Powerplay, details and maybe a new (sustainable?) defensive technique
Handball Talking | Beta-issue I
Intro
Welcome to Talking Handball! This is the first “beta-issue” to allow you know the idea behind this newsletter.
You will read about Telekom Veszprem - Lomza Kielce, EHF Champions League semifinal. I found an interesting move by Artsem Karalek, that deserve a reflection in “An Idea” and related to that a suggestion about defender holding a ball in our trainings.
Enjoy the read!
The Game
Cologne, 18/06/2022 | EHF Champions League - Semifinal
Telekom Veszprem - Lomza Kielce 35-37
Details matter, in match like a Champions League semifinal is a cliché. Clichés are boring, but contain a part of truth. What are these details? Goalkeepers, defensive retreat, rebounds, powerplays. Let’s take a look!
Different strategies in the beginning of the match. Veszprem, as usual, first runs and then used various movements (2v2 Yahia-Blagotinsek, pinning of the left back, pivot positioned wide) to isolate one or both third defenders and let Lauge and Mahé play against them: 4 of the first 8 goals in positional attack originated from 1v1 actions. Here you find a video about it.
Kielce struggles in positional attack - they took 20 minutes and 6 shots to find the first 9m goal of the match - and keeps short the gap thank to powerplay (I will come back later on it).
Don’t forget details!
23’03’’: Veszprem leads 14-11. Despite or nontheless goalkeepers’ performance?
50’35’’: Veszprem trails 28-30. Not the only explanation, but a big thing to consider.
First detail: goalkeepers. First cliché: you cannot win a match without a goalkeeper. Rodrigo Corrales was outstanding in the first twenty minutes, but then slowly disappeared (Cupara was a sort of hologram: 6 goals conceded in a row and soon substituted). In the mediocrity of their performance, instead, Wolff and Kornecki at least kept a minimum level of saves.
Second detail: defensive retreat. Second cliché: you cannot win a match if you allow easy goals. Veszprem scored 14 of their goals in counterattack and if you know Veszprem’s game style this is ok. Kielce conceded 3 empty goals, one with Veszprem did 3 passes before the shot and with Wolff waiting on the bench.
Video shows how Kielce conceded 5 goals retreating in 5v6. Especially in the second half, when Alex Dujshebaev played as nr6 and Nahi as nr5, it was really hard to find someone to anticipate substitution when Karacic was late (take a look at last clip, and, yes, tell your guys that we can celebrate later).
Third detail: rebounds. I don’t know a cliché about rebounds, but, as shown in the image above, Veszprem conceded 4 goals on second chance. Too much, I guess.
Last detail: powerplay situation. Last cliché: you cannot win a match if you cannot win powerplay mini-games inside the game.
Kielce was amazing and quite perfect (87% efficacy): 15 possessions, 13 goals, no lost balls. 6 different starts to keep impredictability and perfect readings by Sicko and Kulesh, good in exploiting their shooting power to score and to assist.
Thirteen suspensions in a match are enough to say that the management of the powerplay situation has been decisive: both teams played more or less one third of their possessions with a man extra or down. I am not referring only at already cited Kielce’s attack: Veszprem, too, played well 7v6, 6v5 and 6v6 with extra player.
And then there is the weight of the match. It was a semifinal between the historical non-winner of the Champions League and the only team that won twice against Barcelona, favorite to win against an incomplete Kiel. Veszprem was leading 20-19 when Blaz Blagotinsek was disqualified.
When Momir Ilic called timeout, 7 minutes later, the scoreboard said 21-25. To switch on 5:1 defense did not change too much because few minutes later, Sipos got suspension as 8th man on court and this probably have decided a match that, in some way, did not give us the idea that was closed. I think that Nenadic’s performance is a good reference point: he had a good impact on the match, speaking about scoring, but he committed too many little mistakes, maybe because he was nervous. Details that count, in the end.
An Idea
One of the coaching point when we teach offensive 1v1 is about “the other arm”, the one without the ball. We ask our boys and girls to bind defender’s arm. To bind allows the attacker to keep the distance from the defender, blocking his chance to intervene to commit a foul and to slide to stay in front of him. It’s useful to call help defender towards the ball and create a parallel thrust or to create space for an effective cross.
Strength and quickness of the backs and the speed of the game ask defenders to adapt to survive and be effective. A defender that wants to intervene directly on his opponent, it’s pretty likely to find him on the bench in the next two minutes because he hit attacker’s face or he is late and push him.
Thus, defenders found a new way: control the attacker and then decide - when he slowed down or stopped - to a. commit foul; b. make one or two steps back in order to leave him without steps (and maybe dribble) or passing lane; c. do a defensive switch.
In the video (click on the word to open it), you can see 3 different situations: Gisli Magnusson shows us how to play an offensive 1v1 and thanks to the slow-mo replay we can appreciate his use of left arm; how Hendrik Pekeler controls and then commits foul; how Sanchez-Migallon goes back - without controlling Gidsel on the stop as Pekeler did - and take away the chance to be bound.
Now, take a look a this duel between Artsem Karalek and Rasmus Lauge.
If Karalek takes away his left arm on purpose, I think he did a beautiful thing to control the attacker without the risk to be bound. I add the he unbalances the attacker in a safer way than Sanchez-Migallon did against Gidsel because he is closer and the attacker is slowed down.
And I stay with Karalek complaining referee. Is it foul? But we don’t care about referee here. The right question is: is this technique sustainable? Will we see other players use it? Can we teach it to our guys? I am looking for an answer: reply to this email and tell me your thought.
This is not a Drill
Following the Karalek-Lauge duel, I want to focus on all the drills that involve a defender holding a ball. The principle behind giving a ball to a defender and ask him to play holding it has two-way: from the defender’s perspective is to invite him to use his entire body to defend, focusing on the importance of the legs, from the attacker’s perspective is to give him an easy 1v1 action.
I think this idea is good but it misses a fundamental principle of training: “learning needs to be situated in real-game performance contexts” (Chow, 2010). There is no defender that act with its arms positioned in the way he is when he is holding a ball: we are training our attackers to not perceive right informations from the context and, in this specific situation, the attacker cannot use properly technique of 1v1.
Here my adjustment: I tell the defender to hold the ball with just one hand. Which one? It depends on my training goal.
Important advice: no matter the drill you use. It’s the principle! You can use it for a 1v1 drill, 3v3 or in a small-sided game.
I ask defender to hold the ball in his left hand against right-handed attackers. Defender can move his arms, but he cannot intervene with his left hand. So, I am inviting my attackers to play 1v1 on their right side and we can focus on the proper use of the arm without the ball: defender’s left arm is clearly easier to bind.
Thus, what is the training goal? 1v1 towards shooting-arm side.
There is an important thing to say when using a constraint like this: do not say anything about the reason why the ball is only in right or left hand. Let the players understand that there is a defender’s “weak” side. Maybe, your explanation can come later to consolidate the implicit learning.
Of course, in an advanced level, you can leave the choice of the “holding-ball hand” to your defender.
Outro
From September, here you will find a mix of things that could be interesting: videos, articles, papers, links.
Today, in this beta-issue, I ask you to give me suggestions and advice about what you just read: is it too long or short or ok? Too many videos or too few? Language? Things like these, I appreciate.
And spread the word, forwarding this email to somebody that could be interested in this topic.
Read you soon,
Sergio
If you have questions or suggestions, reply to this email or leave a comment on the website.