TomK, CB, or anyone else. Perhaps you could, for our edification, write down the rules and playing area of the activity you've used, as best you can remember them. Then we can do a comparison. After all, I'm not claiming to have invented the 1 v 1. Just one of the many possible ways of practicing the 1 v 1.
Russ- Within seconds of doing a search, I came up with the Gauntlet game. The difference is that you adapted the game to include a free dribbling space between defenders. Just like my example of home plans earlier, I don't believe that is enough of a change for you to claim it is your own unique game. And, unlike others on this forum, I am not going to go to work for you and search for all the different variations of the game. I have proven to myself and I think to others that you are merely adapting a game and claiming it to be unique. It is not. You have IMO conscously or unconsciously stolen this basic game for financial gain (however much or little that may be). Clear enough?
Here is the search game...
The grid is marked with three different zones. In each zone is a defender. Players line up at one end of the grid and dribble through, confronting each defender in turn. If the player dribbles past all three defenders, he has "run the gauntlet" and returns to the end of the line. If a player is stopped by a defender, he becomes the third defender. The third defender becomes the second, the second becomes the first, and the first defender goes to the back of the offensive line. Give points for each zone successfully traversed. First dribbler to 10 points wins.
You have IMO conscously or unconsciously stolen this basic game for financial gain (however much or little that may be). Clear enough?
CB, you sound a bit angry. However, the games are quite different. I don't think we should say that all games that involve dribbling past multiple defenders are essentially identical activities. The presence of the middle neutral zone is a very important feature!!! It requires the dribbler to push the ball past the first defender with a very controlled touch, and gives the dribbler a chance to gather the ball in. If the defenders are in adjacent grids, one can back up to the edge of his grid while the other awaits just a few feet away. That might allow something like cover to be practiced by the defenders, but would greatly reduce the dribbler's chances of success. Also, the scoring systems of the two activities are completely different.
Given these differences in the activities, I think it's a bit of a stretch to say this is evidence that I've consciously or unconsciously stolen the basic game for financial gain!!!
I have used it with the free space zone but i cant remember where i got it.
I also asked one of our trainers to come up with a fun game for 1v1 and he drew up this game also.
Inventing it "not" just like he did not invent the two safety concept in american football.
Within seconds of doing a search, I came up with the Gauntlet game.
Also, CB, could you please provide the link from which you found this Gauntlet game? Is this the exact game that you were familiar with, or did you find someone else's variation of it? What is the date for this particular activity? I'm very, very surprised that someone would come up with the same basic name as I did. I suppose both activities do suggest the old Indian activity, so maybe it's not that unusual. But if this wasn't the exact activity you used, and it's dated fairly recently, how do we know the person didn't adopt my game to his/her own uses?
You and your trainer probably got it from me or from someone else who got it from me. Particularly if you had the free zone in the middle!
Yeah I got it from you I am sure that was it.
CVAL, let me refresh your mind on my football inventions. I invented (or discovered independently) the idea of playing 2 deep safeties, 3 linebackers, and 1 rusher for 6 v 6 intramural touch football at the College of William and Mary. I never discussed the "two safety concept" in 11 v 11 football. As a high school pointy football player, I played safety in a 3-defensive back system.
We now have the concept of "subconsciously stolen" activities thrown into the fray. Kind of like George Harrison writing "My Sweet Lord." I think it's tough to have the same thing happen with a soccer activity, though. How would it work? The person learns an activity at a workshop or something? I took the D course in Maryland, the C course, and the National Diploma course. I can assure you that Run the Gauntlet is used in neither one. The person learns the activity from one of his own coaches? I never had another coach. From observing some other coach in action? I never observed another coach in action until working at a soccer camp and taking courses, which happened after I began using Run the Gauntlet. Reading another soccer book? I didn't read another soccer book until after using Run the Gauntlet. But if this was the source, it would still be out there somewhere and someone can produce it.
Not only would I have had to learn the activity from one of these sources, none of which were even present in my life. I would have had to forget the source over time, claimed it as my own, and through some bizarre psychological process falsely remembered the process of inventing it myself!
So, for my own personal use, I'm going to collapse "stolen" and "subconsciously stolen" into the single category of "stolen". Which is what I think you're now claiming. So, what would you need to prove this? Would it be enough to simply show that a very similar activity predated mine? I think we already established the possibility that two different people could come up with very similar activities independently of each other. How would you know whether or not this was one of those cases? You could establish it "to your satisfaction", and make your own guess, but to spread the idea on a soccer forum without proof seems a bit slanderous (or whatever you call spreading falsehoods about someone you deem a fool, as AFB has pointed out in the past).
Also, CB, is it now your opinion that the same fate probably awaits every Thoughtful Soccer activity? Including the ones you deem harmful to player development? Or just the ones that seem fairly useful? Can we look into Space Cowboy yet? It's kind of like a gigantic Run the Gauntlet game. Should be a lot of fun.
Here's the problem I have with some of your posts that relate to me. On one level, I appreciate these posts and imagine that you see some good in there with the bad. I imagine that you're even uncomfortable with the bashing stuff, and just want to address the issues in a more logical way. But then it seems as if you start out with the assumption that it's going to discredit me or something. Then, when it gives me an opportunity to prove my point, you get a bit bent out of shape as if you're inadvertantly promoting the whole thing. As if you were going to be the hero who discredited me using your own unique strategy, and then it turned against you. I don't mean to be rude, and I don't make a habit of guessing peoples' motivations, but it sure makes me wonder. Next, you'll just drop out, blame me, and begin devising your next scheme. (Making predictions, remember, is a quality of the effective coach). It's kind of a tease, like when I thought we were going to "rip apart" the book chapter by chapter. What a fool I was on that one!
Now here this post is going on and on, and you've nobody but yourself to blame. I'll turn you into an A-License Russ Basher yet!
Perhaps someone could go to my website, copy the bit on Space Cowboy, and paste it here. I don't know how to get the diagram included. You have my permission. Then we can try to figure out from where I subconsciously stole it.
On the old forum I described a drill to teach 1v1 as well Pressure/Cover. I described it again many other times here. The last time was when we discussed your claim to have "invented" this activity.
It has five grids. In the first grid the dribbler is free to build their run, take the angle they want. The second through fourth grids have defenders. Each defender is confined only the their grid. The dribbler may move back and forth from grid to grid and is not confined. The fifth grid has a goal and a one touch is required. Once the ball is striped, goes out of bounds or a goal is scored players run forward, the 1st defender to the line of players waiting to dribble the previous dribbler becomes the 3rd defender.
I keep track of points, granting a point for each grid penetrated and goal scored.
I run the drill with many variations.
In one I have no 3rd defender. The fourth grid is open and the once beaten the 1st defender must run to cover the fourth grid, learning the need to recover on being beaten.
In another I have no defender in the third grid, giving a neutral zone. I use this with beginning dribblers so they have a chance to gain confidence. I use it only for only one or two practices because I want players to learn how to change speed and explode, not stop and use the neutral zone to reset.
I vary the size of the grids based on the skill of the players.
I have allowed a second attacker so wall passing is an option with an expanded grid.
I use this drill as the pressure drill when teaching both dribbling, passing and defense. By using this same basic activity for many purposes I do not have to teach a new drill. I can spend my time teaching the players.
I learned this activity in the mid 1970's when I played in college. It was then called "ladders" and that is what I have called it ever since. Eric has used it by that name while Mr. Soccer has used "Gauntlet" in 2004. See, http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/andagain/vpost?id=240368
On the Internet this ladders date back at least a decade. Consider the following from 1997 from the Soccer-Coach-List:
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 1997 14:47:35 EDTReply-To: Soccer Coach Mailing List <[log in to unmask]>Sender: Soccer Coach Mailing List <[log in to unmask]>From: "Connie T. Matthies" <[log in to unmask]>Subject: Re: Fakes too close
Hi: I would suspect that the problem is not so much that he is coming in too close (you want him close), as that he is not picking his chances well - either because he is not feinting to throw the defender off balance; not selling his feint well; or he hasn't learned to watch for "dead leg" and attack the frozen leg. Watch Ronaldo. Most of his attacks are within less than one foot or so of the defender's foot, so clearly he is getting well inside of them - and this is quite effective. I would suggest that you use the "Tunnel of Death" (i.e., dribbling ladders) to train him and others on the skills of taking on several defenders in sequence. You also might want to take a look at the Vogelsinger video on "Dribbling & Feinting" for some ideas (no financial interest, just like the tape). One of the things which you might want to really work on is his acceleration touch - exploding into the direction which he wants to go. Usually, the most effective is to simply cock the ball on the front/side of the non-plant foot and drag the ball along with you as you explode. Finally, you may want to use the same dribbling ladder to work on give-n-gos and wall passes, which will encourage him to pass in a subtle fashion (i.e., when you give the ball off, it will come back to you, which makes giving it up a bit easier to take for these budding "ball hogs"). Still, at this age, you want to encourage the take-on artists, as this is when they develop their skills and confidence for the future, so give him the tools to make his attacks more successful and he is likely to want to use them.Connie
Russ the name "tunnel of death" or "ladders" is so common there were hundreds of people writing each other using the terms and describing variations on what you have claim as wholly your own. Here are just a few of these written from 1997 to 1999 with the link so you can read them:
Re: Play: "Tunnel of Death" or "Gauntlet"
Re: Play: "Tunnel of Death"
Prep: Practice Idea - 1v1 dribbling skills
Re: If the rules limited you to only 2 drill ls...
Re: Decision-Making 101
Re: Tunnel (or ladder) of death 1v1 exercise (was: bad habits)
Tunnel (or ladder) of death 1v1 exercise (was: bad habits)
Re: Fakes too close
Tunnel of Death
I have seen many coaches use it over the years. I do not know who first thought of it. I really do not care. Claims like yours Russ evidence only the limited exposure the claimant has to the sport. That you continue to proffer ridiculous arguments in an attempt to buttress your position only makes it look like you are guilty of plagiarism. I don't think you are guilty of plagiarism or copying, only of being an egotistical fool.
It's hard to ridicule an activity in one breath, then claim it was pilfered in the next. "If it's good, Russ must have pilfered it; If it's bad, Russ must have invented it from his own warped mind."
Russ- It is very tempting for me to be a Russ basher! And, as you have done with others, you have successfully pulled me into your game. I don't like being played the fool Russ... and I think others like AFB and Coachkev have looked like fools as well playing in your kindergarden playground. So I won't waste anymore time responding to anything you have to say in the future. Although I'm sure I will still look at your endless threads from time to time to see what new fools will fall for your folly.
No you didn't. Playing two deep safties has been a part of AF of any kind for almost as long as people have been playing football.
Just because you have not seen things before does not mean you invented it.
CB began this post to discuss whether any Russ Carrington activities were truly unique, or whether they had been "borrowed and renamed", "stolen", "unconsciously stolen", or whatever. I have a very strong interest in not being slandered, and therefore the topic interests me greatly. To change the focus to "Russ is on an ego trip in wanting to claim he invented everything" is an unfair sleight of hand.
CB, it doesn't surprise me at all that you're exiting at this point with the "I'm too mature for this, so I'm going to ignore you" approach. You picked the activities that you thought were most likely to have been around a bit. Alligator River is a no-brainer and I have no doubt other coaches have thought of chipping over an open space. I don't think you'd want to mess with Space Cowboy, though.
And what about Run the Gauntlet? My brief looking over of AFB's evidence revealed the following that I consider relevant:
Several people have now asked about this. It's basically a series ofrectangular grids with a defender in each one. Attackers enter the grids atone end and try to beat as many defenders as they can. Defenders normallyare required to remain at the far end of their grid until the attackerenters it.
Here, we've got a design figure that is different from Run the Gauntlet, but makes them very similar activities. The defender in the next grid must wait toward the back of the grid until the defender enters the zone. Therefore, the dribbler has an opportunity to push the ball into the grid and gather it in before the defender arrives.
I would think that any coach using this activity could get results similar to Run the gauntlet
I'm glad to find out, finally, that at least one activity truly similar to mine has been around. That means other players have been and are benefiting from it. And only one example was necessary to make the point. AFB and I have had our differences, but when it comes to research and providing proof nobody is better.
So, what does this prove? Perhaps I was aware of this other grid activity, and thought, "Wow, that's clever. I think I'll make the minor change of adding a neutral zone and then claim it as my own." Or it's more of a a case of "great minds think alike." You get to make your own guess, I suppose.
Since I haven't reviewed all of AFB's evidence regarding other activities, I'll just continue to address this one. The differences between it and Run the Gauntlet are still similar to the extent that, were Run the Gauntlet banished from the face of the earth as being redundant, some things of great value would be lost. Here is what I mean:
1. In the other activity, the next defender waits at the back of the grid until the dribbler enters. That's good. But once the two confront each other, I assume there are no restrictions on the defender. I presume he practices pressure, by closing in on the ball, then slowing down, looking for a chance to win the ball, backpedaling if he can't? That's very different from Run the Gauntlet, where the goal is to basically root the defender in one place (give or take a few steps) to recreate that primal confrontation where the dribbler must make his push past and the defender must take a stab. It's not an activity for practicing pressure, and the benefit to the defender isn't as great as in AFB's drill. But it provides more tries in a brief amount of time at the targeted area (pushing the ball past a defender in various ways, and gathering it in on the other side). And this is critical if an activity is to work within the multiple-theme approach to practicing.
2. The variations which Run the Gauntlet allows are very significant. A wall pass player can be positioned outside the neutral zone. The attacker approaches the first zone with the option of passing to the wall pass player, who must one-touch the ball back into the neutral zone, or faking such a pass. (One of AFB's drills mentions wall-passes also, so my guess is that's great as well!) Then come all the 2 v 1 variations. Two players must get through the course together, with the option of passing or faking the pass; unpredictability is the key. And the two attackers can be required to begin with various combinations. I've taught overlaps, diagonals, and dummies using Run the Gauntlet.
Here again, I'll bet that's possible in some of AFB's other drills. My point is that Run the Gauntlet, on this particular course, is a pretty powerful activity that other coaches should know about. It's not completely redundant of other things that are out there. And it certainly wasn't pilfered!
I'm really smarting from defeat on this one! Should we move on to Space Cowboy?
Oh yes I can. There are three reasons I post on these forums. First, to learn from other experienced coaches like yourself. Second, to help out other coaches like yourself (which has an element of learning as well). And third, for entertainment. Well since there is absolutely nothing I can learn from Russ about soccer, and Russ does not have the capacity to learn and is forever stuck in the dark ages, that leaves pure entertainment value. The only problem is... Russ is a broken record. While his antics and childlike behavior may be new to some, he is boring with this phyche experiment he is playing on this forum. And we are all part of it. We are the fools... and Russ is the foley. And so it continues. The question is... how many more fools will be ensnarled in Russ's web? And for how long?
Everyone sing along now...
Supported videos include: