Skip to main content

Data / Grassroots Coaching · Refreshed weekly

What grassroots football coaches actually plan, ask, and reflect on

An open dataset drawn from four sources — FootballGPT, CoachPage, CoachReflect and the FCA Skool community. Aggregate-only; no coach, club, or session is identifiable. Last refresh: 19 Jun 2026.

Coaches
4,898
Questions logged
41,739
Animated practices
10,172
Data sources
4
FGPT · CoachPage · CoachReflect · FCA

Chart 1 / drill-and-cone problem

What practice types grassroots coaches generate by age band

The youngest players get the most isolated drill-work.

Mini-soccer coaches (U6-U9) ask AI for 76.1% technical practices, while only 14.5% are small-sided games, the format kids actually learn from. Technical-drill bias is heaviest at the youngest ages and eases as players get older, while tactical work scales up with age.

n = 10,160 categorised animated practices with age band. Bands with fewer than 50 hidden. methodology

Real coach question · what this looks like

Animated practice diagram: Split the Gate — Through Passing
technical·U9-U10·real coach question
I’m coaching 9U and 10u what are the best ways to teach through passing
Split the Gate — Through Passingview animation →

Chart 2 / planning rhythm

When grassroots football coaches plan their training week

Monday, not Sunday, is grassroots planning night.

Practice generation peaks on Monday and Tuesday — coaches plan their week early, not last-minute. Monday is the busiest day overall, with a strong evening peak around 8pm UTC, and the single hottest cell on the heatmap is Tuesday at 9am UTC.

036912151821
Sun
Mon
Tue
Wed
Thu
Fri
Sat

Hours shown in UTC, every third hour labelled. Brighter = more practices generated.

n = 10,172 animated practices. methodology

Real coach question · what this looks like

Animated practice diagram: 5v2 + 2 Target Players — Possession & Breakout
technical·U14-U15·real coach question
I have a girls team aged 14-15 and I want to work on possession as well as counter pressing and a bit of finishing as well.
5v2 + 2 Target Players — Possession & Breakoutview animation →

Chart 3 / audience mix

Who actually uses football coaching AI tools

More than one in four queries comes from a Football Manager video-game player.

Real grassroots coaches make up the majority of activity, but Football Manager video-game players are the second-largest audience — sharing the same tool with very different intent.

Coach13,607 (56.6%)
Football Manager (video game)8,321 (34.6%)
Player1,626 (6.8%)
Scout294 (1.2%)
Goalkeeper coach187 (0.8%)

n = 24,035 mode-tagged queries. Modes with fewer than 50 hidden. methodology

Real coach question · what this looks like

Animated practice diagram: Defensive Trigger & React 7v7
tactical·U16·real coach question
Can you give trigger examples for defense?
Defensive Trigger & React 7v7view animation →

Chart 4 / age band distribution

Most-coached age groups in grassroots football

Teenagers, not under-9s, are the most-coached age band.

The 'grassroots = wee kids' assumption is wrong. Senior Youth and Junior bands account for over half of all drill volume; Mini-soccer is the third smallest band by activity.

n = 10,160 animated practices with assignable age band. methodology

Real coach question · what this looks like

Animated practice diagram: Mid-Block: Handling Wide Overloads
tactical·U15+·real coach question
How do we handle wide overloads?
Mid-Block: Handling Wide Overloadsview animation →

Cut 5 / pitch concentration

85%

Almost every animated practice puts the action in the middle third.

Computed from the average y-coordinate of all players in each AI-generated practice. Of these, only 2% came from prompts where the coach actually named a pitch zone — the other 98% is where the AI placed players when no zone was requested. Read the middle-third concentration as "where the AI puts the action by default", not as proof coaches ignore defensive or attacking work.

Mini (U6-U9)n = 1,128
3%Defensive third85%Middle third12%Attacking third
Junior (U10-U12)n = 2,633
3%Defensive third86%Middle third12%Attacking third
Youth (U13-U15)n = 2,386
2%Defensive third86%Middle third12%Attacking third
Senior Youth (U16-U18)n = 2,419
2%Defensive third86%Middle third12%Attacking third

n = 10,150 practices with at least one player; of which 177 (2%) came from prompts that explicitly named a pitch zone. Pitch thirds are computed from each practice's average player y-coordinate (0-100, where 0 is the defending goal line). 'Middle' covers y=33-66. methodology.

Cut 6 / player counts

87%

Of Mini-soccer practices use 5v5 or smaller — the format kids learn best in.

At the smallest age band coaches do design appropriately small. The story changes higher up: Adult coaches favour 8v8+ work; Senior Youth split fairly evenly between 2v2 and full-format. Bands are by total players in the practice: 1v1 (≤2), 2v2-3v3 (3-6), 4v4-5v5 (7-10), 6v6-7v7 (11-14), 8v8+ (15 or more). Note: only 12% of these came from prompts that explicitly named a player count (e.g. "4v4") — the rest is the AI deciding how many players to draw.

1v12v2-3v34v4-5v56v6-7v78v8+total
Mini (U6-U9)
105
509
372
130
12
1,128
Junior (U10-U12)
180
858
969
477
149
2,633
Youth (U13-U15)
125
598
640
654
369
2,386
Senior Youth (U16-U18)
118
604
663
526
508
2,419
Adult (U19+)
47
277
332
282
377
1,315
Mixed
11
92
80
41
45
269

n = 10,150 practices with both age band and player count; of which 1,190 (12%) came from prompts that explicitly named a player count (e.g. "4v4"). Player count is derived from drill_data.players[]; bands are 1v1, 2v2-3v3, 4v4-5v5, 6v6-7v7, 8v8+.

Cut 7 / cohort profile

76%

Mini-soccer's category profile is the most technical-dominant of any age band.

Each polygon is one age band; each axis is that band's share of practices in that category, normalised within the six axes plotted. Older bands open out into tactical, game-based and set-piece work, but technical still dominates everywhere — the shape change is gradual, not a flip. Coach-intent caveat: 26% of these rows came from prompts that explicitly named a category; the remainder reflects the AI's category fallback when no signal was given.

Mini (U6-U9)Junior (U10-U12)Youth (U13-U15)Senior Youth (U16-U18)

Categories: technical, tactical, game-based, set-piece, warm-up, physical. Each axis is the band's share of practices in that category. Bands plotted: Mini, Junior, Youth, Senior Youth (top 4 by volume). 26% of underlying rows had an explicit category in the coach prompt. methodology

Cut 9 / animation complexity

3.2 → 3.6steps

Practice complexity barely scales with age.

Average sequence step count per practice (each 'step' is one phase of the animation). Mini practices average ~3 steps; Adult barely reaches 4. Either coaches genuinely want short practices regardless of age, or the AI tends to produce a similar number of steps regardless of prompt.

Adult (U19+)
3.34 steps · n=1,315
Junior (U10-U12)
3.30 steps · n=2,633
Mini (U6-U9)
3.19 steps · n=1,128
Mixed
3.62 steps · n=269
Senior Youth (U16-U18)
3.27 steps · n=2,429
Youth (U13-U15)
3.37 steps · n=2,386

Deep cuts / FootballGPT

Underneath the four anchor charts

The same FootballGPT data, sliced more ways: what topics coaches are asking about, which features they use most, the formations they pick by team format, the techniques they analyse, the languages they study, and the qualifications they hold.

Questions answered
50,000+
Practices created
1000+
Countries
30+
Coaches who came back
65%
generated 2+ practices

Cut A / topics

What coaches are asking about

Twelve coaching topics detected by keyword match across every chat query. A single query may match more than one topic.

All topics

General Coaching
33%
Formations & Tactics
15%
Session Planning
13%
Pressing & Defending
11%
Passing & Possession
9%
Shooting & Finishing
4%
Dribbling & 1v1
3%
Physical & Conditioning
3%
Goalkeeping
3%
Set Pieces
3%

Top topics — grassroots

General Coaching
32%
Formations & Tactics
15%
Session Planning
14%
Pressing & Defending
11%
Passing & Possession
10%

Top topics — academy

General Coaching
57%
Pressing & Defending
14%
Session Planning
6%
Formations & Tactics
4%
Shooting & Finishing
3%

Top topics — professional

Passing & Possession
29%
General Coaching
29%
Formations & Tactics
14%
Pressing & Defending
7%
Shooting & Finishing
7%

Cut B / tools

Which tools coaches use

FootballGPT exposes a dozen specialised tools alongside chat. Share of total tool events:

AI Chat
50%
Drill Creator
21%
FM Tactics
6%
Match Prep
5%
FM Screenshot
5%
FM Wonderkids
3%
Photo To Drill
2%
Exercise Adapter
2%

Cut C / formations

Formations coaches actually pick

Coaches state their preferred formation in their profile or pick one in match-prep. Shown by team format.

11v11

4-3-3
37%
4-4-2
18%
3-5-2
11%
4-2-3-1
11%
3-4-1
10%

9v9

4-4-2
50%
4-2-3-1
50%

5v5

2-1-1
50%
4-3-3
50%

Cut D / who they are

Demographics from FootballGPT profiles

Self-stated by users in their FootballGPT profile. Where percentages don't sum to 100, the underlying field is multi-select or partially populated.

Years coaching

6-10 Years
51%
0-2 Years
42%
3-5 Years
4%
10+ Years
4%

Qualifications held

None - Just Starting Out
33%
FA Level 2
13%
FA Level 1
12%
FA Level 4 (UEFA A)
11%
FA Level 3 (UEFA B)
9%
First Aid Certified
4%
FA Level 5 (UEFA Pro)
3%
UEFA A
3%

Team formats coached

11v11
70%
5v5
10%
9v9
10%
7v7
9%

How they use the tool

Coach
83%
Fm
10%
Player
6%
Scout
1%
Goalkeeper
0%

Cut E / techniques & languages

Skills coaches analyse, languages they study

Technique-analyser uploads (which skill)

Passing
32%
Shooting
21%
Ball-Mastery
21%
Dribbling
14%
Defending
7%
Heading
4%

Football Lingo languages studied · 63% average accuracy

Es
67%
Fr
17%
Pt
17%

Cut F / keywords

What words show up in the practice prompts

Top tokens extracted from the prompts coaches send to the practice generator. Stop-words and the words "drill" / "practice" are filtered out.

sessionplanplayersgametheirmatchattackingtacticalformationballplayopponent

Cross-product

Coaching qualifications, post-session reflections and community discussion

The charts above come from FootballGPT — what coaches ASK AI for. The three below pull from CoachPage (who coaches ARE), CoachReflect (what coaches THINK after sessions), and the FCA Skool community (what coaches publicly DISCUSS). Different products, different cohorts, different lenses on the same population.

Chart 5 / who coaches actually are

From CoachPage: licence, country, years coaching, age groups, specialities

FootballGPT shows what coaches ask AI for. CoachPage shows who they are. Each coach who builds a public CoachPage states their licence, country, years coaching, the age groups they teach, and the specialities they list.

Coaches
22
Licensed
4
Countries
5

Licence band

Performance / S&C
3
FA Level 1
2
FA Level 2
2
Goalkeeping
2
Other
2
Other course
2
UEFA C
2
Coerver
2
UEFA B
2
Futsal
1

Years coaching

3-5 years
1
6-10 years
1
11-15 years
3

Country

Unspecified
17
United States
1
UK
1
Australia
1
United Kingdom
1
Nigeria
1

Age groups taught

U16
5
U14
5
U12
4
Senior
4
U13
3
U15
3
U18
3
U17
3
U10
3
U9
3

Stated specialities

Head Coach
5
Attacking
3
Assistant Coach
3
Youth Development
2
Strength & Conditioning
2
Defending
2
Team Manager
2
Set Pieces
1

n = 22 directory-visible coaches. Cohort is below the k≥50 anonymity floor used elsewhere on this page — counts published as raw figures with the source named explicitly. Source: coachpa.ge. Coaches teaching multiple age groups appear in each band.

Chart 6 / what coaches reflect on

From CoachReflect: tags, mood, energy, level, session type

After a session, what do coaches think about? CoachReflect users tag each reflection, rate their mood and energy, log session type, and self-classify their coaching level. Free-text reflection content is never published — only the structured fields below.

Profiles
133
Reflections
85
Reflecting
26
Sessions
23

Top reflection tags

player_development
26
session_planning
25
tactical
21
communication
19
technique
19
game_management
16
teamwork
15
motivation
13
confidence
10
physical
8
discipline
8
game-model
4

Coaching level (self-stated)

unspecified
115
grassroots
11
academy
5
professional
1
semi-pro
1

Post-session mood (1-5)

Rating 1
2
Rating 2
8
Rating 3
6
Rating 4
35
Rating 5
15

Post-session energy (1-5)

Rating 1
1
Rating 2
3
Rating 3
18
Rating 4
16
Rating 5
6

Session type

training
19
match
2
tournament
1
friendly
1

n = 85 reflections from 26 coaches. Most profiles do not specify a coaching level (onboarding does not force one). Source: coachreflection.com.

Chart 7 / what coaches publicly discuss

FCA Skool feed temporarily unavailable. Refreshes hourly.

FAQ

Common questions about grassroots coaching, answered from the data

Each answer below is grounded in the live numbers shown above, refreshed weekly. Where the underlying cohort is small, the answer says so.

What do grassroots football coaches focus on most?

Across 41,739 coaching questions logged in FootballGPT, the most common topic is General Coaching at 33%. Technical practices also dominate the generation mix — 76.1% for U6-U9, falling to 50.3% for adult football.

see the chart →

What practice types work best for U6, U7, U8, U9?

In our data, 76.1% of practices coaches generate for U6-U9 are technical, only 14.5% are small-sided games. Most coaching guidance for this age band recommends the reverse — game-based learning is how children actually internalise football. The data shows the gap between guidance and practice.

see the chart →

When do grassroots football coaches plan their training week?

Monday and Tuesday dominate, with Monday the busiest day overall and a strong evening peak around 8pm UTC. The single hottest cell on the heatmap is Tuesday at 9am UTC. Sunday-night planning, despite the stereotype, is not the busiest slot. Coaches plan early in the week, not last-minute.

see the chart →

What age group is the most-coached in grassroots football?

Senior Youth (U16-U18) and Junior (U10-U12) are the largest bands by practice volume. Mini-soccer (U6-U9) is the third smallest. The "grassroots = wee kids" assumption does not hold up. Largest band: Junior (U10-U12) at 2,633 animated practices.

see the chart →

Are grassroots coaches the same audience as Football Manager players?

No. Of 41,739 mode-tagged queries, 56.6% come from coach mode and 34.6% from Football Manager video-game mode. They share the same AI tooling but with very different intent. Roughly one in four queries to a "football coaching AI" comes from someone playing the FM video game.

see the chart →

What questions do grassroots coaches ask AI most?

Topic detection across every query: General Coaching (33%), Formations & Tactics (15%), Session Planning (13%), Pressing & Defending (11%), Passing & Possession (9%). A single query can match more than one topic.

see the chart →

What licence do most grassroots football coaches hold?

Among 4,898 contributing coaches, qualification mix on CoachPage shows UEFA B, FA Level 1/2, Coerver, S&C and others. The cohort is small (~13 directory-visible coaches today) so the distribution is indicative rather than statistical.

see the chart →

What do football coaches reflect on after sessions?

From CoachReflect: top tags coaches attach to their post-session reflections include player_development, session_planning, tactical, communication, technique. Free-text reflection content is never published — only structured tags and ratings.

see the chart →

What do grassroots coaches publicly discuss in coaching communities?

From the FCA community: session design is the most-discussed theme this snapshot. The next most common are player management, community chat, tools and resources. Themes refreshed weekly from a fixed 13-bucket taxonomy.

see the chart →

How many football coaches contributed to this dataset?

4,898 distinct grassroots coaches generated the 10,172 animated practices in this dataset, alongside 41,739 logged questions. The dataset refreshes weekly.

see the chart →

Use the data

All charts are aggregate. No row-level data, no PII, no club or coach identifiers — ever. For interviews, additional cuts, or a press-ready summary, get in touch.

Common questions about grassroots football coaching data