Topic: Systems - Mindgames

[Prof]

I think this is the dilemma for coaches. In a group setting, it is easier for a general culture to be created, but specifically it gets much more difficult, and a lot of plates have to be spun. I think, though, the first thing you need is "Buy-in" from the players - a squad mentality. Every player has to feel that they have a chance to contribute to their shared pathway, and that they are as valid as any other player, even if they don't get as much playing time. A perfect example for me is Solskjaer at United - accepted his role as a sub, did a great job off the bench, and was a vital part of the team. When a team has that kind of buy-in from everyone, it makes it easier to create a culture of control and commitment.

Yep

I also think involving players in match analysis and training evaluations is important.  What do you think?

[PhaseOfPlay]

Exactly right.  Hence the discussion I made earlier about recreating the pressure of competition in training.  Only with pressure can technical/skill deficiences be exposed.

Exactly right. Good coaches have a gift for being able to achieve that. Sometimes coaches stumble on it randomly - Keegan having Newcastle practice in front of the fans, for example, unintentionally recreated the matchday sights and sounds. Wenger on the other hand prefers practices to be closed, so the players can express themselves freely.

[PhaseOfPlay]

Yep

I also think involving players in match analysis and training evaluations is important.  What do you think?

I agree to an extent. The player has to be open to it. Involving an intelligent team in match analyis discussions might get a much better buy-in for any proposed changes of tactics or formations than if the manager just dictates "on Saturday we're playing 3-3-4 - deal with it". On the other hand, a team of Gascoignes is not going to get any benefit from it, because they won't have the interest in it. I think a great example of this involvement was Leeds under Revie. Total buy-in and commitment to his methods. Then Clough, who came in with a much more relaxed and off-the-cuff manner, and gone were the dossiers, the planning, and taking each opponent as they come. Apart from the personality clashes, I daresay he suffered because he didn't get buy-in from the players because he did something they weren't used to.

[Prof]

I agree to an extent. The player has to be open to it. Involving an intelligent team in match analyis discussions might get a much better buy-in for any proposed changes of tactics or formations than if the manager just dictates "on Saturday we're playing 3-3-4 - deal with it". On the other hand, a team of Gascoignes is not going to get any benefit from it, because they won't have the interest in it. I think a great example of this involvement was Leeds under Revie. Total buy-in and commitment to his methods. Then Clough, who came in with a much more relaxed and off-the-cuff manner, and gone were the dossiers, the planning, and taking each opponent as they come. Apart from the personality clashes, I daresay he suffered because he didn't get buy-in from the players because he did something they weren't used to.

Maybe a Gazza is just incompatible with a team in flow.  He might get there as an individual, but with a system based approach, you need everyone on the same page.

[hide5seek]

PoP, Leeds players hated Cloughie so doubt they'd ever acceptd him even if he had copied Revies style.

[PhaseOfPlay]

Maybe a Gazza is just incompatible with a team in flow.  He might get there as an individual, but with a system based approach, you need everyone on the same page.

I think that is probably on the nose. Even as an individual, I don't know if he ever had the discipline to study the game. He was the epitome of the "instinctive" player.

[PhaseOfPlay]

PoP, Leeds players hated Cloughie so doubt they'd ever acceptd him even if he had copied Revies style.

Yep, that's right - but I would guess that if he was an almost carbon copy of Revie in terms of how he prepared teams, he might have won them over a bit easier. Take away the personality clashes, his method of working was the polar opposite of Revie's detailed preparation, and the Leeds players clearly like that way of working. So he really had NO chance of getting them to buy in to what he wanted to do. Another contrast would be Rafa following Mourinho at Inter - Mourinho is a big proponent of global training and tactical periodisation, whereas Rafa has fitness and tactical work often as separate components. The mix wasn't right. Leonardo, who followed Rafa, went back to Mourinho's methods and got the players on board rather quickly. Not an indictment on Rafa, but a clear indicator that you need to get players to buy into what you're doing in order to get them to peak performance states - and one of the best ways of doing that is to get them involved in the goal-setting process, or, as Prof implied, giving them a say in the tactical set up.

[Carlos: Very Kickable]

 Teams who win usually go on to win again if they know how to process the victory. Success breeds Success, so to speak. IF you've never been to a final and won it, at any level, then the first one will be nerve-wracking, highly emotional, and probably a failure. The faster you get back into the same situation, the easier it will become, and the more likely the win. That's why the 2005 CL team needed to have won the Treble in 2001. It's also why Houllier, Thompson, Babbel, Hamann and McAllister were important - they had won trophies at the top level, so they could recognise the signs of under- or over- arousal in the team, and act accordingly.

Agree with everything you have written here.

In fact I think it explains why it is incredibly important to have a player with a bit of "craziness" about them when you are first getting into the habit of winning things - a Cantona, a Balotelli, a Suarez. Their ability to bridge the anxiety / knowledge gap to help bring victory for the first time is a big help for the rest of the team who may ordinairly freeze in the headlights. 

Once a team has got into the "habit" of winning and has gained experience it can afford to have a more boring, prosaic approach to crushing the opposition.

[No666]

Thanks mate. I guess the genesis of the piece in some ways is how do we build a new dynasty? It feels like we've spent 20 years trying to regain the old one, and around us there are teams like Dortmund building what will clearly be known as some form of dynasty in years to come. They don't seem to be doing it by looking at their past, and they seem to be doing it quite quickly and effectively. My research made me feel like the key to that was a system, and players motivated to make the system work. Different teams had different backgrounds, traditions, environments, but they all had this notion of a 'greater good'. The way they are playing is new and special and worthy. In fact I feel that the best teams- whilst they can absolutely utilize those variables (crowd, media etc)- are actually the ones best equipped to work in spite of them and stick as close to the system as possible. It's ideal to stick to the system because it is perfection as planned by the manager. If you have the right manager, then you have the right plan. The next question is obviously how do you motivate players around that?

I've been saving this thread up for when I had time to read carefully, and now there's too much to absorb - tis always the way.

The OP is excellent. But I want to throw some questions in and ramble a little on a Sunday morning if you'll bear with me.

You see, I don't think we can become Dortmund and it wouldn't be right to. Let's switch across to the Barca parallel. A team with confidence invested in the methodology but - crucially - I think those players are equally invested in the club. Barca cannot and should not divest itself of its history and nor should we.

We used to teach, and presumably still do, new recruits about the history and ethos of the club - think Torres and his videos - to engender a sense of pride. So what you now want to be saying (as I see it) to a new recruit is:
This is a great, historic club and you should be proud to represent it.
We have a new manager and a playing philosophy you should be proud to contribute to.
& the subliminal message to both of those is: your ego is secondary to the group.

Interestingly, those Henderson quotes validate that approach; he isn't talking about the system and the bright new future as his motivations in fighting for his place. Everything he says there, in fact, is an acknowledgement that Liverpool - this big, historic club - is the pinnacle of his achievements and his career.
This is why I have an issue when people at the club, from Rodgers to other players, tell us we're lucky to have Suarez ( or a.n.other star player) at the club. No we're f*cking not! They're lucky to play for us. You say it, even if you're know the world at large does not believe it. You create within the group a pride in identity and a subjugation of ego by utilising both avenues.
We told ourselves we were lucky to have Torres and he came to believe it, too. As an aside Abramovich is reaping what he sowed: he preyed on Torres's ego (Torres as individual) to unsettle him, then watched haplessly as his star striker fail to mesh with the group.

[dnkw]

There's loads of research in that area.

This book (Eugen Herrigel's Zen in the Art of Archery) is widely cited as the initial introduction if buddhist meditation techniques in sport:

http://www.ideologic.org/files/Eugen_Herrigel_-_Zen_in_the_Art_of_Archery.pdf

This Journal article makes a nice commentary if you want an in depth read:

Jenkins, S 2008, Zen Buddhism, Sport Psychology and Golf, International Journal Of Sports Science & Coaching, 3, 0, pp. 215-236.

Thanks Prof!

[Adamski LFC]

Two thoughts to catch up on this one:

1: Anyone think that the Nextgen is exactly what will prepare our young lads for greatness?  Other youth cups and leagues can also help, don't you think?

2: On teaching the youth and new players the Anfield history to appreciate the privilege of playing for us, surely that goes counter to reducing the weight of the shirt.  It is important to players appreciate that they can play well for us despite the massive history?  Teach them by all means, but alongside sensible everyday comparisons; look at what all the people at this club have done, all while playing football well.  You can perform well here and we will help you get there.

In the greatest of comedic writing, thirdly; Someone from Barcelona, sorry, can't remember who, who said their players are taught to be humble, but also the fans must treat them as normal human beings.  Messi must be able, for example, to have a meal with his family in a restaurant without people coming up to him saying "Wow, it's you!".  So players must have humility to play for Barcelona.

How about we have an IQ test as part of our entrance tests?  This would ensure they have the capacity to be educated by Rogers.

My only other thoughts come about thinking what else could be done mentally to give extra to our players.  Rogers giving responses to our players as coached by Peters to mindgames in the media by pundits or any other managers.  Also teaching the players about, not only posting on forums and twitter, but reacting in these areas.  Twitter, Facebook, and other media are shallow ephemera that allow direct access to peoples thoughts unadulterated by common sense, friends censors on crazy ideas or even the use of your real name.  The actual media often have agendas, are slightly more censored but can be worse. Take them all with the attention equalled by your belly fluff.  Bits of it may be interesting, but most of it you can ignore.

[Adamski LFC]

I think match analysis and tactical contributions have to be managed.  Man management is key.  Unless you have intelligent players and can spin a good show that makes it interesting, it could end up boring.  I would give the opportunity for three responses to previous game analysis: 
Firstly, full playback of the whole match, with the ability to comment and answer questions for the more tactically astute.
Secondly, staff edited highlights, again with comment and questions, during or after
Lastly, a third option.  This would involve no video, just recalling moments in the game and asking those players what went on in specific areas.

I would then have a big get together all vocal, where anyone wants to raise anything in relation to the last match, can for overall comment and responses.  I would normally do this on the following day so that memories are fresh.  Should not take more than 2 hours.

With next match analysis, I think this has to be short, so highlights from previous matches prepared by staff on what is different about this opponent, and what is the same, say two five minutes of differences, one of same, can be culled from various games.  Next tactical reasons for weakness in the opposition, ten minutes of video looking at weaknesses.  Lastly ten minutes to talk over what has been seen.  Should take overall about 30 minutes.  Any players that then wanted to look at any of the videos again can be allowed to as I would post them up on a site for them to review.  I would probably do this in three stages, put up the videos before hand, and let people know the day after the last match.  Give them the full half hour either the day after that (Wed - Sat or Thu - Sun) or some time at the beginning of the week.  Lastly, a fifteen minute session, looking at one of the differences and the weakness on the day you play.  Timings are not set in stone, just my idea, as is pretty much all of this.

[PhaseOfPlay]

I think match analysis and tactical contributions have to be managed.  Man management is key.  Unless you have intelligent players and can spin a good show that makes it interesting, it could end up boring.  I would give the opportunity for three responses to previous game analysis: 
Firstly, full playback of the whole match, with the ability to comment and answer questions for the more tactically astute.
Secondly, staff edited highlights, again with comment and questions, during or after
Lastly, a third option.  This would involve no video, just recalling moments in the game and asking those players what went on in specific areas.

The only thing I disagree with here, is the need for things to be "not boring". A motivated player will not find tactical analysis boring, in the way that a workaholic doesn't consider overtime as "work". One of the best ways to stop something from becoming tedious is to have a personal investment in it - and one of the best football ways to do that is to allow the players to have some degree of "ownership" of how the game will be played (not too much, though, because it needs leadership and guidance rather than equality and anarchy). Having said that, the process you set out is a good one, except you would replace the second phase with field work - tactics have to be worked out on the field with players, not just in the classroom, and if you are good and knowledgeable about guided discovery and constraints-based learning, then you will achieve a lot of what you want to do on the field. The Q&A as the third phase of how it should be done - to test memory, understanding, and also adaptation of the plan if needed.

I would then have a big get together all vocal, where anyone wants to raise anything in relation to the last match, can for overall comment and responses.  I would normally do this on the following day so that memories are fresh.  Should not take more than 2 hours.

With next match analysis, I think this has to be short, so highlights from previous matches prepared by staff on what is different about this opponent, and what is the same, say two five minutes of differences, one of same, can be culled from various games.  Next tactical reasons for weakness in the opposition, ten minutes of video looking at weaknesses.  Lastly ten minutes to talk over what has been seen.  Should take overall about 30 minutes.  Any players that then wanted to look at any of the videos again can be allowed to as I would post them up on a site for them to review.  I would probably do this in three stages, put up the videos before hand, and let people know the day after the last match.  Give them the full half hour either the day after that (Wed - Sat or Thu - Sun) or some time at the beginning of the week.  Lastly, a fifteen minute session, looking at one of the differences and the weakness on the day you play.  Timings are not set in stone, just my idea, as is pretty much all of this.

[Adamski LFC]

The only thing I disagree with here, is the need for things to be "not boring". A motivated player will not find tactical analysis boring, in the way that a workaholic doesn't consider overtime as "work". One of the best ways to stop something from becoming tedious is to have a personal investment in it - and one of the best football ways to do that is to allow the players to have some degree of "ownership" of how the game will be played (not too much, though, because it needs leadership and guidance rather than equality and anarchy). Having said that, the process you set out is a good one, except you would replace the second phase with field work - tactics have to be worked out on the field with players, not just in the classroom, and if you are good and knowledgeable about guided discovery and constraints-based learning, then you will achieve a lot of what you want to do on the field. The Q&A as the third phase of how it should be done - to test memory, understanding, and also adaptation of the plan if needed.

Even the most motivated player could find tactical analysis boring, I have been at, and presented a lot, and seen this to full effect.  They could be tired or have personal things on their mind.  Only if the info being delivered is startlingly original can you look past the presentation.

I think i would still have the second phase then move out into field after it, to, as you say, work things through.  Regarding ownership of the plan, I would do this after or as a latter part of phase 3.  I started out sketching how I would act as manager in facilitator mode but realised I could just say that.  That is guided discovery, I think, and constraints-based is exampled above.  This is a key phase and has to be done properly, if you find you can't do it yourself, get someone who can.  Good teachers can do this well, and just like them, everyone needs to be involved.  Don't ask for hands up though   The next paragraph can be skipped, if you know what guided discovery is.

To understand what I mean about guided discovery/facilitating, you are setting the ground rules and explain why.  Then asking players in the order of positions what they think they should do, and how it would impact on the play.  You can ask questions, seek agreement and allow the players to discover that if the fullbacks bomb on, then you need DM's to understand and agree they can cover.  You can settle disputes and generally guide it your way, but need participation and buy in.  The questions you ask can also shape the way in which the responses have been achieved.  An example of this would be, 'We have seen that the opposition like long balls and to defend deep.  What does this mean for the space between our defence and our midfield and theirs?  Ask a forward, or a winger, for example. 

I have to say, the quality of the responses on here have upped my dreams of managing a football club, managing rather than being dictator, though.

[Floydy]

the symbol has the power, the power of the symbol.

[Gnurglan]

Also if I can be controversial, an interview with Damien Commoli on Liverpool's transfer strategy at the time:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/ben_lyttleton/10/11/liverpool.comolli/index.html#ixzz2KQIGzeDq

Has that actually in some way been borne out by the response from the likes of Henderson? Even Andy carroll seemed to fight tooth and nail to stay and play.

Is every club doomed to post-rationalize Commoli's signings as not quite as miserable as they were at the time?

He says good things. However, when we spent so much, we should expect that the players come good. And we should expect we did our homework. We wasted a real opportunity when we threw away so much money on 'maybe' players. That requires very little skill, just plenty of money. For the money we spent, we could well have had three or four top, top class players with real leadership qualities. Captain material.

[Prof]

I also think involving players in match analysis and training evaluations is important.  What do you think?

I asked this question because of this:

Athletes with an internal locus of control (they believe they have control over the things that affect them) are much more likely to experience flow.

Using data from matches and training can help players see how they affect the results.  By focussing on the positive actions after a win, or by illusrating that they helped dominate possession or create chances after a loss/draw, means they will link their positive actions (distance covered, passing stats etc) to the positive outcomes/performance data for the team.  This then develops the internal locus of control and greater liklihood of a state of flow occurring.

Basically, with players, focus on processes which are internally controllable, and demonstrate the positive/negative effects of these on performance data, not necessarily outcome data (the result).

I'm sure we can all think of examples where Rodgers (or other managers past and present) has done this.  Maybe the kid bashing after the cup loss was an example of this.  The public focus was on the commitment of the players (internal) and the praise of Gerrard was about his desire (internal), not his ability (to other players, having less skill than Gerrard is an external locus of control).

[Vulmea]

and to bring it back to planet earth - to think some of the greatest managers in the world operated almost entirely on instinct - they did what felt right, they could motivate, manage, be tactically aware and think strategically all without the detailed science - they'd been dragged up in small mining communities or driving a tank or kicking a ball against a wall in a northern working class slum - were did their genius come from - likewise some of the greatest scouts simply 'knew' a player when they saw one they didn't have DVD's and prozone and stats coming out their ears - times change I guess and not always for the better

now it comes across as football management for dummies, step 1........there's a new breed of clip board manager makes you wonder where it will lead to when everybody has their manual and their mental coach and their 'playbook' - I think I was probably lucky to set out in more naive times

partly why the science behind it all leaves me cold, its like finding out christmas was made up by coca cola - it shows how a magic trick is performed so that you can never look at the trick in wonder again  - hiding stuff in books is bang out of order, where will it end?

remember Kung Fu the TV series, when the elder never quite gave the lad the answer, when he always made him figure it out himself - it's a common thread in so many old tales and when you are young, one when you always saying whats the point of that just tell him the answer......yet as you get older you realise that the value comes not just from learning someting for yourself but the time and pain it takes as well

and what do we have here ? People wont have to work for the answers themselves in the future, they'll be spelt out in coaching manuals and management plans and text books and so some people will stand on the shoulders of giants and reach those giddy heights and who will really care? It will be as manufactured as the commercial feeding frenzy in December and the punters well they'll be as manufactured as the rest of it............this thread doesn't deserve such maudlin thoughts - too much lempsip off to bed 

[i6uuaq]

But those who work strictly out of the manual will always be average. After all, everyone's got a copy of the manual.

It's always those who really understand what's going on underneath who can take the concepts spelt out one step further, and write the next manual.

[PhaseOfPlay]

That's a peculiarly British view, Vulmea. Sports science on all levels were being used on the continent since at least the end of the WW2. Cullis at Wolves used a dedicated running coach to use modern methods to train players to be fitter. Michels was the model of the scientific manager. More so was Herrera. Russia has always been involved in sports science and is in fact one of the main pioneers of everything we do in the modern era in terms of planning training. Match analysis is not new either - Reep's work with Cullis, for example. Only the methods have been refined, enhanced and improved. But the existence was always there. Recording sessions and looking for patterns in order to repeat successful ideas and discard unsuccessful ones? Shanks and Paisley were doing that from 1959 onwards. Everything Shanks did was based on stuff that PNE did. There is nothing new under the football sun, but the points of view we have become necessarily complex, otherwise things stay the same and grow stale and fester. If it were not so, then we wouldn't have keyhole surgery, stem cell research, improved cancer survival rates, longevity of life, computers, indeed, even the internet. All of these things improve because we can change the language that we speak about things to a more complex level. Without that, we would still be writing with quill and ink, and drilling holes in people's heads to cure disease.

The science doesn't change the game, but it does allow it to improve it on a more detailed level. It's not for everyone, but for some of us, it is necessary in order to do our jobs and to keep them.

[RedinExile]

Indeed Pop. Scientific analysis (of any sort) does not render the complex system simple, and by extension boring, rather it highlights which elements of a complex system you can manipulate best to exact maximum leverage, and hence gain an edge - guarantees are still in short supply (thankfully, in an entertainment industry).

[BreakfastPercy]

I've been saving this thread up for when I had time to read carefully, and now there's too much to absorb - tis always the way.

The OP is excellent. But I want to throw some questions in and ramble a little on a Sunday morning if you'll bear with me.

You see, I don't think we can become Dortmund and it wouldn't be right to. Let's switch across to the Barca parallel. A team with confidence invested in the methodology but - crucially - I think those players are equally invested in the club. Barca cannot and should not divest itself of its history and nor should we.

We used to teach, and presumably still do, new recruits about the history and ethos of the club - think Torres and his videos - to engender a sense of pride. So what you now want to be saying (as I see it) to a new recruit is:
This is a great, historic club and you should be proud to represent it.
We have a new manager and a playing philosophy you should be proud to contribute to.
& the subliminal message to both of those is: your ego is secondary to the group.

Interestingly, those Henderson quotes validate that approach; he isn't talking about the system and the bright new future as his motivations in fighting for his place. Everything he says there, in fact, is an acknowledgement that Liverpool - this big, historic club - is the pinnacle of his achievements and his career.
This is why I have an issue when people at the club, from Rodgers to other players, tell us we're lucky to have Suarez ( or a.n.other star player) at the club. No we're f*cking not! They're lucky to play for us. You say it, even if you're know the world at large does not believe it. You create within the group a pride in identity and a subjugation of ego by utilising both avenues.
We told ourselves we were lucky to have Torres and he came to believe it, too. As an aside Abramovich is reaping what he sowed: he preyed on Torres's ego (Torres as individual) to unsettle him, then watched haplessly as his star striker fail to mesh with the group.

And did the 'weight of the shirt' help or hinder him last season? We were still a historic club last season, why didn't he and Downing perform then?

Motivating players to player for each other, as the 'group' being more, is definitely a great thing to do. The problem, as highlighted by Boltersdorf, is that you need the players to have shared experiences before they truly have a team spirit and play for each other. Tell Coutinho that he has to play for Downing, and it just ain't gonna relate. If those two have played four or five seasons together, won trophies together, then OK it will work. In the meantime you need to foster a bond and a winning mentality in other ways. That's why the Barca example and the poaching of Borrell to create a Scouse La Masia are incredibly relevant, and I think we are trying lo learn from them. The more homegrown players you have the more players enter the team with a bond already there. I guess I saw Dortmund as a great example as they are a little more attainable and the motivation of their players is not so easily written off as just sublime talent (as some do with Barca).

Most of the players we will sign from now on will be born after we last won the league title. I do agree we need to preserve our traditions, our values, and teach the players to respect that. The problem is I don't think it motivates a player on the pitch, at least not until they've spent significant time at the club and actually feel like a representative of that. Once we have a successful group it will be more achievable to make success a criteria of the Liverpool way. In the mean time why not make it a moral code, and find other ways to motivate players that don't burden them, and that don't ask players to measure up to players and teams they just aren't anywhere near to yet?

I agree on the 'lucky to have him', but then that may just be a product of Rodgers being over-interviewed?

[BreakfastPercy]

and to bring it back to planet earth - to think some of the greatest managers in the world operated almost entirely on instinct - they did what felt right, they could motivate, manage, be tactically aware and think strategically all without the detailed science - they'd been dragged up in small mining communities or driving a tank or kicking a ball against a wall in a northern working class slum - were did their genius come from - likewise some of the greatest scouts simply 'knew' a player when they saw one they didn't have DVD's and prozone and stats coming out their ears - times change I guess and not always for the better

now it comes across as football management for dummies, step 1........there's a new breed of clip board manager makes you wonder where it will lead to when everybody has their manual and their mental coach and their 'playbook' - I think I was probably lucky to set out in more naive times

partly why the science behind it all leaves me cold, its like finding out christmas was made up by coca cola - it shows how a magic trick is performed so that you can never look at the trick in wonder again  - hiding stuff in books is bang out of order, where will it end?

remember Kung Fu the TV series, when the elder never quite gave the lad the answer, when he always made him figure it out himself - it's a common thread in so many old tales and when you are young, one when you always saying whats the point of that just tell him the answer......yet as you get older you realise that the value comes not just from learning someting for yourself but the time and pain it takes as well

and what do we have here ? People wont have to work for the answers themselves in the future, they'll be spelt out in coaching manuals and management plans and text books and so some people will stand on the shoulders of giants and reach those giddy heights and who will really care? It will be as manufactured as the commercial feeding frenzy in December and the punters well they'll be as manufactured as the rest of it............this thread doesn't deserve such maudlin thoughts - too much lempsip off to bed

Bob Paisley:

"I was always interested in physiotherapy when I was a player. I took a correspondence course for two years before I hung my boots up. Then Sir John fixed me up with a full-time course. It meant going to Belmont Road hospital from nine to five every day. It was all changing then from what it had been through most of my playing days. Then it was the hot and cold water treatment. Trainers had to have hands like leather. There was hardly a player who got by without suffering first degree burns at some time or other. You put the hot towel on and then the cold one, it was the main treatment.

The first person I ever treated was Albert Shelley, our first-team trainer, for a boil on his backside. Albert was one of the old school. He taught me how to harden my hands with the towels. When the physio machines came in I had to show him how to use them, but he never really came to terms with them. He had a common-sense approach to the practical side of it, but he was frightened by the electrical stuff, he even used to put a handkerchief on the leads. So when the machines came in I virtually took over the treatment of all the players."

"And of course he(Shankly) was a great psychologist. He'd tell the lads how pathetic the opposition were and 90 minutes later he'd tell them they'd beaten the best side in the country, and they'd take it week after week because of his personality. That was what made him such a great manager.

He was a great motivator"

"He(Shankly) had a great knowledge of the body and it stood me in great stead as a trainer. Training was very planned. We'd discuss it every morning and then put our plans into effect right to the last detail. It was science under Bill, training."

Paul Tomkins from Shankly.com

In these days of ‘notebook managers’, scribbling thoughts throughout games, it is interesting to note that Shankly himself carried a little book everywhere he went, jotting down every idea or useful piece of information he was party to. Clearly information was seen as power to the Scot. Training systems were tabulated, players’ fitness levels were scrupulously monitored, and Shankly began having opponents watched — which in the very early ‘60s was relatively unheard of. But while he thought long and hard about the game, Shankly wasn’t the expert tactician in the ranks; by general consensus that was Bob Paisley. Shankly was more of a motivator, an expert in sports’ psychology, in the days before such a thing was taken too seriously.

Shankly was also trying to innovate in terms of diet. Without the scientific knowledge today’s managers routinely call upon, he had to improvise. Having discovered that the legendary American boxer Joe Louis trained on steak, Shankly made it the mainstay of the Liverpool diet. Wherever the team travelled, the meals were always steak, chips and salad, followed by fresh fruit and cream. Players joked that they ate so much steak they became vegetarian after retiring.

Stamina was built via the ‘sweat box’, a device in which players would kick and dribble the ball, continually on the move within boards assembled like the wall of a house; taking the ball from one end to the other, striking it against a board, controlling the rebound and turning to head to the other end. Initially Roger Hunt, the guinea pig, could manage only 45 seconds; soon, two minutes was no problem. The routines changed, with players having to strike the ball first time, and if they missed the board another player would come in, and the first player had to win the ball back.

Perhaps Rodgers and contemporary coaches/students don't have Shankly's sleight of hand to make success look like a magic trick. But then the job of a manager is to build a winning team, not to suspend your disbelief. Our great managers have always been innovators, scientists and students of the game. I think it's a shame if you cannot appreciate something just because you know how it works- it didn't stop Shankly.

[Adamski LFC]

BP, PoP and RIE, I completely agree.  Not only has Rogers identified the weight of the shirt as a problem here, he has a committee looking at new players, not a head scout.  He has people employed to edit post match and next match highlights.  He is trying to gain the extra 5% by making changes that have been proved to work. 

Science can allow things in the known world to become more precise, up to a point.  People and their minds are the next truly complicated area and identifying future players on their mentality is going to come in as part of the new medical. 

This will still not answer all the questions, though.  We still know what a good manager looks like, but we cannot define it precisely other than he treats the staff well and they do what he wants.  How many times outside of football have you seen bad man managers?  You can say what they are doing wrong, but the opposite isn't always correct either. 

I think what I am trying to say is that scientifically map out where we are up to now still leaves a large amount in the unknown category.  I would hazard a guess that it will be a long time coming, if ever, that we can define everything to do with football management, the players, and in-match management

[Gnurglan]

There's a lot of talk about 'the zone'.  To understand what this means, you have to undestand the concepts of flow and the influence of the athlete's locus of control.

Flow is when emotional states, self-esteem, control, self-efficacy and focus are all at their peak.  Put simply, this is when the athlete (or artist, musician, writer etc.) is completely absorbed into the task at hand, and anxiety, sorrow and conscious effort are not present.

Athletes with an internal locus of control (they believe they control over the things that affect them) are much more likely to experience flow.

What implications do you all think this has on the way footballers should be prepared in training?

I think that kind of flow is a rare happening. But to answer your question, I believe it's about training. Repeat things so you can execute them in your sleep. And visualize your goals, so you're familiar with the situation when it's there. That's how to prepare.

As for penalties, I don't think one can prepare 100%. You need to practise, but it's all about the moment. Some days you will be at ease, other times you will think it's impossible to score. I think shoot-outs is where the manager needs to be able to 'read' which state a player is in and select based on that.

[Earl of Dingleberry]

How about we have an IQ test as part of our entrance tests? 

Footballers IQ test? That's a bad idea...   

[No666]

You see, this 'weight of the shirt' stuff bothers me. It smacks of a 'quiet' team. We've been building a quiet team since Rafa's days, searching out the good professionals, the family men, the team players. Some of those come with added authority (Alonso) but ultimately it only takes a slight wobble in the 'force' in that dressing room (ta-ta Hyypia; bye Xabi) and the lack of fierce competitive will is exposed to the world.

To what extent can a psychiatrist as good as Peters instil that strength, or - to be at top level - do you have to come to the table with a certain bedrock, unteachable control/confidence? My gut tells me that all the mind games in the world won't succeed in turning Stewart Downing into Steven Gerrard or Luis Suarez, or even, Jamie Carragher. Will trust in the methodology lend Downing true inner fire? In short, are we simply building another Arsenal?

[Gnurglan]

and to bring it back to planet earth - to think some of the greatest managers in the world operated almost entirely on instinct - they did what felt right, they could motivate, manage, be tactically aware and think strategically all without the detailed science - they'd been dragged up in small mining communities or driving a tank or kicking a ball against a wall in a northern working class slum - were did their genius come from - likewise some of the greatest scouts simply 'knew' a player when they saw one they didn't have DVD's and prozone and stats coming out their ears - times change I guess and not always for the better

now it comes across as football management for dummies, step 1........there's a new breed of clip board manager makes you wonder where it will lead to when everybody has their manual and their mental coach and their 'playbook' - I think I was probably lucky to set out in more naive times

partly why the science behind it all leaves me cold, its like finding out christmas was made up by coca cola - it shows how a magic trick is performed so that you can never look at the trick in wonder again  - hiding stuff in books is bang out of order, where will it end?

remember Kung Fu the TV series, when the elder never quite gave the lad the answer, when he always made him figure it out himself - it's a common thread in so many old tales and when you are young, one when you always saying whats the point of that just tell him the answer......yet as you get older you realise that the value comes not just from learning someting for yourself but the time and pain it takes as well

and what do we have here ? People wont have to work for the answers themselves in the future, they'll be spelt out in coaching manuals and management plans and text books and so some people will stand on the shoulders of giants and reach those giddy heights and who will really care? It will be as manufactured as the commercial feeding frenzy in December and the punters well they'll be as manufactured as the rest of it............this thread doesn't deserve such maudlin thoughts - too much lempsip off to bed 

It's still difficult. Just like any line of work. You can take the courses and all that, but then you have to execute what you have learned. And then many other factors come into play.

When I work with change, I use data to get everyone on the same page. So we agree where we are now. Then I try to have us all move in the same direction. I could go in to great detail and present pages of facts, but somewhere I need to stop, or people will get confused or they will switch off. Anyone could pick up a book and read and learn, but it's how you execute it that will decide the outcome. Experience is still very important.

[BreakfastPercy]

You see, this 'weight of the shirt' stuff bothers me. It smacks of a 'quiet' team. We've been building a quiet team since Rafa's days, searching out the good professionals, the family men, the team players. Some of those come with added authority (Alonso) but ultimately it only takes a slight wobble in the 'force' in that dressing room (ta-ta Hyypia; bye Xabi) and the lack of fierce competitive will is exposed to the world.

To what extent can a psychiatrist as good as Peters instil that strength, or - to be at top level - do you have to come to the table with a certain bedrock, unteachable control/confidence? My gut tells me that all the mind games in the world won't succeed in turning Stewart Downing into Steven Gerrard or Luis Suarez, or even, Jamie Carragher. Will trust in the methodology lend Downing true inner fire? In short, are we simply building another Arsenal?

But motivation isn't about turning Stewart Downing into Steven Gerrard, just trying to get the most out of Stewart Downing. What separates us from Arsenal is not selling Steven Gerrard.

[Adamski LFC]

You see, this 'weight of the shirt' stuff bothers me. It smacks of a 'quiet' team. We've been building a quiet team since Rafa's days, searching out the good professionals, the family men, the team players. Some of those come with added authority (Alonso) but ultimately it only takes a slight wobble in the 'force' in that dressing room (ta-ta Hyypia; bye Xabi) and the lack of fierce competitive will is exposed to the world.

To what extent can a psychiatrist as good as Peters instil that strength, or - to be at top level - do you have to come to the table with a certain bedrock, unteachable control/confidence? My gut tells me that all the mind games in the world won't succeed in turning Stewart Downing into Steven Gerrard or Luis Suarez, or even, Jamie Carragher. Will trust in the methodology lend Downing true inner fire? In short, are we simply building another Arsenal?

I am not sure I can agree here, awe cripples, acceptance does not.  With acceptance of our history and previous accolades, they are free to develop their inner talents.  Not all will have fire, certainly Stewart Downing, but he is becoming a better player.  I would say Lucas, Agger and Reina all have fire, I think Sterling, Borini, Sturridge and Suarez do too, and I have missed some out.  Fire like a young Stevie G or Carragher often leads to red cards.  Channeling that fire into hard and focussed effort, is displayed in chasing lost causes, pushing back against the bigger man, trying to do the best for the team.  The best fire is the fire that is moulded to display these attributes, that is what we admire in Carragher and Stevie G.  Between them is a different type of fire appropriate to their positions.  Jamie's to strain every sinew to block or tackle, Stevie to use his mind to make good passes and great cross field balls, and still providing come defensive cover.  Fire is strong belief turned into action, we are giving them a strong belief and the tools to turn it into action, not all can develop in the same way.

Fair call on the IQ test, instead I think that questions should be asked to determine mental factors not necessarily a MENSA test.  I would guess more of personality type test should be completed then, to determine their suitability for the system.

Gnurglan, I work as a PM so deal with exactly what you are talking about, that is why we hold meetings, to get everyone up to speed from the various work areas, with the results of tests, developments, testing, sign-off, I could go on.  Then you agree who does what next and meet again later to determine how that's gone and repeat.  Me explaining that in no way would allow the man on the street to do that well.  How do you deal with difficult people, stubborn, or more often than not, jaded people.  Coaching badges will help people with little knowledge of the game but they still need experience.  They are a rubber stamp for people with experience.

Regarding stress of penalties, agreed you cannot prepare for the tension, but you can have a plan for dealing with the tension and what Peters calls Chimp management.  Tension cannot be prepared for, but having the tools to deal with it, especially if those are practiced beforehand, can really help.  Practicing them means that you can disassociate tension from fear and use it to lift your performance.  I watched Aristide Bance take a penalty in the Cup of Nations recently and he was extremely nonchalont and was very confident striding up to the spot.

On the flow side of things, I hear it more in Basketball and American football, as I think it is an american concept.  I see what I think must be it with say Suarez, probing for the weakness in the defence, his brain looking for patterns he has exploited or can exploit.    It is easier to see with front men, and I guess keepers making amazing saves.  On an individual level, how many times have you driven/travelled to work, to 'wake up' and realise you have arrived.  Is this not flow.  I hear sports people talk about it, "it gives extra time to see things and react",  "it is automatic I just know what to do", and "it is like my conciousness takes a back seat".  I think flow is an extreme example of refined skills over many situations, and the conciousness (human brain) letting the sub-concious (computer brain) take the reins.  It should be noted that all of these brains including the chimp, are you.

[Mutton Geoff]

Just put the ball in the net and we will talk about it later lad!

wise words why over complicate a simple game?

[Prof]

Just put the ball in the net and we will talk about it later lad!

wise words why over complicate a simple game?

Precisely.

The information given to a player must be just that, simple.

Providing clear direction about a decision for a given situation is the art of coaching.  What this quote doesn't tell us is how the player makes a choice when he receives the ball in the defensive third surrounded by three opponents.  Should he just stick the ball in the net then too?

The practice sessions are planned to allow players to make more effective decisions.  It is the role of coaching staff to plan these sessions and incorporate the right cues to successful decisions.

[Adamski LFC]

Precisely.

The information given to a player must be just that, simple.

Providing clear direction about a decision for a given situation is the art of coaching.  What this quote doesn't tell us is how the player makes a choice when he receives the ball in the defensive third surrounded by three opponents.  Should he just stick the ball in the net then too?

The practice sessions are planned to allow players to make more effective decisions.  It is the role of coaching staff to plan these sessions and incorporate the right cues to successful decisions.

Which as coaching staff, you can't learn without experience.

[Harinder]

Just put the ball in the net and we will talk about it later lad!

wise words why over complicate a simple game?

 

I've been waiting for you Mr Strong (said like No.1 from Spectre)

Coaching/mental improvement has been there for many many years. Now it may be seen as the "in" thing given the way the world has changed and so much being brought to the forefront. In years gone by no-one would mention the likes of Dr Peters as their wasn't any clamour for it by the media. Now Sir Chris Hoy and Sir Bradley Wiggins hit the podiums and it's part of the machine to be celebrated. This isn't me having a pop at it all by the way... I'm a real subscriber to this mental aspect being key to performance. I'd be a hypocrite if I wasn't given my older posts on the subject which I brought back out in this thread.

If I recall Geoff you're a teacher. You teach and more importantly shape and motivate youngsters to adjust the way they think on a daily basis. You have an ability to do this on the basis of the skills you're imparting to them and by virtue of the education associated it with it. This in itself is mental coaching expressed in a simple yet powerful form. The books, theories etc are there for the satisfaction of the why.

Why? It is usually the fundamental question as we look to satisfy knowing. If I recall a certain Ian Rush lost confidence in Paisley's last season. Bob told him again and again that goals would come.
"Don't worry. You've goals in you. Just keep playing the way you are doing and they'll come. No Liverpool player has scored a hat-trick against Everton for over fifty years. I think you can help yourself to one". Ian explains this as unusual for Bob but his words did him the world of good.

Fuck the hat-trick, he got 4 

Mind over matter. He must have known why 

[royhendo]

Don't spam one of the best threads the site has seen in years. Just go away. Unlocked after a bit. Sick fed up of the online manifestation of the support, to be honest. If anyone needs a session with Steve Peters, it's us lot.

[Adamski LFC]

Just in case we find it difficult to attend an appointment with Peters, there is always the book:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/009193558X

[Vulmea]

That's a peculiarly British view, Vulmea. Sports science on all levels were being used on the continent since at least the end of the WW2. Cullis at Wolves used a dedicated running coach to use modern methods to train players to be fitter. Michels was the model of the scientific manager. More so was Herrera. Russia has always been involved in sports science and is in fact one of the main pioneers of everything we do in the modern era in terms of planning training. Match analysis is not new either - Reep's work with Cullis, for example. Only the methods have been refined, enhanced and improved. But the existence was always there. Recording sessions and looking for patterns in order to repeat successful ideas and discard unsuccessful ones? Shanks and Paisley were doing that from 1959 onwards. Everything Shanks did was based on stuff that PNE did. There is nothing new under the football sun, but the points of view we have become necessarily complex, otherwise things stay the same and grow stale and fester. If it were not so, then we wouldn't have keyhole surgery, stem cell research, improved cancer survival rates, longevity of life, computers, indeed, even the internet. All of these things improve because we can change the language that we speak about things to a more complex level. Without that, we would still be writing with quill and ink, and drilling holes in people's heads to cure disease.

The science doesn't change the game, but it does allow it to improve it on a more detailed level. It's not for everyone, but for some of us, it is necessary in order to do our jobs and to keep them.

just think its an old and tired view not necessarily british

in what way has the game 'improved' as you suggest?

[PhaseOfPlay]

just think its an old and tired view not necessarily british

in what way has the game 'improved' as you suggest?

Players don't stand in one position and play against their direct counterpart for the whole game.

Players are more mobile, more agile, and faster. Consequently, their touch has had to improve. Not just first touch, but first touch at speed.

Individual dribbling has had to improve to take advantage of the lack of space in defences now.

Passing has had to improve, because "putting it in the mixer" is largely ineffective for top level teams to compete

Game intelligence has improved, because teams can't stroll up the pitch with the ball at their feet for 40 yards since teams press harder and faster and earlier than they used to.

Players have longer careers at the top level because diet and fitness have improved

Injuries no longer mean the end of a players career, so we get to see top players play to their potential rather than curse what might have been.

Training is no longer a couple of jogs around the park, a shooting drill, and a 5-a-side game with no purpose. Real development goes on at all levels of the game that improves the general playing pool.

We know more about skill acquisition, so young players can be given patience because we know through science the time and type of training needed to help them to fulfill their potential. We know more about overloading young players, we know more about stages of development, and we know more about the relative age effect and who actually makes it long term in the game and who comes along like a bolt of lightning and then fades, so we can manage young talent better

We know that teams who possess the ball more win more games - so the onus is on building skilled teams rather than beasts who can run.

The game has improved immeasurably in 50 years. I have several DVD's of FA Cup finals from the 50's and 60's. The pace of the game was painfully slow. Any one of those teams playing against today's Barcelona would be hammered in double digits.

The game has moved on, and it is a better game for it. There will, though, come a time when we know as much as we need to know from sports science, and everyone will know it. At that point, the edge will have to come from somewhere else, as everyone will be on the same level (much like the Liverpool teams of Shanks and Paisley were quite often the fittest in the league when nobody else cared about fitness - once everyone else got up to speed, Liverpool's domination wained a little). The speed at which today's players have to play and make decisions, and the quality of their touch as a result, is a light year and more better than how it was in, say, 1957.

[Vulmea]

we'll have to disagree on the game moving on and being better for it - I find the game less enjoyable and less engaging than ever- its become a soap opera overly commercialised and run by the bottom line - the sense of community has disapeared, the association between supporter and player virtually none existant - if we used to live vicariously through them then its a pipe dream now

 we no longer support merely spectate and for the most part via a small box

couple of things on the science - I find it intersting you suggest players will have greater longevity - i suspect we are breeding racehorses - overly trained and too finely tuned- that they'll be limited more and more to their peak years and cast aside when finished - those peak years will see younger players dominating the scene

when we had poorer medical care players played more they played with and through injuries often at terrible cost post career - invalidity even brain damage could occur - we are still woefully behind on the psychological side - it would be great to think advances in sport could have greater application in that area

in terms of higher faster stronger - that is all relative - the game our enjoyment isn't heightened by those changes - they haven't 'improved' the game - its illusory progress - its chasing your own tail - the greatest team  is still Brazil 1970 - the greatest goal still Carlos Alberto - would Spain beat Brazil - well when would they play - 1970 or 2012? I suspect you plonk those spanish players into 1970 give them the same diet and training methods as their compatriots in 1970 and they lose heavily trying to play as they do now.

[PhaseOfPlay]

we'll have to disagree on the game moving on and being better for it - I find the game less enjoyable and less engaging than ever- its become a soap opera overly commercialised and run by the bottom line - the sense of community has disapeared, the association between supporter and player virtually none existant - if we used to live vicariously through them then its a pipe dream now

 we no longer support merely spectate and for the most part via a small box

couple of things on the science - I find it intersting you suggest players will have greater longevity - i suspect we are breeding racehorses - overly trained and too finely tuned- that they'll be limited more and more to their peak years and cast aside when finished - those peak years will see younger players dominating the scene

when we had poorer medical care players played more they played with and through injuries often at terrible cost post career - invalidity even brain damage could occur - we are still woefully behind on the psychological side - it would be great to think advances in sport could have greater application in that area

in terms of higher faster stronger - that is all relative - the game our enjoyment isn't heightened by those changes - they haven't 'improved' the game - its illusory progress - its chasing your own tail - the greatest team  is still Brazil 1970 - the greatest goal still Carlos Alberto - would Spain beat Brazil - well when would they play - 1970 or 2012? I suspect you plonk those spanish players into 1970 give them the same diet and training methods as their compatriots in 1970 and they lose heavily trying to play as they do now.

That's the point, Vulmea - you plonk a modern-trained team into the past to show how much better progress is. That's like saying "modern medicine is crap - if you plonk a doctor into 1550, they wouldn't be able to reattach a torn ACL".

My point is that the football today is faster, more technical and players are better prepared and play at the top longer and retire healthier. I prefer it this way, you prefer the old days (although I think the balance was probably struck from 1986-1992ish. I'd watch football from that era all day). I'm not debating about which football you prefer to watch and support. I'm debating that sports science has improved the actual playing of the game immensely since the 50's.