Video feedback for players: from clip to something they can use

There is a widespread assumption that video is feedback in itself. It does not hold. A clip shows a player what happened. It does not tell them what they should have done, why it mattered, or what to practise.

Video is evidence. The feedback is what you say about it.

The three parts that have to be there

All usable video feedback has the same structure, whatever the sport:

1. The situation. The clip. Twenty seconds, one point.
2. What you saw. Your observation, in your own words.
3. What they do next time. One thing, concrete enough to practise.

Drop the third and it is not feedback. It is a review.

An example of the three together:

23:10 against Valby. You receive with your back to goal, and you only look up once you have it. That is why the pass goes backwards instead of forwards.

Next time: check over your shoulder before the ball arrives. Try it deliberately in small-sided games on Thursday.

That takes thirty seconds to write, once you know which moment you are writing about. It is the last part that is hard.

Why finding the moments is the hard bit

Most coaches can formulate good feedback perfectly well. The ability is not what is missing — the raw material is.

By Tuesday you can remember three things from Saturday's match, and those three are usually whatever happened last, or whatever made you angry. The rest is gone. So the feedback ends up either generic ("you need to work harder defensively") or aimed only at the two or three players who did something memorable.

The video has all the material, but it is ninety minutes long and has no index.

Your own voice is the index

You were already commentating on the match while it happened. Out loud. You said "look up, Lucas" at the exact moment it was relevant. That is precisely the marker the video is missing.

If the audio from the touchline is stored with timestamps, and those timestamps are set against the video's clock, you get a list of the moments you yourself thought worth commenting on — with a link into the footage at each one. The setup takes two minutes and works with Veo, Spiideo, Hudl and the rest.

Then Tuesday's task is no longer "watch the match through". It is "read thirty lines and pick five".

What to send, and what not to

Send: something that worked, with a reason. One development point. One concrete thing for the next session.

Do not send: a list of everything that went wrong. Sarcasm that was funny on the touchline. Comparisons with teammates. Anything you wrote while still annoyed.

With young players especially, what you shout in the heat of a match and what you write to a thirteen-year-old are not the same language. The first is energy. The second is documentation, which the parents will read too. Always read it through before sending.

The format matters more than people think

Players should not have to install an app to read three sentences. They should not need a password they will forget before the next match.

What works in practice is a page they can open on their phone from one link, gathering the whole season in one place. Then they can go back and see that something genuinely developed — and that is the part that gets them to read the next one.

A rhythm you can sustain

• During the match: nothing extra. You talk as you always do.
• After the match, 2 minutes: set the times against the video.
• Tuesday, 15 minutes: pick five moments, write three sentences for each, send.

It is not an analysis programme. It is a habit. And a habit that survives a whole season is worth more than a system that lasts until October.

See also feedback for young players on the wording, and video analysis for youth teams on what is worth showing in a room.