USSF's Play-Practice-Play provides a better framework -- but there's always room for improvisation

I walked out of my last coaching course reinvigorated.

U.S. Soccer had done away with the rigid and befuddling “Warmup-Small-Sided Activity-Expanded Small-Sided Activity, Whatever That Means-Scrimmage” model. Now it was “Play-Practice-Play.”

Fewer confusing drills that change from week to week. Now coaches could keep it simple. At the older ages, the players do roughly the same thing each week -- they show up and start playing small-sided games, they take a break to do some dynamic stretches, they do a modified scrimmage, and then they finish with a full-fledged scrimmage. Most practice plans have simpler exercises for younger ages as well.

The coaching changes each week. We emphasize something new with each session. Maybe it’s building the attack through the flanks. Maybe it’s staying compact defensively.

We spend less time explaining drills. We spend more time coaching soccer.

But does it work?

In my first season, the verdict is positive -- mostly. But as with all coaching methodologies, you’re going to find a reality check.

Granted, I had some unique issues. I coach two rec teams -- U14 and U16 -- and I figured it would be a good idea to have them both practice at the same time so we could claim an entire half of a field in space-challenged Northern Virginia. I won’t be doing that in the spring, where we’ll see how “Play-Practice-Play” works with one team on a quarter of a field. This fall, I didn’t have a lot of help from assistant coaches, so just organizing a bunch of small-sided games as the previous team’s session ended and my players arrived (late, as always) was a chore.

We can’t blame U.S. Soccer for teaching us how to do things under ideal circumstances -- a massive soccerplex in which each team has adequate space and the players are all punctual and attentive. It’s up to us to modify it, and that’s fine.

Link: U.S. Soccer Digital Coaching Center

The more general issue is that the “practice” phase is inherently limiting. The controversial part is that the activities are supposed to “resemble the game.” In my coaching class, I was told we couldn’t use neutral players in these activities because that’s not “game-like.”

U.S. Soccer: Five things to know about Play-Practice-Place

And the overemphasis on “game-like” extends to the Digital Coaching Center, where the lesson plans for U-8s include titles like “Improve Building-Up in Own Half” and “Improve Preventing Scoring Goals.” It’s U-8. The titles need to be “Dribbling,” “Using Multiple Surfaces of the Foot” and “No, Really, You’re Allowed to Pass the Ball.” You can still find some reasonable age-appropriate exercises -- which U.S. Soccer might criticize as not “game-like” -- in the excellent practice plans posted at Massachusetts Youth Soccer’s site, but the Digital Coaching Center’s plans are just a bit robotic and confusing.

We already have a “war on rondos” controversy. Maybe we can avoid a “war on sharks and minnows.”

Even at the older ages, we’re going to need some activities that build skills outside of a 7v6 or 8v8 activity. Players still need touches on the ball. We can hope they’re all watching Yael Averbuch training videos and doing exercises on their own, but some activities simply need to be done in practice.

Consider the transition from a small-sided field to a full-sized field. Suddenly, 12-year-old kids are dealing with longer passes and the occasional ball in the air. If you’re just doing scrimmages and modified scrimmages, particularly on the quarter-field on which we typically practice, you’re not going to have many opportunities to deal with such things.

We all love futsal. We all love 3v3 and 4v4 games. But at some point, a player needs to learn to make a 20-yard pass with a bit of pace on it. And players need to learn to deal with a ball that’s chest-high or head-high.

So I improvised. In a typical practice, I had my U-16s doing a USSF-friendly practice exercise using the big goal (which we couldn’t move) and counter goals, and then I used a narrow strip of the field to have my U-14s pass back and forth. After a few minutes, I’d add a defender so they had to do so under pressure. After 20 minutes or so, the teams switched. Maybe that exercise helped my center back make the beautiful 25-yard diagonal pass to my overlapping right midfielder, who went on to score.

And to avoid the chaos of trying to set up a bunch of cones for small-sided games as 30 players turned up at the field to start practice, I cheated. I had them do rondos. Don’t tell anyone.

It’s a better framework. It’s not as difficult to adapt to real-world rec soccer as the previous model was. If U.S. Soccer could follow through with more guidance on adjusting to limited field space and the need to get more touches on the ball, even at the older ages, we’ll have something that’ll work even for those of us who signed up to coach because someone had to.

(Beau Dure is the author of “Single-Digit Soccer: Keeping Sanity in the Earliest Ages of the Beautiful Game” and the host of the podcast “Ranting Soccer Dad.” He coaches and refs youth soccer in Northern Virginia.)

6 comments about "USSF's Play-Practice-Play provides a better framework -- but there's always room for improvisation".
  1. beautiful game, November 7, 2018 at 11:22 a.m.

    Touches on the ball, mandatory...handling pressure, more so...everything follows.

  2. Ginger Peeler replied, November 8, 2018 at 8:17 a.m.

    What a delightful critique of play-practice-place!! And I consider touches on the ball the foundation for everything else! EVERYTHING ELSE!  

  3. frank schoon, November 8, 2018 at 12:57 p.m.

    What I'm about to say is no slight to Beau, but an overall criticism of US soccer. 
    Good grief, get rid of the USSF coaching license system, totally. We do much better without all this garbage, coaching course this , and coaching course that....what a joke. Every year the USSF comes up with a new , new ,new way of teaching kids. WOW! These people don't have a clue. Like Johan Cruyff once stated that worst thing that happened to youth development are licensed coaches, with their classroom jargon, applied methodologies and theoretical garbage. He stated licensed coaching program allows incompetent people to get a license and be involved with youth development. Cruyff preferred retired players or good players without the classroom garbage,who have a feel for the game, the player, and is ABLE to teach the necessary skills needed, depending on the level of play(something that these classroom types are unable to do)
    The suggestion, 'we need more ball touches" to improve the kids...NO KIDDING !!!  Wiel Coerver stated that in his book back in 1982 when he realized fewer and fewer kids play street soccer (pickup soccer)due  to not only the influx of cars but also the input of licensed coaches ,all which has the effect of reduced the youth skills.
    All of the suggestion made in this article can all be found  in a 'pickup soccer/street soccer set up...ball touches, playing free style, small space, and MIXED AGES (not mentioned in the article) which is one the most important aspects of youth development for it allows youth to play against and learn from better youths, which has the effect of forcing them to play smarter, faster -thinking and ball handling- without having to rely upon speed running which is not important at this stage.
    Until we create a culture of pick up/street soccer here, we will not create good technical players like a Zlatan types individulist who develop mostly by playing street soccer.  We still haven't produced a great  individualist with the ball in the past 50 years of US soccer.
    We need to take the elements of street soccer/pickup soccer and applied to the kids....FORGET all this classroom theory , methodology...we have to get to the basics, just play!!!!

  4. Bob Ashpole, November 8, 2018 at 1:19 p.m.

    @Beau Dure This will frost your cake. It dissappeared this year, but the year before (in the E license) they wanted coaches to begin immediately to assign each player positions by number in the 11 a side numbering system starting at the youngest ages for every exercise. This wasn't just a mental exercise for coaches to understand how their exercises fit within a progression to the senior game. They wanted the players to understand how their exercise fit in the senior game! Really, really, dumb idea to try teaching 6 years positions in a 11 v 11 system. Once again a coaching emphasis on team tactics during the fundamental stage.

  5. Bob Ashpole replied, November 8, 2018 at 1:20 p.m.

    Sorry, "6 years" should read "6 year olds".

  6. beautiful game, November 9, 2018 at 4:48 p.m.

    Youth development is all about technical ability, speed of thought & play, and developing efficacy. It's a waste of time for tactical rigidness.

Next story loading loading..

Discover Our Publications