Kamal Miller

[Unnamed Trialist]

11 hours ago, Stoppage Time said:

Does anybody know if there is training which can help an athlete increase their pace through adjustment of stride or running technique? Hockey players can do this with skating so I wonder if such a thing exists for soccer. Miller could benefit perhaps.

I watched some of the USA-Netherlands match today, and I notice just how fast the defenders were, particularly the Dutch.

Of course you can train speed.

You do it, obviously, by running.

You need to go for longer runs, to have consolidated running mechanics. Say 5kms, up to 8 or so. Helps for someone to analyze your stride, arm swing and foot plant. Train on flat to avoid injury.

Then after it begins to show, after a few weeks, you add intervals, ie, you do 3km then hit a track and run 100 ms harder and recover over 300m. As you progress, you begin to do shorter intervals, you do three 40s in a lap. You work down to the shorter sprints keeping your mechanics right, 20…30 metres. You never walk between intervals, you are always running.

Then you have those power training methods, after 6 weeks of the above, and maybe both weight loss and diet care (for muscle recovery). You start working on all out sprints, on the start, on turning, sprinting with another body on one arm. On hard arm driving. 

If you do all this at altitude some say it's better, others argue what's ideal is to live at altitude and train low, I'm not sure. Altitude means at a thousand metres, not two thousand.

Edited December 4, 2022 by Unnamed Trialist

[Grandbloke]

13 hours ago, Dominic94 said:

The Dutch players were just so far ahead of the US from a technical standpoint, when you add in the physical gifts it’s truly wonderful. We have so far to go.

This is simply Eurosnobbery. If the Dutch players are so much better technically, why did they have only 41% of possession,  and only 11 attempts at goal compared to 17 for the USA?

[Aird25]

14 minutes ago, Grandbloke said:

This is simply Eurosnobbery. If the Dutch players are so much better technically, why did they have only 41% of possession,  and only 11 attempts at goal compared to 17 for the USA?

I came away with the feeling that the Dutch victory had more to do with tactics and execution than technical or physical ability. 

[Dominic94]

34 minutes ago, Grandbloke said:

This is simply Eurosnobbery. If the Dutch players are so much better technically, why did they have only 41% of possession,  and only 11 attempts at goal compared to 17 for the USA?

Did you watch the game or just look at the stats ? The Dutch were clearing toying with them, they let the US have the ball, and turned it up when needed. They tore up that defence at will and could of had 2 more easily. The things the Dutch did with the ball in transitioning and their link up play was beautiful. Our players and those of the US only dream it up. 

[Unnamed Trialist]

36 minutes ago, Dominic94 said:

Did you watch the game or just look at the stats ? The Dutch were clearing toying with them, they let the US have the ball, and turned it up when needed. They tore up that defence at will and could of had 2 more easily. The things the Dutch did with the ball in transitioning and their link up play was beautiful. Our players and those of the US only dream it up. 

You felt the Dutch played at 80% to get that result. I mean, Frenkie de Jong, he was just coasting. Or maybe it was that they said they were ravaged by the flu in their camp and some players were not that sharp, not sure. But you did not feel they were at 100% to do that, they just exposed Robinson, above all, and absorbed the odd US rush.

[Dominic94]

33 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

You felt the Dutch played at 80% to get that result. I mean, Frenkie de Jong, he was just coasting. Or maybe it was that they said they were ravaged by the flu in their camp and some players were not that sharp, not sure. But you did not feel they were at 100% to do that, they just exposed Robinson, above all, and absorbed the odd US rush.

It was far from what the Netherlands are capable of, and I think the American Media is claiming the gap is much smaller than it is. 
 

I do think the Americans are getting better though, but they didn’t stand a real chance. 

[Sal333]

2 hours ago, Grandbloke said:

This is simply Eurosnobbery. If the Dutch players are so much better technically, why did they have only 41% of possession,  and only 11 attempts at goal compared to 17 for the USA?

I don't know about that. The Dutch looked like they didn't want to embarrass the Americans. I can see this Dutch team go all the way to the final. They're good.

[Unnamed Trialist]

1 hour ago, Dominic94 said:

It was far from what the Netherlands are capable of, and I think the American Media is claiming the gap is much smaller than it is. 
 

I do think the Americans are getting better though, but they didn’t stand a real chance. 

As their better pundits have been saying for a while, they need a 9. They needed to have either Pefok or Pepi as an alternative, some say. To mix it up. We saw that against them in Hamilton, they had chances, but I think it was a McKennie header that was the most dangerous, not striker stuff. We kept them fairly easily at bay. Then as I was posting during the match, Robinson was a soft piece, they have weaker links. As we do. They are far ahead of us on paper, in terms of what club level they are at, but they too have to upgrade still to make the next step. 

I know Van Gaal well, we had him at Barça, twice, I know him inside out. He's not my style, but I admit he was excellent, the team was superbly coached and the subs and positional strategy was spot on. They'll be tough for Argentina as they have more up their sleeves, they have things that have not been seen yet. And Argentina, in contrast, has shown it all, one team has things hidden still, the other has laid it all bare.

[costarg]

On 12/3/2022 at 6:08 AM, WestHamCanadianinOxford said:

Yes and no, unfortunately for me.  

We went for it which does put strain on defenders and in many aspects they did very well. 

However, with a few crucial balls over the top they were found lacking.  In Miller's case if you are a smaller centre back in your prime, you need better speed and/or awareness in dealing with a basic long ball, at least at a high level.

In my opinion.

System and formation also play an important part in this.  Our CB's although limited, were hung out to dry by the system.  They could've easily played like Belgium and defend against speed.  That's not on Miller.

[costarg]

3 hours ago, Grandbloke said:

This is simply Eurosnobbery. If the Dutch players are so much better technically, why did they have only 41% of possession,  and only 11 attempts at goal compared to 17 for the USA?

Cause great teams can control a game even without possession. 

[BearcatSA]

49 minutes ago, costarg said:

System and formation also play an important part in this.  Our CB's although limited, were hung out to dry by the system.  They could've easily played like Belgium and defend against speed.  That's not on Miller.

Well, that's definitely included in the post mortem on Herdman's (and his coaching staff's) tactics if that's how many posters feel.  Japan, Belgium, and Morocco all featured route one goals.  Not extraordinary plays by the opponent, as some have spun:  just sh*tty goals conceded.

[Joe Keeper]

Evaluation of technical ability is not best measured by possession and shots, especially over one game. Technical ability can relate to these things but is far more difficult to observe, describe or measure. Plus, technical ability is down to each individual player in evaluation and has to be done in non game scenarios like training as well.

There are many players in this tournament very gifted in technical ability on other teams that are over all not as skilled. 

[Cheeta]

7 hours ago, Grandbloke said:

This is simply Eurosnobbery. If the Dutch players are so much better technically, why did they have only 41% of possession,  and only 11 attempts at goal compared to 17 for the USA?

Because that's all they needed?

[Grandbloke]

4 hours ago, Sal333 said:

The Dutch looked like they didn't want to embarrass the Americans.

LOL

[Kent]

I've never done it, I don't know how effective it is, but I read a few years back that one way to increase top end speed is to run on a treadmill with a harness (to keep you from falling) at a speed that is a bit above your maximum.

[VinceA]

https://www.mlssoccer.com/news/insider-notebook-zardes-to-austin-copetti-to-charlotte-vancouver-shopping

"The exodus for Montréal may not be complete. Reports from Turkey suggest that Beşiktaş are interested in defender Joel Waterman, while sources say that Canadian international defender Kamal Miller has interest from abroad as well."

Looks like the links abroad are starting...

[Unnamed Trialist]

On 12/6/2022 at 10:09 PM, Kent said:

I've never done it, I don't know how effective it is, but I read a few years back that one way to increase top end speed is to run on a treadmill with a harness (to keep you from falling) at a speed that is a bit above your maximum.

Really? 

Just run uphill, that's the harness.

In any case, the treadmill doesn't let you do natural intervals, adjusting as you go, and is not as safe as being outside. It's not safe to be harnessed, but harness work on the pitch is good for balance and strength.

I ran xcountry, gradually got faster, ended up running 800 and even 4x400 relays. A coach told me I'd run under 54 seconds one relay at age 17, running start helping of course. I trained doing long runs then did intervals, in the middle would do a mile sprinting every 3 lampposts…pick a moderate hill and sprint up, jog down, repeat. Then continue along your run. It was like a higher intensity fartlek, I did that for years as it was fun, gave me internal goals in longer runs, and enabled partial resting .

It's very important to work on stride, plant, arms, there are plenty of technical  running coaches out there.

Like a lot of training goals, you need 6-8 week program minimum to consolidate improvements.

Edited December 8, 2022 by Unnamed Trialist

[Obinna]

Come to Besiktas!

[Kent]

48 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Really? 

Just run uphill, that's the harness.

In any case, the treadmill doesn't let you do natural intervals, adjusting as you go, and is not as safe as being outside. It's not safe to be harnessed, but harness work on the pitch is good for balance and strength.

I ran xcountry, gradually got faster, ended up running 800 and even 4x400 relays. A coach told me I'd run under 54 seconds one relay at age 17, running start helping of course. I trained doing long runs then did intervals, in the middle would do a mile sprinting every 3 lampposts…pick a moderate hill and sprint up, jog down, repeat. Then continue along your run. It was like a higher intensity fartlek, I did that for years as it was fun, gave me internal goals in longer runs, and enabled partial resting .

It's very important to work on stride, plant, arms, there are plenty of technical  running coaches out there.

Like a lot of training goals, you need 6-8 week program minimum to consolidate improvements.

Actually the article suggested the opposite. The idea behind the treadmill going faster than your maximum speed is to get your mind and body used to the increased speed. The harness isn't holding you back or something, it's just preventing you from falling and hurting yourself since you shouldn't be able to keep up otherwise.

The article said if you don't have that kind of set up (because who does) then alternatively you can run downhill. Obviously it shouldn't be so steep that you are at significant risk of falling, but you will be able to run faster going a bit downhill than you can run on flat land. Your body adapts and then should eventually be able to run faster.

Here is some random video I just found showing someone doing this training. Some explanation in the description.

 

[Unnamed Trialist]

49 minutes ago, Kent said:

Actually the article suggested the opposite. The idea behind the treadmill going faster than your maximum speed is to get your mind and body used to the increased speed. The harness isn't holding you back or something, it's just preventing you from falling and hurting yourself since you shouldn't be able to keep up otherwise.

The article said if you don't have that kind of set up (because who does) then alternatively you can run downhill. Obviously it shouldn't be so steep that you are at significant risk of falling, but you will be able to run faster going a bit downhill than you can run on flat land. Your body adapts and then should eventually be able to run faster.

Here is some random video I just found showing someone doing this training. Some explanation in the description.

 

It's bogus imo, because its based on tricking the body, not training speed mechanics.

Show me a single serious pro training downhill. Your body doesn't adapt, you just run out of control and you're tired of it after 60 m. You elongate muscles and tendons unnaturally and risk hurting yourself. Terrible on the knees. You're braking while propelling and that's risky.

You have to put in the kms, you have to consolidate all the mechanics, make sure you don't hurt yourself, and work up speed on the basis of having set the foundation for running effectively. 

Go run 5-7 km for 6 times a week during 3 weeks. Medium fast, don't push. Warming up and stretching before and after.  Good shoes. Have someone check the stride length, foot plant and arm movements. If your core is strong, better. If you have zero excess body fat, even better.

Then begin to add interval work. By the second week you can start pushing them, timing them. You could run suicides, you could do even shorter sprints. A good power coach can teach you fast starting, turning training. Someone smart will tell you what to weight train to help.

It's like classic weight training, you shouldn't even look in the mirror for results until months into it.

The important point is that if your positioning and anticipation are good, you can be slower and still defend well.

Edited December 8, 2022 by Unnamed Trialist

[An Observer]

9 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

It's bogus imo, because its based on tricking the body, not training speed mechanics.

Show me a single serious pro training downhill. Your body doesn't adapt, you just run out of control and you're tired of it after 60 m. You elongate muscles and tendons unnaturally and risk hurting yourself. Terrible on the knees. You're braking while propelling and that's risky.

You have to put in the kms, you have to consolidate all the mechanics, make sure you don't hurt yourself, and work up speed on the basis of having set the foundation for running effectively. 

Go run 5-7 km for 6 times a week during 3 weeks. Medium fast, don't push. Warming up and stretching before and after.  Good shoes. Have someone check the stride length, foot plant and arm movements. If your core is strong, better. If you have zero excess body fat, even better.

Then begin to add interval work. By the second week you can start pushing them, timing them. You could run suicides, you could do even shorter sprints. A good power coach can teach you fast starting, turning training. Someone smart will tell you what to weight train to help.

It's like classic weight training, you shouldn't even look in the mirror for results until months into it.

The important point is that if your positioning and anticipation are good, you can be slower and still defend well.

You are talking about being able to increase your speed running middle distance. And the way you suggest is an approach to doing that which works although i suspect you are middle aged like me and training methods have seriously moved on from what you explain (if they didn’t, you wouldn’t see middle distance runners going faster).  

What people are talking about in relation to Miller, is short 10 to 20 m level high end speed that its a combination of quickness and top level flat out speed as both play a part.  What you suggest would not impact that at all (frankly, probably would have the alternative impact as 400 to 800 m speed is far different than 10 to 20m bursts as my wife for example who has been a quite serious middle and long distance runner and the techniques she used to train her speed for that which worked, killed her explosiveness. Her coach just said that is the train off). The method described above which I am not familiar with would seemly train your top level speed as it trains you to get your body and mind to run at a faster level for short periods of time than you normally can achieve or are familiar with.  Whether it works or not, I honestly don’t know.  It of course would not train your explosiveness and quickness although I know there are different techniques to training both (the first is more related to strength, the latter to your twitch fibers) but it may allow you to hit higher levels of your top end speed (obviously it would need to be in conjunction with other types of training).

At the end of the day, if you develop explosiveness and quickness, there is a trade off in that you impact your endurance (how many 100m runners could run a marathon even at a recreationally competitive level?).  What footballers needs is a combination of explosiveness/quickness and endurance.  What they don’t need is middle distance speed as they never run a sustained amount of time at middle distance level speed (even 400m which is pretty short distance would be 4x the length of the pitch).  Footballers are more akin to squash players in that its all short bursts in multiple directions with a lot of breaks but over a sustained period of time.  A very different type of fitness to middle/long distance runners.

[Unnamed Trialist]

5 hours ago, An Observer said:

You are talking about being able to increase your speed running middle distance. And the way you suggest is an approach to doing that which works although i suspect you are middle aged like me and training methods have seriously moved on from what you explain (if they didn’t, you wouldn’t see middle distance runners going faster).  

What people are talking about in relation to Miller, is short 10 to 20 m level high end speed that its a combination of quickness and top level flat out speed as both play a part.  What you suggest would not impact that at all (frankly, probably would have the alternative impact as 400 to 800 m speed is far different than 10 to 20m bursts as my wife for example who has been a quite serious middle and long distance runner and the techniques she used to train her speed for that which worked, killed her explosiveness. Her coach just said that is the train off). The method described above which I am not familiar with would seemly train your top level speed as it trains you to get your body and mind to run at a faster level for short periods of time than you normally can achieve or are familiar with.  Whether it works or not, I honestly don’t know.  It of course would not train your explosiveness and quickness although I know there are different techniques to training both (the first is more related to strength, the latter to your twitch fibers) but it may allow you to hit higher levels of your top end speed (obviously it would need to be in conjunction with other types of training).

At the end of the day, if you develop explosiveness and quickness, there is a trade off in that you impact your endurance (how many 100m runners could run a marathon even at a recreationally competitive level?).  What footballers needs is a combination of explosiveness/quickness and endurance.  What they don’t need is middle distance speed as they never run a sustained amount of time at middle distance level speed (even 400m which is pretty short distance would be 4x the length of the pitch).  Footballers are more akin to squash players in that its all short bursts in multiple directions with a lot of breaks but over a sustained period of time.  A very different type of fitness to middle/long distance runners.

Well we can disagree, but for short bursts you have to start longer and work down. You can't just start with bursts.

Anyways, many a good marathon runner can go under 12 seconds for 100 metres, you can't argue they're slow.

I'm not sure if you realize that average players run 10k over 90 minutes. A match is a slow middle distance race, even slower than my old guy's pace. Punctuated by medium fast running, lots of tense contention and turning, and then maybe 15-20 faster bursts. I'm describing training exactly that. 

You can't get fast just spending an hour a day doing fast, because you learn the mechanics and train them slow. It's like trying to get big biceps only loading weights and only doing biceps. Guys who aren't fast, who lack speed, have to go back to square one, or near. Like point guards who don't shoot well, no short cuts.

Edited December 9, 2022 by Unnamed Trialist

[An Observer]

2 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Well we can disagree, but for short bursts you have to start longer and work down. You can't just start with bursts.

Anyways, many a good marathon runner can go under 12 seconds for 100 metres, you can't argue they're slow.

I'm not sure if you realize that average players run 10k over 90 minutes. A match is a slow middle distance race, even slower than my old guy's pace. Punctuated by medium fast running, lots of tense contention and turning, and then maybe 15-20 faster bursts. I'm describing training exactly that. 

You can't get fast just spending an hour a day doing fast, because you learn the mechanics and train them slow. It's like trying to get big biceps only loading weights and only doing biceps. Guys who aren't fast, who lack speed, have to go back to square one, or near. Like point guards who don't shoot well, no short cuts.

Let’s just agree to disagree 

[Unnamed Trialist]

5 minutes ago, An Observer said:

Let’s just agree to disagree 

☝️We've haven't made him any faster anyways!

[Dominic94]

He’s on the block