Todd Beane (TOVO Academy) recently wrote a thought-provoking article regarding isolated skill-acquisition vs. game-based learning, which included the following quote:
"The “Cruyff Turn,” named after my own father in law, is still performed worldwide. And perhaps that is a good thing. But it is not enough. Johan Cruyff had not practiced that move. He perceived the variables at a given moment, saw the defender poised in assumption, and then decided to make the move that would form part of the Coerver curriculum. The move was born in real time, against a real defender and the match in flow. It was not a “move”; it was a solution."
Cruyff didn't learn this move outside of the game and then apply it to a game-situation. Rather, he was afforded the freedom in a game to decide to beat that opponent in a 1v1 situation, and executed that decision brilliantly. Given this, the article concludes that isolated technique training does not provide enough, arguing the need for more game-based learning to take place to optimize player development... I agree (and there is plenty of science to back this).
However, based on arguments just like this, many conclude that "street soccer" is the optimal player development model. The rationale being that it avoids isolated technique training AND environments dominated by coach-tactics, affording players the freedom (as Cruyff was) to come up with their own solutions. This seems logical, but has a fatal flaw.
The origins of Cruyff's sublime solution can't solely be attributed to Cruyff, and Cruyff alone.
Yes, the "Cruyff Turn" was "born in real time, against a real defender and the match in flow," but what promoted the opportunity for Cruyff's solution is missed by the "street soccer" enthusiast. Cruyff was in an isolated 1v1 position due to the positions his teammates had taken on the field.
Soccer is a team sport. It's not just a bunch of individuals perceiving the game-environment and making/executing decisions. There is an interaction that must take place BETWEEN teammates as well. In fact, this interaction is of the highest order, followed by individual decision-making and execution.
In other words, before an individual player can consistently shine, a tactical framework MUST be present. For example, if your team is attacking and doesn't have a direct route to goal, your tactical framework might require your players to establish receiving lines to move the opposition, creating space for players to potentially be in a 1v1 isolated position.
Assuming receiving lines create an isolated 1v1 position and that player is found, (s)he is afforded the opportunity or FREEDOM to choose to beat the opponent. This is where the concept of "street soccer" can sneak its way into the equation. It is the moment to empower player-freedom and bring out their identity as players (aka: "Player ID").
EXAMPLE: If (s)he doesn't recognize the situation, ask questions to figure out why! Maybe (s)he had a different solution in mind? Or maybe (s)he needs to be guided to a better solution! Moreover, maybe (s)he does recognize the situation and is successful utilizing pace to beat the opponent... Great, encourage that! However, as opposition players begin to catch up with pace, new 1v1 solutions will need to be discovered. As coaches we can guide this through the use of questions, or even suggest solutions that might compliment their Player ID (i.e. if their Player ID highlights the use of the outside of the foot, you could suggest the use of "Scissors").
To sum things up, soccer is a team sport. As coaches, we should develop individuals within a team... we shouldn't just develop a bunch of individuals. We must establish player-discipline in tactical agreements between players & empower individual decisions within tactical agreements, in that order.
For those interested in Todd Beane's Article: https://playerdevelopmentproject.com/i-wish-wiel-coerver-got-it-right/