Ecological-Dynamic vs. Traditional Prescriptive Approach in Improving Soccer Skills
Coaches are always looking for ways to improve their players' technical abilities, especially in young athletes. Two common methods for training technical skills in soccer are the Traditional Prescriptive Approach and the Ecological-Dynamic Approach. This article explores an interesting study by Espositio, Ceruso, Aliberti & Raiola (2024) that compares these methods to see which is more effective in developing passing skills in young soccer players.
01. Introduction
Soccer is a complex game where players need to develop not only technical skills but also adaptability and decision-making abilities. Traditionally, coaches have used the Prescriptive Approach—structured drills with specific instructions on how to perform tasks. However, the Ecological-Dynamic Approach emphasizes adapting to real-game environments and finding solutions based on dynamic situations.
This study focuses on comparing these two approaches by evaluating how each impacts the technical skill of passing in young soccer players, testing the hypothesis that the ecological-dynamic approach might offer more effective learning for game performance.
02. Materials and Methods
Participants
The study involved 30 youth soccer players, aged 12, split into two groups: one group trained with the ecological-dynamic approach (EDG), and the other followed a traditional prescriptive approach (TPA). Both groups had equal training time, three sessions per week for eight weeks, focusing on improving passing skills.
Training Programs
Ecological-Dynamic Approach (EDG): Training was designed to simulate real-game scenarios by using constraints. These constraints included limiting the number of touches per player, reducing the size of the field to increase pressure, and visual restrictions like monocular patches and occlusion goggles to sharpen players' perception and decision-making under stress.
Traditional Prescriptive Approach (TPA): This group followed structured drills with clear instructions on how to perform specific passing techniques. Coaches provided immediate feedback, focusing on repetition and gradual increases in difficulty. Unlike the ecological-dynamic approach, the environment remained constant, and players were encouraged to follow prescribed movements.
Evaluation
To measure progress, both groups performed the Loughborough Soccer Passing Test, which assesses accuracy and decision-making under time pressure. The test was administered before and after the training program and again five weeks later to check skill retention.
03. Results
The study found that both groups improved their passing skills, but the ecological-dynamic group (EDG) showed greater overall improvements. Specifically:
Trial Time: The EDG group completed their passes more quickly after the training compared to the traditional group.
Penalty Time: The EDG group committed fewer mistakes, resulting in lower penalty times.
Overall Performance: The EDG group had a more significant reduction in total time required to complete the test compared to the traditional group.
However, both groups experienced some decline in performance in the five-week retention test, meaning that the initial improvements weren't fully maintained over time.
04. Discussion
The results highlight some important takeaways:
Adaptability Matters: Players in the ecological-dynamic group adapted better to the unpredictable situations of the game, thanks to training environments that forced them to think on their feet and react to changing constraints.
Immediate vs. Long-term Gains: While both methods showed immediate improvements, the ecological-dynamic approach had larger gains, suggesting it may better prepare players for the variability of real soccer matches. However, neither group sustained all their progress after five weeks, indicating the need for continued practice to retain technical improvements.
Transfer of Skills: The ecological-dynamic approach may promote more transferable skills, where players can apply what they've learned in different game contexts, unlike the more rigid skills developed through repetitive drills in the traditional approach.
05. Conclusion
This study suggests that the ecological-dynamic approach is more effective for improving technical skills like passing, especially when it comes to adapting to real-game situations. Although traditional training can help players develop specific techniques, it might not fully prepare them for the dynamic nature of soccer.
06. Key Takeaways for Coaches
Incorporate Constraints: Use small-sided games with different rules (limited touches, smaller fields) to simulate real-game pressure and enhance decision-making skills.
Focus on Adaptability: Create training environments that force players to adapt to different scenarios rather than repeating the same drills.
Use Visual Restrictions: Tools like occlusion goggles can help players develop better spatial awareness and improve their ability to play under pressure.
Keep Training Varied: To improve skill retention, mix up training methods and revisit skills regularly to help players maintain their progress over time.
By adopting some elements of the ecological-dynamic approach, coaches can better prepare their players for the unpredictable and dynamic nature of soccer matches.