Originally posted by Guest
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Is possession style soccer really useful for kids to learn?
Collapse
X
-
Guest replied
- Quote
-
Guest repliedOriginally posted by Guest View PostYawn. More mindless defense of the "unathletic" player. Please identify the unathletic players on Man City's (or Real Madrid, Liverpool) roster. I'll wait....
They might have a couple of small guys who play can play attacking midfield, but Bernardo's work rate/stamina is ridiculous. Top to bottom, the roster is made up of freakish athletes that can play direct, intelligent, and controlled soccer. Give up the fairy tale that unathletic players can make it in the big leagues.
- Quote
Leave a comment:
-
Guest repliedYawn. More mindless defense of the "unathletic" player. Please identify the unathletic players on Man City's (or Real Madrid, Liverpool) roster. I'll wait....
They might have a couple of small guys who play can play attacking midfield, but Bernardo's work rate/stamina is ridiculous. Top to bottom, the roster is made up of freakish athletes that can play direct, intelligent, and controlled soccer. Give up the fairy tale that unathletic players can make it in the big leagues.
- Quote
Leave a comment:
-
Guest repliedOriginally posted by Guest View PostTeach the kids a game they can play till they are old and have bad knees.
see lots of old guys and gals enjoy the game of soccer well into their 60’s.
bootball seems to loose all the players right about puberty.
- Quote
Leave a comment:
-
Guest repliedTeach the kids a game they can play till they are old and have bad knees.
see lots of old guys and gals enjoy the game of soccer well into their 60’s.
bootball seems to loose all the players right about puberty.
- Quote
Leave a comment:
-
Guest repliedOriginally posted by Guest View PostNobody said every team should play as direct as possible. It's the legions of unathletic kids/parents who drone on about a style of soccer that has proven to be unproductive in the modern game.
In fact I communicated that possession is important!
The fact is - regardless of style, the most effective teams covet athleticism. If your child is not athletic, you aren't going to find a successful club to join that plays a possession style and covers unathletic kids.
Direct, possession- it doesn't matter. Unathletic kids won't make it to the highest levels in youth, collegiate, or professional soccer.
In my experience the best youth teams blend athleticism and direct/possession styles well. Very few boys teams in Washington play an exclusively direct brand of soccer. Some coaches are more direct than others. But most coaches take what they are given.
I think it has also been mentioned that there are 11 positions on the field in the big leagues and each has its own requirements. Some more athletic and direct and some more intelligent and controlled, despite the playing style of a given team. I think we can agree that man city has shown the desire the keep the ball is a highly successful strategy, and that the players on the team, while perhaps not the most ‘athletic’ by American norms are world class players.
- Quote
Leave a comment:
-
Guest repliedOriginally posted by Guest View Post
Wrong
- Quote
Leave a comment:
-
Guest repliedOriginally posted by Guest View PostNobody said every team should play as direct as possible. It's the legions of unathletic kids/parents who drone on about a style of soccer that has proven to be unproductive in the modern game.
In fact I communicated that possession is important!
The fact is - regardless of style, the most effective teams covet athleticism. If your child is not athletic, you aren't going to find a successful club to join that plays a possession style and covers unathletic kids.
Direct, possession- it doesn't matter. Unathletic kids won't make it to the highest levels in youth, collegiate, or professional soccer.
In my experience the best youth teams blend athleticism and direct/possession styles well. Very few boys teams in Washington play an exclusively direct brand of soccer. Some coaches are more direct than others. But most coaches take what they are given.
All that being said; I think players should be trained to make good/quick decisions that maintain possession of the ball until there is a good opportunity to play the risky ball that leads to a scoring opportunity. If you possess for possessions sake you lose focus of the ultimate goal - to score goals and win.
- Quote
Leave a comment:
-
Guest repliedNobody said every team should play as direct as possible. It's the legions of unathletic kids/parents who drone on about a style of soccer that has proven to be unproductive in the modern game.
In fact I communicated that possession is important!
The fact is - regardless of style, the most effective teams covet athleticism. If your child is not athletic, you aren't going to find a successful club to join that plays a possession style and covers unathletic kids.
Direct, possession- it doesn't matter. Unathletic kids won't make it to the highest levels in youth, collegiate, or professional soccer.
In my experience the best youth teams blend athleticism and direct/possession styles well. Very few boys teams in Washington play an exclusively direct brand of soccer. Some coaches are more direct than others. But most coaches take what they are given.
- Quote
Leave a comment:
-
Guest repliedOriginally posted by Guest View Post
I love this simple minded answer that always pops up. Of course the objective is to win the game. Let me say it again. Of course the objective is to win the game......The method in which you win will forever be a debate in both youth and the pros.
With possession, theoretically, you should have more chances to put the ball in the back of the net if the other team has less touches on the ball. Doesn't always work that way, especially at youth when kids are trying to developing mastery of the ball. Theoretically with direct soccer you are constantly pressing the goal , losing it , winning it back, pressing the goal. Ugly soccer but can be effective. Tiki Taka was a good experiment for a while but was also unbalanced. Hence the movement to a driving possession. or possession but with more intent. Makes for a funner game to watch than scramble forward 50/50 ball. In the pros you have to work with the players you can buy. In youth you can develop them in your "style" at a young age. My opinion is clubs are not focused very well on that. Clubs seem to simply be focused on putting the ball in the back of the net every Saturday. I am not saying that is right or wrong. Just pointing out what the emphasis seems to be.
- Quote
Leave a comment:
-
Guest repliedOriginally posted by Guest View Post
Yes. But I've seen a TON of local teams who claim to be possession oriented that produce legions of players that seemingly can ONLY play 5 yard square or back passes. No confidence or ability to take people on. No creativity going forward. To me that's just as bad as boot and chase.
- Quote
Leave a comment:
-
Guest repliedOriginally posted by Guest View Post
Spot on. And for the simple minded answers that we see, I'd guess it's from folks who just can't see the game well and need things to be more simple and direct. Can't see why the switch or drop back is a better option. Rather force, turnover and chase. Rinse and repeat. The best teams in the world are certainly not in the MLS or USMNT. And certainly not a US college team. The best teams balance some level of intelligent possession and exploiting forward opportunities. Even Real Madrid will play from the back and switch through the back. Can't do that if all you learn is boot and chase and go direct at all costs. If you learn possession early, it's easy to learn how to be more direct. Less so vice versa.
- Quote
Leave a comment:
-
Guest repliedOriginally posted by Guest View Post
I think you need both. There are certain positions where straight line speed is not as important and vision, technical control and passing skills and creativity are much more critical.
- Quote
Leave a comment:
-
Guest repliedOriginally posted by Guest View PostI will take a team of fast strong athletes over a team of highly technical skilled players any day. The goal is to put the ball in the net. Not to have all touch the ball.
- Quote
Leave a comment:
-
Guest repliedOriginally posted by Guest View Post
I love this simple minded answer that always pops up. Of course the objective is to win the game. Let me say it again. Of course the objective is to win the game......The method in which you win will forever be a debate in both youth and the pros.
With possession, theoretically, you should have more chances to put the ball in the back of the net if the other team has less touches on the ball. Doesn't always work that way, especially at youth when kids are trying to developing mastery of the ball. Theoretically with direct soccer you are constantly pressing the goal , losing it , winning it back, pressing the goal. Ugly soccer but can be effective. Tiki Taka was a good experiment for a while but was also unbalanced. Hence the movement to a driving possession. or possession but with more intent. Makes for a funner game to watch than scramble forward 50/50 ball. In the pros you have to work with the players you can buy. In youth you can develop them in your "style" at a young age. My opinion is clubs are not focused very well on that. Clubs seem to simply be focused on putting the ball in the back of the net every Saturday. I am not saying that is right or wrong. Just pointing out what the emphasis seems to be.
- Quote
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: