Is possession style soccer really useful for kids to learn?

Any chance you can get me in touch with those 60 year olds. I would like to form a U70 club that competes in the EGNL (Elite Grandpas National League). My coaching fees will be $600 a month minus travel costs. I promise each U70 player will get a spot in a D1 assisted living home in 10 years with some scholarship opportunities from Medicare.

Don't you mean Above 70? :)

Yawn. 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.

I think you have fabricated this unathletic thing in your head due to what you want to believe when you see your kid play. I don't think anyone in support of a possession style of play has said "I will take the slowest most unathletic kid as long as they can do triple scissors in place and pass the ball." You completely miss the point. Everyone in soccer has to be an athlete and fast. Period. Next. How do you train that fast kid and give them fast thought, fast feet, fast play, that is the actual debate. It starts at youth and youth soccer in Washington favors speed and size at the earliest of age and forgets to have a good training method which incorporates skill. The debate is how you take the selected speed and size and turn the youth into speedy, technical, intelligent all around athletes that can bubble up and actually compete as a great pool of candidates to the overseas pros someday.

Yawn. 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.

Teach 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.

Any chance you can get me in touch with those 60 year olds. I would like to form a U70 club that competes in the EGNL (Elite Grandpas National League). My coaching fees will be $600 a month minus travel costs. I promise each U70 player will get a spot in a D1 assisted living home in 10 years with some scholarship opportunities from Medicare.

Teach 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.

Nobody 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.

What legions are you referring to? The legions are clearly of the opposite mindset in this country, but go ahead and county the stars above the USMNT crest. As others have stated, being able to possess and understand circumstances and make decisions of where, when and why to play the ball, increase or slow down the pace of the game etc. etc. are key aspects that make a great player at the highest level. The word athleticism is vastly misused in American youth soccer. Much of what I hear focuses on speed, strength, power or endurance, and in fact many of the players I see have these but struggle with the same levels of balance, agility or calculation of movement. At the world class level those last three are hugely important and they are learned by practicing a level of control vs playing heavily or solely on the strengths of the former concepts of athleticism.

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.

Wrong

Are you the who cares guy as well? You simplified and dropped a word.

Nobody 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.

The style of play a team employs to be successful on the field (i.e. win matches) is determined by their technical ability, tactical understanding and opponent. Sure I want more of the ball, but I'll trade percentage of possession for quality chances on goal any day of the week. If the other team wants to pass the ball back and forth across their back line when losing 0-2, they can have the ball as the game now dictates we kill the clock (another tactical lesson for players). Additionally, play in Washington is often more direct than other states; if you play on grass in the rain, it's tough to move the ball unless you have superior athleticism/strength to hit a well paced pass. So environment also impacts the style of play.

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.

Nobody 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 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.

Wrong

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.

Right it can’t be passing just to pass. Intentional. Need to do what makes sense and coaches need to be able to covey that.

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.

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.

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.

Stop saying things that strike a balance. It's either all net or all foot. :)

I 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.

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.

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.

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.