Science and method

This page presents the full version of the content summarised on the landing page.

Why individual training?

If we look at the best players in the world, we notice something simple: talent is not enough.

Cristiano Ronaldo is perhaps the best-known example. What set him apart from many players of his generation was not talent alone, because everyone trained collectively with their teams. The difference was also in the extra work: repeated heading, shots from various zones, free kicks, specific technical actions, and hours dedicated to turning weaknesses into strengths.

This is a fundamental principle of individual support: development demands deliberate practice, intentional repetition, quality, and feedback (Ericsson et al., 1993; Ford et al., 2009; Hornig et al., 2016).

Motor learning science shows that skill acquisition depends on the frequency, quality, and correction of repetitions. In other words, the player does not improve simply by “being on the pitch”. They improve when they repeat better, with more attention, more feedback, and greater awareness of what they need to correct (Schmidt & Lee, 2011).

And here lies one of the major differences between team training and individual support.

In a team session, the coach needs to look after the group, prepare collective behaviours, organise the game model, and manage many players at once. That is why it is natural for an athlete to get few specific repetitions of the technical action they most need to develop.

Take finishing as an example. A player who trains only with the team may get few real finishing situations per session. In an individual session, it is possible to create dozens of focused repetitions, with correction, variation, feedback, and progression. Over a season, that difference becomes enormous.

The same applies to the long pass, the oriented first touch, use of the weaker foot, carrying the ball, dribbling, support footwork, or finishing. If the player almost never repeats with quality what they need to improve, they will struggle to gain the confidence to do it in a match.

Studies with young footballers also show that individualised training can improve indicators such as reaction time, coordination, and speed of execution — important factors for football performance (Andrzejewski et al., 2011).

That is why this work is not just “another session”. It is a process where the player can make mistakes, repeat, correct, and try again, with close support and clear objectives.

Because in football, the difference is often not only who has more talent. It is who accumulates more quality repetitions, more feedback, more detail, and more commitment to their own development.

Does individual training transfer to the game?

Individual training only makes sense if it helps the player play better.

For a long time I argued — including in my master’s thesis — that training should move closer to the reality of the game. Football is an open, dynamic, and unpredictable environment, where the player decides and executes under pressure, with opponents, teammates, and limited time and space. That is why ecological and contextual training is essential for transfer to the game.

This means team training is very important. It is in the collective context that the player learns to relate to teammates, opponents, space, time, pressure, and decision-making.

But there is an essential nuance: the mistake is not doing analytical training. The mistake is believing that analytical training alone guarantees automatic transfer to the game.

The systematic review by Bergmann et al. (2021) shows that ecological and contextualised approaches are supported for developing perceptual-motor and perceptual-cognitive skills in football, while also recognising that repetition-based approaches can improve technical execution. The critical point is linking that technical improvement to the real match context.

For example: if a player cannot execute a long pass with the right or left foot in a controlled context, they will struggle to do it in a match, under pressure, against opponents, with fatigue, and little time to decide.

In those cases, some actions first need technical construction: repetition, correction, coordination, body orientation, support footwork, contact surface, applied force, and confidence in execution.

Then that action must be transferred progressively to situations closer to the game: with pressure, opponents, decision-making, variability, and real objectives.

The study by Práxedes et al. (2018), for example, showed that a contextualised approach based on nonlinear pedagogy had a positive impact on passing — both decision and execution — but did not produce the same effect on dribbling. This suggests that not all technical actions respond the same way to the same type of training: some benefit greatly from context; others may need more prior technical construction.

The literature I worked with in my thesis reinforces this idea: technique and tactics should not be seen as separate worlds. Technique serves the resolution of game problems, but it can also be a limiting factor in what the player can decide and execute (Miguel, 2021).

That is why my method does not choose between “analytical” or “ecological”. It uses both.

The goal is not to develop players who only perform exercises well. It is to develop players with more technical tools, more confidence, and greater capacity to solve problems within the game.

View bibliographic references