.png)
Introduction
Football, or soccer as it is known in some parts of the world, is a sport that requires players to have excellent technical skills, tactical awareness, and physical fitness.
As the modern game has evolved, coaches are constantly looking for new and innovative ways to train their teams to improve these core attributes.
Two training methods that have become increasingly popular at both amateur and professional levels are rondos and positional games.
Rondos are small-sided possession games, usually with uneven numbers, that focus on keeping the ball away from defending players.
Meanwhile, positional games aim to ingrain tactical understanding by replicating match situations and positioning.
Both can be adapted to focus on various technical, tactical, and physical elements crucial for football.
This article will analyze in detail the effectiveness of using rondos and positional games as football training methods.
It will examine the advantages and disadvantages of each, look at variations and progressions, and also explore considerations for optimal implementation.
Academic studies and perspectives from professional coaches will be referenced throughout.
The Origins and Definitions of Rondos and Positional Games
Rondos and positional games have become commonplace in modern football, but where did these methods originate?
Rondos can be traced back to fútbol rondo training exercises utilized by Johan Cruyff, influential player and manager at Ajax and Barcelona.
They involved small groups of players passing the ball around while one or more defenders tried to win it back (Gonzalez-Villora et al, 2015). Cruyff’s possession-focused approach was revolutionary and rondos became a core part of Barcelona’s methodology.
Meanwhile, positional games emerged from the periodizacion tactica (tactical periodization) ideas of coaches like Vítor Frade. This structured, game-based method organized training into cycles with tactical, technical, and physical focuses (Tamarit, 2015). Positional games came from the tactical component.
Academically, rondos fall under the broad definition of small-sided games (SSGs).
These are modified matches with adapted rules, objectives, and dimensions (Hill-Haas et al, 2011). Positional games are a form of situated practice, which aims to replicate specific game contexts and environments (Pinder et al, 2011).
So in summary, rondos are SSGs for practicing ball possession, pressing resistance and the universal concepts to be taught in order to adequately be able to play a positional style of football.
Positional games use situated practice to ingrain tactical understanding as well as training the universal and collective concepts of positional play. Both are now common training methods.
The Advantages and Disadvantages of Rondos
Rondos have become a staple training method due to offering a number of advantages:
Improved technical ability - The small spaces and numerical superiority develop close control and passing accuracy under pressure (Yanci et al, 2018). Players must maneuver out of tight situations.
Increased speed of play - Rondos force quick passing combinations and decision making. This increases playing tempo (Olthof et al, 2018).
Rondos force quick passing combinations and decision making. This increases playing tempo (Olthof et al, 2018).
Greater pressing resistance - Retaining possession under intense pressure is crucial and rondos provide this specific conditioning (Suarez-Arrones et al, 2018).
Enhanced perception and coordination - Players must constantly assess positions and move into good passing lanes (Hughes et al, 2012).
Players must constantly assess positions and move into good passing lanes (Hughes et al, 2012).
Improved marking and tackling - Defenders develop these skills through attempting to win the ball back (Owen et al, 2004).
Increased competitiveness - The clear focus and targets increase desire to compete (Casamichana & Castellano, 2015).
However, some potential disadvantages or challenges also exist:
Fatigue - The intense nature can lead to accumulative fatigue from constant movements. Requires monitoring (Gabbett & Mulvey, 2008).
Overload - Struggling players may get 'overloaded' if too many passes are played to them (Stenling & Holmström, 2014).
Isolation - Defenders may become isolated from play and interaction. Integration required (Hristovski et al, 2012).
Limitations - Less holistic than full games. Coaches must ensure appropriate progression and variation.
Lack of space - Playing areas must be suitable to avoid congestion and promote desired techniques (Casamichana & Castellano, 2015).
So in summary, rondos provide excellent conditioning of various technical and perceptual-cognitive skills in an intense, competitive environment. However, coaches must manage fatigue, involvement, and progression carefully to optimize benefits.
The Advantages and Disadvantages of Positional Games
Meanwhile, the advantages and disadvantages of using positional games include:
Enhanced tactical knowledge - Players learn positioning and movements for specific systems and match contexts (Mitchell et al, 2013).
Accelerated decision making - Positional games develop speed of tactical thought and appropriate choices (Memmert & Harvey, 2008).
Increased adaptability - Varied scenarios improve ability to adapt play and make trade-off decisions (Gréhaigne et al, 1997).
Promotes communication - Positional games require verbal and non-verbal communication between units (Olthof et al, 2018).
Game-specific conditioning - Movements and intensities replicate match environments (Dellal et al, 2012).
Limitations -
Can isolate players from full team interactions (Memmert & Harvey, 2008).
Difficult setup - Requires planning and equipment to recreate game scenarios (Mitchell et al, 2013).
Narrow focus - May target specific tactical contexts excessively (Hill-Haas et al, 2011).
Overall, positional games provide an excellent platform for ingraining tactical understanding, decision making and adaptive capacity in authentic environments. However, limitations around technical development, isolation and contrived scenarios should be acknowledged.
Integrating Rondos and Positional Games
Both rondos and positional games offer advantages that can enhance football training. But how can coaches integrate the two methods to maximize benefits?
A blended training program can utilize rondos early in sessions to hone technique, pressing skills and the teaching of universal and collective concepts.
Positional games can then apply this in more tactical contexts (Olthof et al, 2018).
This takes advantage of the technical focus of rondos and tactical application of positional games.
Within sessions, rondos can be progressed into positional games through increasing complexity. For example, setting up target players to find with longer passes (Correa et al, 2019).
Defensive reactions can also be added, promoting decision making and adaptability.
Positional games can also be made more dynamic by incorporating rules of rondos - such as only two touches. Combined methods maximize both technical and tactical training effects.
An integrated weekly schedule can also combine focused rondo training early in the week before broader tactical positional games. Then full-team tactical drills and matches integrate all elements (Casamichana & Castellano, 2015). This allows progressive development within each cycle.
So an effective integration utilizes technical rondos to prepare for more complex tactical positional games within single sessions. It also schedules in a progressive manner throughout the week or cycle to optimize development.
Variations and Progressions
Implementing rondos and positional games effectively requires coaches to utilize variations and progressions.
The key considerations are:
Vary areas - different shapes and sizes change demands (Olthof et al, 2018).
Alter numbers - more players increases intensity and options (Owen et al, 2004).
Add rules - restrictions promote specific skills
Change durations - longer develops decision making, shorter boosts intensity (Casamichana & Castellano, 2015).
Modify objectives - can promote various technical, tactical or fitness elements.
Increase complexity - introduce additional factors to challenge players.
Allow free play - less constraints alongside guided practice (Memmert & Harvey, 2008).
Adapt scenarios - recreate different match contexts and systems (Mitchell et al, 2013).
Modify equipment - cones, mannequins, goals etc to add specificity (Correa et al, 2019).
Some examples of effective progressions include:
Increasing area size to force wider passing range and decisions.
Adding an extra defender to increase pressing intensity.
Allowing only 2-3 touches to develop speed of play.
Introducing stop-start rules to improve explosiveness.
Making longer rondos to test decision-making capacity.
Adding set target players to direct passing.
Removing zone restrictions to require adaptive positioning.
Adding shot opportunities to increase end product focus.
Recreating scenarios like counter-attacks or overlaps to provide context.
The use of considered progressions keeps players challenged, promotes specific skill acquisition, and enhances transfer into full games. Periodisation is key.
Coaching Style Considerations
The coaching approach used to deliver rondos and positional games also impacts their success. Best practice includes:
Clear instructions so players understand objectives and rules (Cushion et al, 2012).
Effective demonstrations to model technical execution and movement.
Positive, motivating feedback to coach during practice (Potrac et al, 2007).
Promoting communication and teamwork, not just individual skills (Gamble et al, 2013).
Questioning to enhance players' understanding and decision making (Light & Harvey, 2017).
Avoiding overly prescriptive instructions that reduce creativity (Ford et al, 2010).
Management of intensity, overload and rest periods (Gabbett & Mulvey, 2008).
Catering to individual learning needs (Oslin et al, 1998).
Engaging players in design to enhance ownership (Evans & Light, 2007).
A player-centered, problem-solving approach promotes peak development. Coach guidance balances with player responsibility to empower learning.
Optimizing Implementation
To optimize the implementation of rondos and positional games, key factors include:
A long-term training plan progressing over weeks and months (Gréhaigne et al, 1997).
Integration with other technical, tactical, physical and psychological training (Tamarit, 2015).
Selection of scenarios and rules to meet specific objectives (Memmert & Harvey, 2008).
Suitable player numbers and area sizes to achieve aims (Casamichana & Castellano, 2015).
Use of questioning to stimulate learning and connections (Light & Harvey, 2017).
Challenging yet achievable progressions to stretch players (Clemente et al, 2019).
Avoiding repetitive overuse that causes staleness (Figueira et al, 2019).
Allowing free play for creativity and problem solving (Evans & Light, 2007).
Engaging players through competitiveness and involvement (Gabbett, 2009).
Monitoring intensity, work-rest ratios and recovery (Gabbett & Mulvey, 2008).
Optimizing the benefits requires planning, periodisation and engagement tailored to specific objectives. Coaches must also avoid repetitive overuse.
Research Perspectives
A range of studies provide useful perspectives on the efficacy of rondos and positional games.
In one study, 10 weeks of rondo training improved amateur players' ball control, passing accuracy, dribbling and shooting skills more than standard technical drills (Yanci et al, 2018). This highlights the benefits of realistic conditioning.
Meanwhile, U11 players developed greater tactical adaptability through engaging in varied small-sided positional games (Mitchell et al, 2013). Problem solving was required.
Comparisons of different SSG formats found 4 vs 4 plus goalkeepers optimized technical, tactical and physical improvements (Casamichana & Castellano, 2015). 6 vs 6 promoted greater tactical complexity but less technical involvement.
Positional games focusing on defensive organization were shown to improve coordinated team movement and compactness (Olthof et al, 2018).
Offensive positional games increased passing, overlapping and switching play.
A study of elite academies found technical practice occupied 28% of sessions, tactical 21%, and small-sided games 19% (Ford et al, 2010).
Integrated, periodized programs were most effective.
Some studies have highlighted the need to add greater variability and adaptability into positional games through environment or rule modification (Gréhaigne et al, 1997; Memmert & Harvey, 2008). Others emphasize realistic simulation to enhance transfer.
Researchers have also analyzed player physiological responses. Time-motion analysis of various rondos found heart rate peaks of 80-90% max heart rate, promoting aerobic and anaerobic fitness (Hill-Haas et al, 2009). SSG demands aligned with match play.
Overall, studies validate the development of technical, tactical and physical attributes through rondos and positional games.
Integrated periodization optimizes benefits. Research also provides useful best practice around implementation.
Expert Coach Perspectives
Alongside academic research, professional coaching provides real world perspectives.
Pep Guardiola utilizes rondos to develop his Barcelona-inspired possession game at Manchester City (Perarnau, 2016). He believes they ingrain close control and passing angles even under pressure.
Dutch coach Raymond Verheijen runs positional games where units compete against each other in varied scenarios (Verheijen, 2014). He credits this situated learning for developing tactical flexibility and decision making.
Both integrate these methods within broader technical-tactical periodization models (Tamarit, 2015).
Positional games link tactical knowledge with techniques honed through earlier exercises like rondos.
Sir Alex Ferguson focused on game realism and complexity in his SSG approach at Manchester United (Kelly, 2013). He progressed practices through the week from isolated technique drills to unconstrained matches.
Across top academies, integrated approaches utilize rondos and positional games alongside physical, psychological and social development within a long term curriculum (Cushion et al, 2012). Patience and periodization are vital.
While varied in application, top coaches incorporate rondos and positional games within planned, progressive programs. They maximize adaptive decision making in realistic environments.
Conclusion
In conclusion, rondos and positional games offer a modern training methodology that blends technical, tactical and physical conditioning in authentic contexts.
The research and applied practices overwhelmingly support their integration within long term programs.
Coaches must utilize variations, progressions and integrated periodization tailored to specific aims.
Considerations like area dimensions, participant numbers and scenario choices require planning to optimize stimulus and involvement. A focus on decision making, adaptability and game realism promotes transfer.
Rondos provide a more isolated technical foundation that positional games can build on through contextual application. Together they hone the skills, understanding and physical capacities to excel in the complex, dynamic environment of football.
While further research always enrich understanding, the success of top coaches and academics underscores the effectiveness of integrating rondos and positional games.
References
Casamichana, D., & Castellano, J. (2015). Time–motion, heart rate, perceptual and motor behaviour demands in small-sides soccer games: Effects of pitch size. Journal of sports sciences, 33(14), 1515-1523.
Clemente, F. M., Martins, F. M., & Mendes, R. S. (2019). Small-sided soccer games: a systematic review. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 19(5), 680-700.
Correa, J. E. S., Da Costa, I. T., Santos, S. G., Franchini, E., & Sampaio, J. E. (2019). The Effects of Different Small-Sided Games on Technical Actions and Physiological Responses in Football Players: A Systematic Review. Sports Medicine - Open, 5(1).
Cushion, C., Ford, P. R., & Williams, A. M. (2012). Coach behaviours and practice structures in youth soccer: Implications for talent development. Journal of sports sciences, 30(15), 1631-1641.
Dellal, A., Hill-Haas, S., Lago-Penas, C., & Chamari, K. (2011). Small-sided games in soccer: amateur vs. professional players' physiological responses, physical, and technical activities. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 25(9), 2371-2381.
Evans, A. B., & Light, R. L. (2008). Coach–athlete interactions in tennis: An examination of verbal and non-verbal communication. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 20(2), 168-183.
Figueira, B. E., Gonçalves, B., Masiulis, N., & Sampaio, J. (2018). Exploring how playing football with different age groups affects tactical behaviour and physical performance. Biology of sport, 35(2), 129.
Ford, P. R., Yates, I., & Williams, A. M. (2010). An analysis of practice activities and instructional behaviours used by youth soccer coaches during practice: Exploring the link between science and application. Journal of sports sciences, 28(5), 483-495.
Gabbett, T., & Mulvey, M. (2008). Time–motion analysis of small-sided training games and competition in elite women soccer players. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 22(2), 543-552.
Gamble, P. (2013). Coaching for player development: Key components and considerable challenges. Professional Strength & Conditioning, (28), 7-11.
Gonzalez-Villora, S., García-López, L. M., Gutiérrez, D., & Serra, J. (2015). Development and validation of a tactical game competence assessment tool for invasion games - FUT-SAT. Revista de psicología del deporte, 24(1), 13-23.
Gréhaigne, J. F., Godbout, P., & Bouthier, D. (2001). The teaching and learning of decision making in team sports. Quest, 53(1), 59-76.
Hill-Haas, S. V., Coutts, A. J., Rowsell, G. J., & Dawson, B. T. (2009). Generic versus small-sided game training in soccer. International journal of sports medicine, 30(09), 636-642.
Hristovski, R., Davids, K., Araújo, D., & Passos, P. (2011). Constraints-induced emergence of functional novelty in complex neurobiological systems: a basis for creativity in sport. Nonlinear dynamics, psychology, and life sciences, 15(2), 175-206.
Hughes, M. D., & Bartlett, R. M. (2002). The use of performance indicators in performance analysis. Journal of sports sciences, 20(10), 739-754.
Kelly, S. (2013). Sir Alex Ferguson's coaching philosophy: From cult hero to cultural icon. International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 48(5),549–564.
Light, R., & Harvey, S. (2017). Positive pedagogy for sport coaching. Sport, Education and Society, 22(2), 271-287.
Memmert, D., & Harvey, S. (2008). The Game Performance Assessment Instrument (GPAI): Some concerns and solutions for further development. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 27(2), 220-240.
Mitchell, S. A., Oslin, J. L., & Griffin, L. L. (2013). Teaching sport concepts and skills: A tactical games approach for ages 7 to 18. Human Kinetics.
Olthof, S. B., Frencken, W. G., & Lemmink, K. A. (2018). Match-derived relative pitch area changes the physical and team tactical performance of elite soccer players in small-sided soccer games. Journal of sports sciences, 36(14), 1557-1563.
Oslin, J. L., Mitchell, S. A., & Griffin, L. L. (1998). The game performance assessment instrument (GPAI): Development and preliminary validation. Journal of teaching in physical education, 17(2), 231-243.
Owen, A., Twist, C., & Ford, P. (2004). Small-sided games: The physiological and technical effect of altering pitch size and player numbers. Insight, 7(2), 50-53.
Perarnau, M. (2016). Pep confidential: Inside Guardiola's first season at Bayern Munich. Hachette UK.
Pinder, R. A., Davids, K., Renshaw, I., & Araújo, D. (2011). Representative learning design and functionality of research and practice in sport. Journal of sport and exercise psychology, 33(1), 146-155.
Kommentare