Finishing is one of the most visible and valuable skills in football, yet, in my experiences working in and observing youth development environments, one of the most misunderstood to coach.
If we define youth football as broadly coaching of players between U13 to U18, first-hand observation of ‘striker training’ or team sessions focused on the technique of finishing typically encompassed practice designs which were often high on shot volume, yet low on transfer to the ‘real game’ (i.e. a regular 11v11 match). This was typically characterised by high repetition of specific finishing patterns done in isolation of defenders or goalkeepers, where players experienced high rates of success (i.e. scoring “goals”).
There is research, which will be discussed below, to suggest such practice designs will mean players may struggle to reproduce the same outcomes when, in “the real game”, defenders close space, goalkeepers move, and decision-making around which finishing technique to use, must be made under time pressure.
More plainly, there is often a mismatch between how finishing is trained and how finishing actually occurs in the game.
It is important to preface that skill acquisition research does not provide specific practice designs for coaches to copy and paste. What it can provide, however, are principles that help coaches design environments where finishing behaviours are more likely to emerge, stabilise, and transfer to the ‘real game’.
As with all research, the more we know and learn, the more these principles and ideas can change and adapt, but we can still form a useful starting point with the three following concepts.
External focus of attention
One of the more robust findings in the current landscape of motor learning research is the advantage of adopting an external focus of attention.
An external focus directs the learner’s attention toward the effect of their action on the environment, rather than the movement itself. In contrast, an internal focus draws attention to the body itself, either through mechanics, or conscious control.
Across numerous studies (a full reference list is provided in the conclusion), an external focus is more likely to elucidate enhanced performance, learning, and retention. Importantly for football, an invasion game wherein skills are subject to pressure from opponents, an external focus of attention also appears, based on our current understanding in the research, to support automaticity under pressure.
This is important, as most finishing situations are time-limited, requiring players to decide & execute shots under near-immediate pressure from defenders. To put another way, if/when players are thinking about their foot position or body shape, as they go to take a shot, they are probably, in the context of “the real game” too late, as they will be pressured or dispossessed by an opponent.
To give examples, coaches can be encouraged to provide external cues such as…
- “Aim for corners”
- “Look for where the keepers arms and legs are”
…when practicing finishing. These cues draw attention with the outcome the player is trying to achieve, not the technique they are trying to remember.
Guide attention toward perceptual cues
The next important consideration that we can glean from skill acquisition research is that finishing is not purely about technique, but rather a skill that is tightly shaped by the information available to the player at the moment of execution. In motor research terms, this is what is called perception–action coupling.
When in a position to finish, players must detect and interpret information about the goalkeeper, defenders, space, and time. Based on this information, they act quickly and often without conscious thought, with perception and action unfolding almost simultaneously.
Research on perceptual–motor skill consistently indicates that skilled performers are better attuned to relevant information and are quicker to act upon it. In the context of this article, it suggests that good finishers do not simply strike the ball well, but are able to recognise when to shoot, where to place the ball, and how early they must act, in order to be effective. Essentially, good finishers are able to solve the contextualised ‘problem’ when in front of the goal.
Many finishing drills that I have observed in youth football remove these perceptual considerations. This includes having stationary balls for players to strike, passive defenders, or the removal of goalkeepers. Perception-action coupling suggests that the key considerations in finishing: the ball, the goal, a goalkeeper, defender(s), and teammates must be present; in order for players to detect and interpret the appropriate information to inform their next movement.
Of course, this does not mean that finishing practices always need to include these elements in their entirety. A useful framework for understanding this further is explored using the confidence-competence continuum described in this article.
To be succinct here, what this research suggests is that coaches need to be conscious of the informational cues involved in finishing and consider them in their practice designs. This may involve simplifyingthe task (known as task simplification in motor skill research) rather than deconstructing the act of finishing (task decomposition).
Furthermore, to guide perception-action coupling, coaches can draw attention to these sources of information. Sample questions that could facilitate this include…
- “What part of the goal did the keeper show you?”
- “When did the opportunity to finish appear?”
- “What changed just before you shot?”
Ideally, through drawing attention to these cues, players begin to self-organise their solutions based on what they see, not what they are told.
Encourage repetition with variance
Nikolai Bernstein’s principle of repetition without repetition remains highly relevant to football, and the art of finishing.
To simplify a topic that has been greatly discussed in the research: no two finishes in a match are identical. The constraints are constantly shifting. This can include the angle of the shot, the pressure on the ball, the speed of the ball, the player’s balance, and the time they have on the ball. As is a recurring theme throughout this article, then: finishing is not the ability to reproduce a movement, but the ability to achieve a functional outcome under varying conditions.
Traditional finishing practices I have observed often provided repetition without variability. This meant players typically repeated the same shot from the same spot, receiving feedback on each repetition or on the movement itself. In layman’s terms, the likely result is then familiarity, rather than adaptability. This is where we can infer there may be a lack of transfer to ‘the real game’.
Importantly, when considering variation, it should not be random, but purposeful. Coaches should consider different starting positions in exercises, different types of ‘assists’, different angles of defensive pressure, and different goalkeeping behaviours, to expose players to the range of problems they will face when finishing in matches.
To put it another way: if players can anticipate or prepare their finish before the ball arrives, the task is likely too predictable to drive learning and transfer.
What this looks like on the pitch
In practice, these principles point strongly toward a games-based approach to finishing. This does not mean the absence of isolated/drill-based practices, but as a supporting practice design, and not the core activity. This concept is discussed further in the confidence-competence continuum article referenced earlier. The coaches main emphasis, though, should be on designing competitive, realistic games where finishing emerges as a consequence of good play, not as an isolated event.
Key practice design features can include:
1. Using constraints to shape finishing behaviour
Rather than telling players how to finish, coaches should manipulate the constraints of the practice, such as…
- Using narrower goals to encourage accuracy
- Having scoring zones that reward different types of finishes
- Utilising time limits to increase decision pressure
- Introducing recovering defenders to put pressure on the ball
A way for coaches is to think: how can I get my practice design to do the coaching?
2. Keep score
Keeping score has been shown to increase emotional engagement, increase pressure, and create consequences for players. This is useful to ‘recreate’ the ‘real game’, while also giving players concurrent feedback on their finishing during training.
It is also a useful constraint to manipulate to work on specific types of finishes, such as…
- Bonus goals for first-time finishes
- Bonus goals following a certain type of action (e.g. touch & finish)
3. Maintain realism and representativeness
In addition to the previous reflection question, another one coaches can ask when designing any finishing practice is does this look and feel like the real game?
In skill acquisition terms, this is called ‘representativeness’. Representative practices include:
- A moving ball
- An active goalkeeper
- Defenders (active, not passive)
- Decisions that cannot be delayed without consequence
4. Let solutions emerge
Finally, coaches would do well to resist the urge to correct every miss, as these misses provide more information & feedback to the player than perhaps the coach can give. A coaches role can instead be conceptualised to consider their role to be how can they facilitate players learning from this information & feedback to self-organise and self-correct their finishing.
Accordingly, well-designed practices will provide intrinsic feedback naturally to players through success and failure. The coach intervenes selectively, usually between activities, with questions that direct attention outward.
Bringing it together
A crucial theme across this article is that finishing is not a ‘technique to be learnt’, but rather, a ‘problem to solve’. Therefore, finishing in youth football is not about finding better drills, but rather, about designing better environments.
Above all, it is important to remember that finishing skill is not technical perfection, but players who can perceive opportunities, decide quickly, and execute under pressure.
References
Bernstein, N. A. (1967). The co-ordination and regulation of movements. Oxford, Pergamon Press.
Davids, K., Araújo, D., Vilar, L., Renshaw, I., & Pinder, R. (2012). An ecological dynamics approach to skill acquisition: Implications for development of talent in sport. Sports Medicine, 42(6), 491-512.
Newell, K. M. (1985). Coordination, control and skill. In D. Goodman, R. B. Wilberg, & I. M. Franks (Eds.), Differing perspectives in motor learning, memory, and control (pp. 295-317). Amsterdam, Elsevier Science.
Otte, F. W., Millar, S. K., & Klatt, S. (2019). Skill training periodization in “specialist” sports coaching – an introduction of the “PoST” framework for skill development. Frontiers in sports and active living, 1, 61.
Pacheco, M. M., de Oliveira, L. M., dos Santos, C. C., Godoi Filho, J. R., & Drews, R. (2023). Challenging traditions: Systematic review of practice, instruction, and motor skill acquisition in soccer. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 18(5), 1702-1725.
Vickers, J. N. (1996). Visual control when aiming at a far target. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22(2), 342-354.
Vickers, J. N. (2007). Perception, cognition, and decision training: The quiet eye in action. Champaign, IL. Human Kinetics.
Wulf, G., & Prinz, W. (2001). Directing attention to movement effects enhances learning: A review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8(4), 648-660.
Wulf, G. (2013). Attentional focus and motor learning: A review of 15 years. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 6(1), 77-104.
Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2016). Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(5), 1382-1414.
