Announcement

**Unregistered** · 08-17-2014, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

I laugh every time I hear a club or coach disparaged for recruiting. Come on people think about the odds of forming a U11 premier team that can stay together for any length of time when in this area they are ALWAYS form based upon geography. Do you know what the odds are of forming a quality team from the small population in any one clubs "home turf"?

Even recently successful teams that "appeared" to be organic like the WST-TS 97's had new players come from outside the club and in some cases outside the state. Even the great Ireland had players from outside the metro area.

The reality is that many quality players will begin their careers in Sandy, Oregon City, Canby, Vancouver, Woodburn and Salem. I guess those who derided TA or GS for recruiting those players would deny those same players the opportunity to move up and would sentence them to the mediocrity of their home clubs and the limits of the clubs coaches.

I'm never sure what the motivation of the anti recruiting crowd is either. Are they trying to protect their home club team from losing their better players to the better teams and coaches? Are they afraid of getting beat by a team of better players or are they afraid that their player will lose playing time when the better players come in to their club?

Either way this is competitive soccer and the better players benefit from moving to the best team they can make with a quality coach. The bottom line is college coaches don't hand out bonus points for sticking with the same team/club!

Quality coaches don't have to recruit. They take what they have and develop them. We have an over abundance of coaches who recruit players instead and think the are quality coaches.

**Unregistered** · 08-17-2014, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

Quality coaches don't have to recruit. They take what they have and develop them. We have an over abundance of coaches who recruit players instead and think the are quality coaches.

And the result is we don't have many solid players at u16 and on because players were not developed at younger ages but just recruited by coaches to form those U12 premier teams.

**Unregistered** · 08-17-2014, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

Quality coaches don't have to recruit. They take what they have and develop them. We have an over abundance of coaches who recruit players instead and think the are quality coaches.

Yet, you can't squeeze blood from a turnip. The higher and higher a team goes in quality of play, the wider and wider the net is for that team. I would agree with your comment if the DK's were all able physically, mentally and willing to put in the effort. Of course there are time and money constraints as well. Only 'developing' what you get originally, for T/S sake, let's say at U11. Is great, for that 'team feel', but then one DK moves, another quits soccer, etc. What you are espousing is why 80% of soccer clubs don't have High School teams.

Good coaches develop, recruit and retain athletes.

**Unregistered** · 08-17-2014, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

Yet, you can't squeeze blood from a turnip. The higher and higher a team goes in quality of play, the wider and wider the net is for that team. I would agree with your comment if the DK's were all able physically, mentally and willing to put in the effort. Of course there are time and money constraints as well. Only 'developing' what you get originally, for T/S sake, let's say at U11. Is great, for that 'team feel', but then one DK moves, another quits soccer, etc. What you are espousing is why 80% of soccer clubs don't have High School teams.

Good coaches develop, recruit and retain athletes.

Let's not forget that most players don't physically mature till 15 or later. A lot of potentially good players end up quitting before then because they are overlooked for the bigger stronger players to form the u11 or u12 super teams. If quality coaches would focus on development at younger ages maybe we would have a bigger pool at older ages. Forming super teams at young ages is more for coaches and clubs then players. Third world countries kick our butts and I am sure many players were not on super teams at 11 or 12. The problem is not the players it's the coaches. They like to think they know how to develop but most don't. They worry to much about the State championships at younger ages.

**Unregistered** · 08-17-2014, 03:41 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

Let's not forget that most players don't physically mature till 15 or later. A lot of potentially good players end up quitting before then because they are overlooked for the bigger stronger players to form the u11 or u12 super teams. If quality coaches would focus on development at younger ages maybe we would have a bigger pool at older ages. Forming super teams at young ages is more for coaches and clubs then players. Third world countries kick our butts and I am sure many players were not on super teams at 11 or 12. The problem is not the players it's the coaches. They like to think they know how to develop but most don't. They worry to much about the State championships at younger ages.

This. It is not just an Oregon problem though. It is why North Korea, yeah that North Korea, just knocked the USWNT out of the U20 World Cup. Bunch of athletes that never learned how to play, but have trophy cases full of U12 silverware.

**Unregistered** · 08-17-2014, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

Let's not forget that most players don't physically mature till 15 or later. A lot of potentially good players end up quitting before then because they are overlooked for the bigger stronger players to form the u11 or u12 super teams. If quality coaches would focus on development at younger ages maybe we would have a bigger pool at older ages. Forming super teams at young ages is more for coaches and clubs then players. Third world countries kick our butts and I am sure many players were not on super teams at 11 or 12. The problem is not the players it's the coaches. They like to think they know how to develop but most don't. They worry to much about the State championships at younger ages.

Boys.....Yes. Girls by about 14 they are just about done. There will be some later bloomers and outliers, sure.

**Unregistered** · 08-17-2014, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

Boys.....Yes. Girls by about 14 they are just about done. There will be some later bloomers and outliers, sure.

Girls too. You don't seem to read that much on player development.

**Unregistered** · 08-17-2014, 05:19 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

Girls too. You don't seem to read that much on player development.

Girls physically develop earlier then boys. We build super teams with the fastest strongest biggest girls at young ages. We do a disservice as these girls end up relying on that to win games. Tiny girls end up on B teams and get overlooked. What happens by u15 those bigger, stronger girls are behind in skills because the focus was on winning and the tiny girls who are overlooked quit for another sport. Placing super teams together at to early ages actually is more harmful. Won't even get into the player burn out stuff. We and coaches always recruiting for super teams take the joy out of the game.

**Unregistered** · 08-17-2014, 06:51 PM

http://blog.3four3.com/2012/07/31/re...r-development/

**Unregistered** · 08-17-2014, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

http://blog.3four3.com/2012/07/31/re...r-development/

http://www.vysa.com/coaches/99579.html

**Unregistered** · 08-17-2014, 07:46 PM

There is a big difference between recruiting and developing players too. There been many coaches who recruit at younger ages, win games , but as players and teams get older most fizzle out. Then what happens the coaches start all over again with another group of u11 or u12 players. Maybe the recruiting should focus more or better coaches instead of players at these young ages.

**Unregistered** · 08-17-2014, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

There is a big difference between recruiting and developing players too. There been many coaches who recruit at younger ages, win games , but as players and teams get older most fizzle out. Then what happens the coaches start all over again with another group of u11 or u12 players. Maybe the recruiting should focus more or better coaches instead of players at these young ages.

Well that certainly does not apply to TA as his NEON team competed through U19 and Sodium just completed U18 and the core of Onyx looks to be headed beyond U16.

**Unregistered** · 08-17-2014, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by Unregistered View Post

Well that certainly does not apply to TA as his NEON team competed through U19 and Sodium just completed U18 and the core of Onyx looks to be headed beyond U16.

So out of all the coaches in the area only one can hold teams together and develop players. Wow. All those other coaches blowing smoke they can recruit top players and develop. That's an arguement why players should move teams if clubs don't rotate coaches every 2 years.

**Unregistered** · 08-18-2014, 01:01 AM

[QUOTE=Unregistered;1345170]Well that certainly does not apply to TA as his NEON team competed through U19 and Sodium just completed U18 and the core of Onyx looks to be headed beyond U16.[/QUOTE

No team between NEON and Sodium at U18?? LOL!

Announcement

Why player movement is required

Why player movement is required

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment