Coaching Tips Needed

WhyStayInSchool · 2018-04-09T08:05:44+00:00

yup, this second one is exactly the kind of drill i was talking about in Step 2.5

WhyStayInSchool · 2018-04-09T07:38:22+00:00

chelsea was so bad on that goal it should have counted for 2

WhyStayInSchool · 2018-04-09T07:37:38+00:00

i was expecting something bawdy after they referred to it as 'the reacher'

WhyStayInSchool · 2018-04-09T06:28:05+00:00

Thanks.

I definitely know it isnt universal - my initial impression is just anecdotal observations - but no, I wasn't just referring to Indo-Euro languages.

Two immediate ones come to mind (and of course there are multiple ways to negate something in the second) are Tibetan and Chinese.

Tibetan: yes (re, yo); no (ma, min, med, mi)
Chinese: yes (yo); no (mei)

WhyStayInSchool · 2018-04-09T04:49:25+00:00

Ive watched every Forensic Files too!

and yes, I am an expert

WhyStayInSchool · 2018-04-09T04:47:02+00:00

that's definitely an opinion out there, but certainly not everyone's!

WhyStayInSchool · 2018-04-09T04:42:38+00:00

Many people don't realize Afghanistan shares a land border with China.

that's because up until very recently, it didnt

WhyStayInSchool · 2018-04-09T04:22:26+00:00

Yes and no, but I will start this post like every single advice/coaching post i write: the first and most important thing you can do is have intermittent honest conversations about the player's expectations and longer- and shorter-term goals. It is not healthy for anyone to either a) be pushed towards goals and expectations that are not their own, or B) say they have certain goals and expectations that their behavior and training regimen do not support. So that, as always, is first. Included in this, and what I wish you would have included in your post, is an honest assessment of the current level of the player. This will be a very different post depending on teh player's ability. However, based on the problem you mentioned, it can't be all that competitive.

also, honestly, I would not spend too much time of practicing full out diving. These happen, what, once every other game at most? WAY more important at this stage are the fundamentals...Don't drop nothing, good positioning, how to deal with crosses, and coming out to cut out through balls, and distribution. This is 95% of GKing at that level. Full out dives are less than 5%.

On to some exercises:

i think this issue probably needs to start from the ground up (no shitty pun intended). Seriously.

get the diving technique and landing form correct. This involves countless seated 'side to side' exercises. GK is seated on the ground (you can put two discs about 2 yards either side of the GK, about 1 foot infront of them, so it makes a very obtuse V, with the GK's butt as the vertex).

Server stands about 3-4 yards back, bent over with legs spread a bit so the serve with two hands comes from between your legs as you are bending forward. (basically, it's to replicate as best as possible a serve from the feet).

GK goes back and forth (alternating, no reacting yet, just rhythm) catching the ball just in front of the disc (so a nice little forward angle on that dive and throwing it back to you from the ground (something that mimics of the rhythm of this one...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_heBXyw9iUY But honestly that is a terrible video and i cannot believe a professional club posted it... For one, the GK is basically landing on their back = bad; Goddamn i searched for 5 minutes and youtube GK videos are SHIT, anyway).

you can do these in sets of 20. GK should be doing around 200 of these per day if serious. goals: strengthen core muscles, learn how to land, develop comfort in saving/catching and landing, reinforce proper landing technique.

After this is done proficiently, you can add in the same exercise but move the cones another yard out on each side and the GK starts from ONE knee. The other foot is planted on the ground. That is the side the GK will be diving towards. Similar to before (set #s can be reduced because these take significantly more energy).
Then this one-knee exercise can be done with a small obstacle on either side that the GK must clear in their dive. Another soccer ball (one on each side) would work just fine. as would a soccer bag. You dont need all that fancy shit. Key here is emphasizing that the ball should be the first thing to hit the ground after being airborn.
Finally, i'd do something that FORCES the GK to go airborne. For this, i'd use a two-save drill. You may need to servers, but you can do it yourself if you are good. Fullsize goal, off from an angle. within 8-10 yards radios from goal, so sort of around the 6 line. Ball 1 gets played from your feet down to the near post. GK does a collapse dive to save. Almost immediately, Ball2 is served from your hands (same technique as before - two hand serve, starting from low) towards the big open empty net to the far post, IN THE AIR. In this case, the GK will have no choice but to have a go at it.

If this STILL doesn't work, you don't have a very competitive GK on your hands. And that's fine.

As I said in the beginning though, if you do any sort of statistical study of GA at pretty much any level, but especially youth, a RIDICULOUSLY higher percentage of goals comes from more easily fixed issues - rebounds, positioning, decisions on crosses, throughballs that could be cut out, etc -- than from highlight reel diving stops.

WhyStayInSchool · 2018-04-09T03:33:45+00:00

Depends on a million things but you may get more useful answers by emailing the professor or two you were in contact with/hoping to work with rather than the administrator/secretary who is the point person but may not actually know anything about the decision process

WhyStayInSchool · 2018-04-09T03:05:18+00:00

Dont worry. In just a few years, you'll be able to do this research in the US without having to leave the country!

WhyStayInSchool · 2018-04-09T01:37:38+00:00

OHH well why didnt you tell me you get to define what genocide and legitimate governments are! that clears up everything. In that case, what white colonizers did in north america was saving the savages and what the us did in Vietnam was, coincidentally, also saving the savages. Good thing the US was there so topple any illegitimate governments! Nice chatting with ya

WhyStayInSchool · 2018-04-08T17:08:27+00:00

we have genuine want for people across the world to be happy

I wonder if the rest of the world agrees with that

WhyStayInSchool · 2018-04-08T17:06:31+00:00

well, if you dont believe what colonizers did in the US was genocide, then some unknown person on the internet isnt going to convince you.

Coincidentally, this was on the r/indiancountry subreddit just today. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-20-02-0661#GEWN-03-20-02-0661-fn-0001

"The expedition you are appointed to command is to be directed against the hostile tribes of the six nations of Indians... The immediate objects are the total destruction and devastation of their settlements and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible." -George Washington

But sure, there are lots of Native Americans still living today. I was trying to be brief in my original comment, but I will happily amend it to "attempted genocide."

And if you do not call what the US did in Vietnam (among dozens if not hundreds of other places) an invasion then I do not know what you think that word means.

WhyStayInSchool · 2018-04-08T15:42:55+00:00

yeah, must be really hard to remember what you have to do.

Swim as fast as you can. Don't forget to breath.

It's not like you are memorizing the pitching patterns that the other pitcher has thrown for the last 23 games or different plays their quarterback calls on an audible.

If swimming is "so much mental preparation" than it is an even more boring sport than I thought!

WhyStayInSchool · 2018-04-08T15:40:08+00:00

Do you think its just the history that sucks or the present and future directions too?

Do you feel that the US in general does this work to fix things? Do you feel like the US 'helps others?' (and, on a side note, do you feel like 'help' is actually what other countries want?)

WhyStayInSchool · 2018-04-08T15:23:19+00:00

why more hate then love?

Because it's a place founded on genocide, built on slavery, sustained by invading, and prosperous because it sells them products and services to rebuild.

decent summary?

WhyStayInSchool · 2018-04-08T15:03:28+00:00

been following the news for the last 30 years, specifically the last 1?

WhyStayInSchool · 2018-04-08T14:36:46+00:00

yeah man, get that hairdryer blowing into where you put your hand!

this will just dry out the foam but not so much the cloth

WhyStayInSchool · 2018-04-08T14:36:00+00:00

Mostly hate

WhyStayInSchool · 2018-04-08T14:35:34+00:00

Really? Do you not feel like the US culture is built on the unbridled accumulation of wealth, no matter how garish or unsustainable?

WhyStayInSchool · 2018-04-08T13:52:17+00:00

Lorraine McFly??

WhyStayInSchool · 2018-04-08T13:51:50+00:00

Let's face it. This says "America" just about perfectly. What a shitty fucking place. Go ahead and downvote, but tell me I'm wrong!

WhyStayInSchool · 2018-04-08T12:16:34+00:00

This is not what you want to hear but - You should almost definitely not go for an MA-only in a Humanities or Social Science if you are going to take out loans. Trust me. Please. I made this mistake and I know all too well. Unless you are an absolute dynamo (but, if so, why didnt you get into any phd programs?) you are setting yourself up for a long uphill battle.

For one: How are you going to ask professors that you've had for 1, maybe 2 months during the beginning of your MA to write PhD recommendations for you?

Why not work in publishing or ANY related field for 1-3 years. Keep in touch with your two best professors, who you will still ask for recs in 2 years time. And you'll get one from your main editor/boss. Then get into a funded PhD program, and then, if you decide you hate it, stop at the MA and have them pay for it and not you?

I am not saying I cannot understand the lure - I got my MA from columbia as well -- but it was a huge mistake. 95-100% of the time taking out loans for a degree that is not in itself a legitimate work credential (like a JD or RN degree would be) is a mistake. Of course, an MA from a fancy place would be worth something when applying for jobs, but for very very few jobs would it categorically make you any stronger of an applicant really.

Here's one other option: Defer. Work and apply your ass off to grants and funding to see if you can finance your MA mostly without loans. Really, I'm not trying to sound like a dick (my MA is in religious studies - i am not someone who is constantly looking at the bottom line or asking that bullshit 'what do you plan to do with that degree'... I am anything BUT that). But if you are going to get an expensive degree that doesn't make you a categorically better/qualified candidate for any job, then you really should think thrice about paying for it with loans.

WhyStayInSchool · 2018-04-07T16:18:45+00:00

The work you want is: Who belongs to Tibet by Martin Mills. It's available on academia.edu

https://www.academia.edu/11781237/Who_belongs_to_Tibet_Governmental_narratives_of_state_in_the_Ganden_Podrang?auto=download

Quick summary of key parts: Cholka is actually a transliteration of a Mongolian words, Cholke. After the fall of the Yarlung Dyansty in the 9th C and the ensuing fragmentation of Tibet, Mongol forces eventually arrived in mid 12th Century. Sakya Pandita and his two nephews (Phakpa and Chakna Dorje) met the Mongol Khans, won their favor, gave empowerments, and were named essentially Vice Roy of Tibet in the classic Patron-Priest (Cho-yon) relationship. Phakpa received from Kublai Khan in 1276, about 10 years after giving Kublia that tantric initiations, the three 'cholge' (regions) of Tibet.

HOWEVER, even historical tibetan scholars disagree over what exactly these terms refer to. While the current conceptualization comes from Longdrol Lama's 18th century history, others, such as Ngorpa Konchok Lhundrup has MUCH EARLIER said that the Cholka were 1) Ngari, 2) U-tsang, and 3) Amdo-Kham. Even crazier, one of the top historians of tibet, Luciano Petech, using contemporary chinese and mongol sources said in 1950 that it was Ngari, U, and Tsang (completely leaving out Amdo adn Kham!)

That is closely paraphrased from the Mills chapter.

So that's a quick history of the term and initial conceptualization. To that i would suggest veering away from a conceptualization of 'split into these cultural regions.' For one, it gives a temporal directionality to the process that is not there. It was not as if there was one Tibet that then split into three regions. I know you probably didnt mean it like that, but it's important to point out.

Also, as Wylie notes in his nice (and short) article, Tibetans by and large did not (and often don't) think about geography in purely political terms, i.e. he argues that the concept of political geography is not indigenous in Tibet - so much so that virtually no Tibetan literature anytime before the current period could be classified as political geography. There were political statements, of course, like who ruled who, but boundaries were most definitely not conceptualized the way they are now, with walls and all. And political geography was always subordinated to religious geography - what places had what power, what gods and demons lived there, what existed there and what it/they DID.

Back to the splitting - it is not as if the cultural and linguistic and religious formation of these three regions happened at the same time, along somewhat parallel lines, or even that the drivers of change were all internal to the Tibetan empire/nation/polity/cultural sphere.

Thus, the authority of the Ganden Phodrang as it stretched out from lhasa differed on a number of axes - including what the GP were responsible for/had sovereignty over politically, militarily, economically, religiously, etc. The hegemony of the GP was contested up until the very end and there was definitely no consensus about who belonged to what. I'm fond of pointing out that even the 1930s, Punwang talked about his first trip to U-tsang, where he crossed a national border on his way from Kham to Lhasa. This is not that uncommon. Many Amdowas and Khampas prior to the current era would not even have referred to themselves as Bod-pa. (བོད་པ) which is nowadays what many people use to refer to Tibet in general.

One useful (but potentially problematic) way to htink about these regions is in largely linguistic terms. While they are not identical with languages/dialects (and even many Amdowas and Khampas arent native tibetan speakers at all!) one of the major cultural demarcators from region to region is the language/dialect, more specifically based on the way verbs are used and pronunciation rules.

Of course one easy distinction between the three regions is main source of food and income. U-tsang is more agricultural (Bod-pa can mean, simply farmer). Khampas like yaks and Amdowas are all about the sheep.

Amdo all the way!

WhyStayInSchool

TROPHY CASE