@Nkisi_Mase Ke ha re ipata kamorao ho mantsoe a senyesemane hau ka utloa re bua tjena..
Hau u ka u stsoali se sebelisa mantsoe ao u " tsebe hore mona u baizitse" klaar..
Ke sa hloella #sina macosa aka #mpokho 🏃🏿♂️🏃🏿♂️🏃🏿♂️
#Africa is sitting on $4trillion of accessible capital. Even a small percentage of this wealth can transform economies and solve almost all our infrastructure needs.
What is needed now is action by all parties concerned- our CEO @nardosbthomas shares her opinion in this thought leadership piece featured in the African Banker. See below to read the full article: https://t.co/5IBdZZj52b
This is what happens when two people don’t have a clear definition of a football term. It’s two people speaking past each other, two people not having an understanding of what the word means, or an agreement of what the word means. Therefore, they’re talking about two separate things.
I thought Thomas Tuchel’s interview after England’s game was a prime example of this. The interviewer asks about mentality. I assume he’s asking whether the players’ mindset was right, whether the decision making was right, whether England lacked something mentally because they made technical mistakes, didn’t play fast enough, and made the game more difficult than it needed to be.
Whereas Tuchel takes the word mentality somewhere else. He takes it back to commitment, to the drive, to the non-negotiables that the England team have to have in order to compete in a tournament like this one; Making recovery run, making tackles, making blocks, fighting through adversity.
That is how I perceived Tuchel’s answer. Now, that doesn’t necessarily mean my definition is correct either. That’s actually the point. I perceive mentality in one way, Tuchel potentially perceives it in a slightly different way. The interviewer potentially perceives it in another way, and suddenly one word has three different meanings.
This happens all the time in football. We use these vague terms without clear definitions. There isn’t a clear, specific way to speak to each other about certain things, so conversations become really difficult. Take the word intensity. One coach means sprinting, another means pressing, another means concentration, another means speed of play. They all use exactly the same word, but they’re talking about completely different behaviours. The same thing happens with confidence, aggression, composure, quality, structure, control, even positional play.
Sometimes we think we’re debating football, but we’re debating definitions. Jon Mackenzie put this really well: “Sometimes I feel like you can apply Wittgenstein’s maxim to the modern tactical conversation: There are no tactical problems, only linguistic problems. Most of the tactical debates of the present seem to swirl around a lack of clarity regarding the terms involved.”
And I think this especially happens between coaches and players. A coach says, “We need more intensity.” The player hears, “Run more.” The coach might actually mean press earlier, arrive faster, recover with more urgency, play forward quicker, or compete harder in the next duel. That is where vague language becomes a coaching problem.
The actionable tip is simple: give vague terms actionable language. If you want more intensity, tell the player what that looks like. Press when the pass travels. Recover inside the ball. Arrive before the receiver can turn. Play the next pass forward. Sprint beyond the ball after you release it. Now the player has something they can actually see, do, and repeat.