Welcome to the Dynamic Soccer Coaching Substack. This post is the third in a series called “Defining Your Game Model.”
In Part One, we defined game model as our ideas for how we want our teams to play soccer and briefly mentioned three different types of game models. In Part Two we distinguished between the concepts of a game model and the game itself, then defined soccer as the interactions between the ball, the objective, the teams, and the space (the BOTS!).
Today we’re going to move on to our next topic: the team. I want to show a way to organize our ideas of how we want our teams to play, regardless of the type of or content in our game model.
Here we go!
When we’re thinking about how to define our game models, it’s important to think clearly about the concept of the team. After all, our game models are our ideas of how we want our teams to play.
We want to set up our teams for success. This means that our ideas of how we want to play should be based not only the reality of the game (which is what we covered last week), but also on the real players we have in front of us.
Honestly, this balance can be a little tricky. We want to make sure our game model ideas are comprehensive enough to cover the whole game, but also simple enough to be sensible to our players.
To strike that balance, here’s a framework for organizing and prioritizing our game model ideas:
Game Ideas
Team Intentions
Player Interactions
This three-step framework can be used regardless of your preferred type of game model, whether style-based, phase-based, or thirds-based, and regardless of the content in your game model. It’s useful because it connects the team to both the game and the players. Here’s how it works:
Game Ideas
Game Ideas come first in the framework because our ideas must be based on the reality of the game. Our game ideas are the big picture. In some ways, they are like our values or maybe our vision of how we want the game to be played. Game ideas are going to be the most abstract. But we can use this three-step framework to communicate these abstract game ideas clearly to our players.
I think it’s best to have between 3-5 game ideas, with each relating to the ball, the teams, or the space (we’re going to take it for granted that our game model sets up the team to achieve the objective!). Less than three probably won’t cover the whole game, and more than five becomes confusing to the players (and to us!).
Using Positional Play (which would make this a style-based game model), here’s an example of some game ideas we might use:
Qualitative Superiority (the Ball): We create situations where our players play directly against the weaker players of the opposition
Numerical Superiority (the Team/Opponent): We create situations where we have one more player in a given space than our opponent
Positional Superiority (the Space): We create situations where we play in the space(s) between and behind our opponent’s lines
This is a good way to start a game model since each of these game ideas is related to one of soccer’s fundamental elements (the BOTS), plus there’s no real way to completely separate each of these ideas from another. Now we’re ready to move on to the next step of the framework: team intentions.
Team Intentions
Team intentions, simply put, are the ways we want our teams to apply our game ideas. We want our abstract game ideas to be “made visible.” Team intentions are how we do that.
Practically, this means two things: 1) our team intentions should be described in more concrete language than our game ideas; and 2) we really only need one team intention for each game idea. Using Positional Play again, here’s what our team intentions might look like:
Qualitative Superiority (the Ball): We create situations where our players play directly against the weaker players of the opposition
We play 1v1 and 2v2 when our strongest players are directly matched up against the opponent’s weaker players
Numerical Superiority (the Team/Opponent): We create situations where we have one more player in a given space than our opponent
We “overload” midfield in the build up phase of attack and in the mid block phase of defense
Positional Superiority (the Space): We create situations where we play in the space(s) between and behind our opponent’s lines
We look to play the “free man” as often as possible: 1v0, 2v1, and 3v2
Again, our team intentions are how we want to apply our game ideas. These connect our team to the reality of the game. But they also connect to the real players in front of us. This sets the stage for the third and final step in our framework: player interactions.
Player Interactions
Player interactions are the technical actions players execute as they play. I call them “interactions” because the actions themselves must be understood in light of the team intentions and the game ideas. Technique does not exist in a vacuum. There’s no such thing as a “good first touch” without reference to how that first touch relates to (or interacts with) the player’s teammates, the opponents, and the space; as well as whether it sets the player up to contribute to the team intention.
This may be confusing or even controversial. But technique is not an end in itself; it’s merely a tool to serve team intentions. Here’s what this looks like as part of our three-step framework:
Qualitative Superiority (the Ball): We create situations where our players play directly against the weaker players of the opposition
We play 1v1 and 2v2 when our strongest players are directly matched up against the opponent’s weaker players
Universal: Scan, Body Shape, Both Feet
First Player: Receive, Pass, Dribble, Shoot; Press, Delay Tackle
Second and Third Player: Show, Stay, Move; Cover, Step, Drop
Numerical Superiority (the Team/Opponent): We create situations where we have one more player in a given space than our opponent
We “overload” midfield in the build up phase of attack and in the mid block phase of defense
Universal: Scan, Body Shape, Both Feet
First Player: Receive, Pass, Dribble, Shoot; Press, Delay Tackle
Second and Third Player: Show, Stay, Move; Cover, Step, Drop
Positional Superiority (the Space): We create situations where we play in the space(s) between and behind our opponent’s lines
We look to play the “free man” as often as possible: 1v0, 2v1, and 3v2
Universal: Scan, Body Shape, Both Feet
First Player: Receive, Pass, Dribble, Shoot; Press, Delay Tackle
Second and Third Player: Show, Stay, Move; Cover, Step, Drop
Universal refers to all players at all times. The First Player is the player on the ball (in attack) or closest to the ball (in defense). The Second and Third Players are those around the ball and away from the ball, respectively.
The player interactions listed under each game idea and team intention are all the same. What makes one different from another is its relation to and interaction with the game idea and team intention. What it means to “pass” the ball when we’re playing 2v2 (Qualitative Superiority) may be radically different from what it means to “pass” the ball when we’re finding the free man (Positional Superiority). In other words, the game ideas (context) and the team intentions (tactics) control and define what the proper technique is in any given situation.
That’s why I think it’s best to think about technique as player interactions. Players interact with the game and contribute to the team as they execute any given action.
Practical Questions
Based on this three-step framework, here are some practical questions you can use as you begin thinking about how to define your game model:
What are your 3-5 game ideas? (Be sure each one relates to either the ball, the opponent, or the space!)
What are your team intentions? (Be sure it’s only one per game idea!)
What are your player interactions? (Be sure to think of them in light of your game ideas and team intentions!)
If you can answer those questions, you’re well on your way to defining a good game model.
Well that’s it for this week! Thanks for reading and thanks again to everyone who’s reached out with kinds words. I’m looking forward to writing the rest of this series.
See y’all next week!
