Football, as a reflection of society, has not escaped the growing polarization of modern times. In a world where information is consumed at dizzying speeds and opinions are extreme, coaches, analysts and fans have fallen into the trap of absolute truths. This fragmentation has created two large blocks in the way of understanding football: those who defend the global method or the analytical method, those who defend order with those who see football as chaos, those who believe in respecting complexity with those who also respect simplicity.
In my humble opinion, they are always extremes interested in “X”, which limit development. For me, balance is always the basis, then the recipe swings from one side or the other, depending on the context.
In recent years, the football discussion has revolved around two major currents:
1️⃣ Football as a game of universal concepts and collective automatisms, where the global method and the patient construction of the play are the only truth.
2️⃣ Football as a chaotic and reactive sport, where the coach must constantly intervene, correcting every move and adapting the team on the fly.
Both approaches have their foundations, but their radicalization prevents the evolution of the game. The error is not in the methods themselves, but in the belief that there is only one correct way to train and play.
1️⃣ Not Everything is Global Method and “Play for Play”
The defenders of the global method argue that football is a game of collective interactions
and complexity where possession, automatisms and patience in construction are essential. This approach has been promoted by coaches such as Guardiola or De Zerbi, who have taken positional play to an exceptional level. And it is true.
⚠️ But the problem arises when this model is applied rigidly to any team without considering the context.
Not all teams have footballers capable of playing with sustained possession.
Not all games require a slow build-up from the back.
Not all opponents allow you to play at a slow and controlled pace.
The dogma of “always playing from the back” or “keeping possession as an end in itself” can become a trap if the team does not have the tools to execute it correctly. The global method cannot be a religion that is imposed without adaptation.
2️⃣ Not Everything is Constant Correction and the “Protagonist” Coach
At the other extreme are the coaches who do not stop correcting and modifying the game at every moment of the match. This approach is based on the idea that football is a dynamic and chaotic sport, where the coach must constantly react to the opponent’s changes.
⚠️ But excessive interventions have negative consequences:
If a player receives constant instructions, he loses autonomy and confidence in his decision-making.
A team that depends on the coach in every play becomes reactive instead of proactive.
The game becomes a chess game where the players act as pieces, with no room for improvisation or creativity.
Great teams need a coach who knows how to intervene when necessary, but also allows the players to take control at key moments.
In grassroots training, the coach cannot limit himself to being a mere spectator nor an “orchestra conductor” who dictates every move. The key is to find the balance between intervening to guide and giving freedom for individual and collective development, but let’s talk about it in detail.
🔹 The Role of the Coach in Grassroots Football
⚽ A game is part of training: It is not just a competition, but another opportunity to learn and correct. Expecting children to solve everything by themselves without intervention can lead to bad tactical and technical habits.
⚡ Freedom without structure is not learning: Giving total freedom without a methodological framework can lead to disorder and players repeating mistakes. Teaching tactical principles is key to forming intelligent players.
🎯 Coach as a guide, not a controller:
✅ Progressive intervention → The younger they are, the more guidance they need. As they grow, autonomy should be encouraged.
✅ Corrections at key moments → Identify when to intervene without interrupting the flow of the game.
✅ Feedback after the action → Sometimes, it is better to let the child make a decision and correct later.
In the Pons Method, we work from a structured but adaptable approach. The fragmentation of training is promoted, ensuring that players go from receiving concrete instructions to making their own decisions within a defined game framework. In addition, the use of tools such as biofeedback and pattern analysis helps to correct without the need to constantly “overcommunicate.”
🔥
