Developing Fitness in Young Players | To Ball, or Not to Ball

This article was penned in the summer yet I never got round to finalising it and posting it. However I thought I would re-visit it as I was recently asked my opinion on SAQ work in sessions for young players, along with the clear issues of training methods prevalent in the Premier League and highlighted with the vast injury situations at clubs like Man City, Man Utd and Arsenal.

During the summer periods football revolves around the word ‘fitness’. The often dreaded ‘pre-season’ period means fitness tests and boot camps for many players, young and old. Grassroots coaches seek to replicate what they did in yesteryear, or look at the 'pro's' and seek to replicate. It is a flawed and potentially damaging mentality in the development of players. Yet the 'boot camp' fitness regimes can also be damaging for the top players also. In this article I wish to discuss this key part of the season and touch on the growing disdain for boot camp type activities with footballers.

Jose Mourinho is famous for saying that his players don’t do any fitness work with him without a ball. When suggested he take his team for a run in the hills he laughed and said his players will only spend time on the football pitch. His sessions are all ball related, with tactical elements as well as technical worked on. Of course his reasoning is that physical components come in to the make up of the sessions, with him changing the size of the areas to achieve different aims in terms of physical load, intensity and type.

Mourinho, along with his assistant Rui Faria, the man who he has trusted and taken with him every step this past decade, are strong proponents of 'tactical periodisation', the systematic planning of physical training. Football differs to a sport like athletics due to the constant nature and demands of the schedule. Planning must equate for one or two games a week, over the course of roughly 9 months of league action. To achieve a high level of performance during this time it is important that players remain fit and healthy, relatively free from injury while maintaining a level of fitness which allows for high performance. This balance can be hard to maintain. 

Pep Guardiola, one of the games great coaches scoffed at his Bayern players for their desire to do extra sprints after training, making the point of the silliness of their endeavours and pointing out that his sessions work the physical elements required for success in football more so than any sprints can. He is of the opinion like Mourinho that training while playing the game is the only element which will bring the fitness required. However, there has been criticism aimed at Guardiola for his methods at Bayern. A sense that he is 'forsaking' traditional methods for ball work, and where he think this is helping the players (and their performances and success under him show this) there is also a sense that Bayern have suffered with injuries to key players in recent seasons because of Guardiola's methods. 

Which is best? There is a growing opinion now that peridiosation of the athletic work of the team is essential, and that a developing programme building up the players fitness, compared to the first day blow out which is most common to English players and teams, is the way forward. 

Tony Pulis is in the 'old school' way of thinking, putting his players through a "marathon" every three days in preparation for the new season. His logic presumably being that his team need to be super fit to play the style and intensity he wishes. Compared to the two coaches above perhaps Pulis understands that his side will have less of the ball and therefore will be required to run more. The logic is sound, yet perhaps the pre-season work is not. The truth will be in the outcome of the season. Of course coaches like Mourinho and Guardiola will have different aims and outcomes for the season ahead than Pulis. And as we've seen already Mourinho has already being axed, with fitness issues a significant part of his teams under-performance.  

It is interesting to note that Mourinho and Guardiola were knocked out of the Champions League for being fatigued and having a large number of injury problems. Was their preparation fitting for a long season where a team is looking to ‘peak’ between February to May. Not an easy task for a coach or team to achieve yet one if prepared properly could bring the success required at the end of the season. One only has to look at Barcelona to see their ‘peak’ came after Christmas and built up to a glorious end. Was conditioning part of this? 

There are some coaches in recent years who have worked their players to extreme levels of fitness and achieved very good things, only for their players to eventually break down and suffer injuries. Dortmund under Jurgen Klopp is a good example. As too Marcelo Bielsa, particularly at Athletic Bilbao, whose side was excellent until their bodies could no longer deal with the demands of what was being asked in terms of performance. It will be interesting to see how Pochettino does this season as he is from the Bielsa school of thinking regarding high pressing and has put his players through an intense fitness regime this past 18 months. It has clearly improved his side on the pitch, they work harder than any other team in the league, yet will it provide success or we will see burnout? 

You see the problem with these coaches is that they expect 100% from their players, at all times. They want 90 mins of high performance each game. Is this possible? And importantly does their style of play limit the chance of long term success due to burnout and fatigue? 

Mourinho suffered from a quick and explosive start to the season last year by faltering physically February onwards, where his small squad couldn't maintain their level of performance and energy. They saw out the season with two trophies, yet it was clear they had not periodised their season to achieve success later on. 

Compare this to Pep Guardiola and Luis Enrique at Barcelona who clearly set out to 'peak' later in the season, knowing this is where the important matches in the Champions League, along with finals and important league games can be the difference between success and failure. Therefore rotation and style play a part.

So let me now touch on a few points from above. Firstly this idea that Chelsea’s players will be doing their fitness and physical development solely on the pitch in these sessions. Ridiculous! 

The way sports science and medical teams are ran and organised these days at the elite levels of the game each player will have their own personal workout plan to suit their positional and individual needs. These sessions and workouts will take place in a gym or outside with a specialist fitness coach. Mourinho does not need to focus solely on the players fitness because he has other departments to do this. At the elite pro level these coaches are working with professionals at the top of their game, they stay supremely fit and healthy as a lifestyle. Therefore the sessions can be tactically focused and why he can justify saying fitness isn’t something the sessions completely focus on. 

Guardiola has the same thinking yet at Bayern he found the players willingness to do more "strange", not comprehending that a German and also British mentality is about ‘feeling’ fit and strong. Perhaps his players needed the extra work to feel faster, stronger and fitter? By denying them this, or perhaps insisting that this non-football type fitness wasn’t necessary took away something in the players mindset. It’s just a thought.

The dichotomy between developing pro's and young players

However, the point of this beginning is to look at the role models of coaches today, particularly coaches of young players. There is now a sense of ‘if it’s good enough for Mourinho and Guardiola, it’s good enough for me’. Of course as coaches we wish to learn and seek to emulate the best coaches and their methods, however there is a fundamental difference between professional senior players and young footballers. The case of treating young players like ‘mini-adults’ is shown up time and time again, whether through a teams style, results focus or training methods. The ‘fitness’ issue is perhaps one of the most important and confused.

On one hand you get the ‘boot camp’ type coach who has his U9’s running laps, doing shuttles and barely touching a ball in their one hour a week football session. Not only is this type of work wasted time away from the ball but the actual turnover of repetitions is so minimal that the youngsters don’t really get to do too much in the session! 

This brings me to the question about SAQ drills and practices within sessions. For me I look to focus on 10 mins max of this in a 90 mins. Ladders, hurdles and rings for bounding are all beneficial and I do believe in SAQ to develop good footwork, balance and co-ordination as well as focusing on explosion and speed. I also have dynamic warm up's and flexibility at the start and end of the sessions too. But the key is that in the 10 mins of SAQ, the players are working to a 1:1 ratio of action:rest. And unfortunately I see too many coaches putting on overly complex circuits which actually limit repetition, increase time waiting in lines and don't really achieve high intensity work. It's why I also disagree somewhat with introducing ball work in these drills because for me they increase waiting time and decrease repetition and take the focus of players away from their footwork which reduces quality. For me this 10 mins period can be spent with high intensity agility, footwork, co-ordination and speed exercises, without feeling a ball is essential. 

For the 'physical' development of young players comes from a lack of education and of people doing things they have experienced themselves or seen pro-teams doing. It is ridiculous and unfair on the kids who came to play. And you know what, playing 1v1, 2v2 and 4v4 type games will bring about more superior fitness and movement skills than the often vertical runs/laps the ‘boot camp’ is seeking to improve. It really does down to education and knowledge. 

But the truth is a lot of our young players do lack the physical literacy and overall athletic mix of speed and endurance which should be developed within schools. Questions need to be asked of schools and PE lessons which have become something of a farce in many schools. A lack of actual activity is meaning young people are being denied the core movement and physical literacy development needed to build a strong foundation for future physical success.  There is a problem with many youngsters ABC’s, physical strength and inability to climb and pull their body up which is meaning a lot of youngsters lack the key skills needed to succeed in sports. 

Now there is a lot of vitriol against these boot camp type sessions which is understandable, to an extent. However the problem does come between the ages of 12-16 where I still feel we are letting our young players down by not giving them the range of physical attributes required to succeed in football. 

Cross country is a sport which has many merits, Gareth Bale puts his physical endurance down to time spent on cross country running. There is a need for this in football, the importance of endurance. However because of the toxic view of ‘fitness’ work in coaching today you won’t see hill runs, or laps around the pitch because it looks ‘old school’. But due to the low quality of physical education in schools, it may mean that the coach’s role is to look at these areas more. And to be honest when taking a holistic view of a players development a coach should be looking to develop physically strong athletes as well as technically efficient, tactically intelligent and mentally positive and strong people. 

Building endurance in your young players is a key part of their development. But it is ignored because it isn’t in line with the modern view, one which too often takes lessons from the professional game. But these young players aren’t professionals, their needs and physical make-up is different, and youth coaches need to appreciate this and develop these players. And yes, it may mean that the physical work carried out in sessions needs to be done without a ball. 

I personally love small sided games in a 35x25 area however it only works certain physical components. The players enjoy it and get lots of contact with the ball, there is a lot of turning, cutting and sharp movements, but this is just a part of their physical development. The same with ladders and fast feet work. All important, yet not the only thing. And it is this area of endurance, of working without the ball to improve the physicality of players which I feel is being lost in current training methods.

Remember, we as coaches of young players are putting the blocks together for the players development. Each component is important and we can’t simply neglect areas like endurance solely because it ‘looks’ bad or 'wrong'. A coach needs to understand that players require this in their physical make-up to be a footballer.

In producing elite footballers for the modern game we need to have players who have excellent fitness levels and who possess a strong athletic mix. This will require pushing the players physically to improve, and in my opinion significant gains made physically often happen without a ball involved. 

If a coach puts the effort in to develop the physical area then the player will be sharper, more focused and more durable. Physical excellence leads to greater performance. Therefore coaches of players between 12-16 need to plan and periodise their training to account for these physical elements. By doing not doing this and mocking people for doing 'non-football work', they are actually doing a disservice to their own players. 

Football is a great game which encompasses many attributes, and physicality and athleticism is a key part of that mix. Having these mis-conceptions on what is acceptable for ‘pre-season’ training is hampering the development of players. Just because Mourinho and Guardiola do it doesn’t mean you should also. 

You are working with a player on a different part of the continuum, so understand the psycho-motor characteristics and needs for that age group, and even better the individuals in your group. Research what these players require, not what Chelsea or Bayern’s pro’s are doing. These are different worlds, and while the goal is for these players to reach these heights, simply doing what they are doing now is not always a recipe for success. 

What is required is a balance, and a plan for what your season will entail. This is in a technical, tactical, psycho-social and physical perspective. Ask yourself if your sessions cater for these needs, in a structured and logical way. Are you laying the foundations for your players to succeed? If you are neglecting athletic development then the answer is no.

If you’re reading this and work with U7’s-U11’s then I implore you to focus on play within football, many great physical skills are developed by games and 1v1 type situations. Above all the players will enjoy it and love you as a coach because you make the game fun and by doing that, without them knowing, they are getting better physically.

For those working with older players, you need to be thinking more about the specific needs of the players and asking if your sessions or periodised plans account for physical development of a players athletic mix, whether the intensity, load and timings of sessions are accounted for as well as the rest players get within and between sessions. 

And what about flexibility and agility, is this part of your sessions, remember your players are going through puberty and the muscles are growing. This may also affect a players ABC’s, so are accounting for this and helping them? There is a lot to consider yet you must consider these things.

Coaching is not just about a bag of balls and a whistle, it is about planning, understanding the needs of the team and the individuals within it, and above all making it enjoyable.

The term ‘pre-season’ is often seen with fear and apprehension. No ball for weeks in the session. How ridiculous! A balance is needed between ball work and non-ball work, getting this balance right will help develop the players and also have a happy group who find training enjoyable. Why some coaches choose to make it all a ‘chore’ baffles me?! Yet those coaches who choose not to do any non-ball related work baffle me also.

The Whitehouse Address @The_W_Address

What are your thoughts? Do you agree/disagree? Would love to hear from you. Email the blog at thewhitehouseaddress@gmail.com