of long-term goals and development by promoting player independence from the coach, thereby bolstering self-regulation and on-field expression.
Promotes a positive and supportive environment by alleviating tension and stress among players, prioritizing confidence and curiosity.

Possible dangers of the ecological approach:

Can be ineffective for achieving short-term results, because one of the prerequisites of this approach is that players learn from both their successes and mistakes, which in turn means that the desired change in behaviour can take time.
Traditional approaches and communication gaps can breed confusion and blur the hierarchical relationship between coach and players.

Estonia between two worlds

In a recent conversation with a youth coach, he pointed out the growing complexity of working with players from different cultural backgrounds. Many young people of Slavic origin often find it confusing to work with a coach whose coaching style is different from the authoritarian style they are used to. These footballers expect specific instructions and orders about what should be done, a cultural trait that increasingly divides our football landscape into two camps.

We have reached a point where, on the one hand, there is a willingness to embrace new perspectives, where the coach's role is not to control but to guide. On the other hand, the authoritarian style still dominates, where coaches (and parents) fiercely hold on to old ideas for fear of losing control.

30% of Estonian residents are of other nationalities. Source: Statistikaamet

Navigating this cultural gap requires an open mind and the ability to understand the other side as well. This means that introducing and implementing ecological ideas in Tartu differs from how it could be done in Narva. The context is different, the people are different. But the goal is the same: to try to create an inclusive and culturally specific environment in Estonian football, where players from different backgrounds feel valued and supported to realize their full potential.

This yet another "split" presents Estonian football with an intriguing challenge - a delicate balance between respecting tradition and embracing innovation. Perhaps this will be our next big integration project, where two different schools of thought will be brought closer to each other through discussion.

A coach-centred approach as the exception, not the rule

The time of self-regulating players has arrived and the future belongs to them. This quality is like a superpower that makes an athlete stand out from the gray mass. A more ecological and player-based approach supports the development of players who are self-regulating and able to cope with the challenges of top football.

"The game belongs to the players" - Arsené Wenger

Through an ecological approach to coaching, we give players back their game. This means that we give them back responsibility, give them the ability to perceive and quickly adapt to changing situations, and give players back the opportunity to be themselves - in their individuality and uniqueness.

However, a more ecological view of the game does not mean that a more coach-centred approach is forbidden or that it is bad. Specific rules, instructions, or even commands may prove to be a worthwhile measure at the right time and place. This is especially so in situations where time is a critical factor or the player-based solutions tried at first have not brought the expected effect. Nonetheless, a coach-centred approach could be an exception rather than a rule, and when applying it, one should also be aware of the accompanying effects.

Conclusion - meet them where they are

In his article 'Relationism vs. Positionism: What's it really about?' football coach David Garcia highlights the importance of 'meeting them where they are' in coaching.

"It’s a simple phrase loaded with so much value. It’s simple as a coach, you are there to guide and help. However, often coaches want to provide ‘coaching’ knowledge regardless of the players’ needs or desires. Players are ‘coached’ at. They are inundated with ‘coaching’ tips and tricks. They are flooded with ‘How-to’s’ and ‘How-nots’. But rarely are they observed. This is what meeting them where they are means. It’s observing their natural inclinations. It’s observing how they solve football problems. It’s observing their unique HOW and based on what we observe we guide and help as much as necessary and as little as possible."

"The phrase ‘Meeting them where they are’ brings to life the idea that the coach is there to guide, not to impose."

"Meet them where they are - this is the role of a good coach who wants to help players become Self-Regulating."

"Meet them where they are" carries a powerful message that should reverberate through the depths of coaching. It emphasizes the importance of understanding and adapting to each player's unique needs and context, both developmentally and culturally. By embracing this philosophy, coaches can foster the beginnings of self-regulation, allowing players to take responsibility for their own development and performance both on and off the field.

Freedom for players! Freedom for football!

Vive la révolution! ✊

To be continued...