Development or Winning

[Unregistered]

Youth sports parents are the worst. Not all of course, but too many and the trouble is that they don't know it.

[Unregistered]

Youth sports parents are the worst. Not all of course, but too many and the trouble is that they don't know it.

Youth sports parents pay for youth sports providing hundreds of opportunities for young athletes, their coaches, referees and umpires, league officials and themselves to enjoy all of the great things about youth sports.

Youth sports parents are the best.

[Unregistered]

Youth sports parents are the best.

Yeah, they're awesome.

http://turtleboysports.com/heres-the...ion-to-resign/

[Unregistered]

What a dumb thread. The ignorant responses are entertaining though.

[Unregistered]

There needs to be a context for the development vs winning debate. The first is what age player are we talking about? The second is how you define development.

I've said this before, but U12 and under, the focus in games should be in developing players, not winning games. At U13/14, once players are playing 11v11 and are physically and emotionally more mature, winning should begin to be emphasized more and concepts like hard work, commitment, and earning starting positions and playing time should be introduced. By U15, the focus in games should be about winning matches and player development should be the focus during training, with a focus on owning personal development off the field.

As far as how we define "development", at the younger ages it means equal play time during games and opportunities for players to play all positions and not be branded a "defender", "keeper", or substitute/throw-away forward (where weak coaches hide bad players). As kids get older, play time should still be meaningful, but not necessarily equal based in the factors listed above. Players should start to settle into a few positions to really learn them and ideally they should be postitions that the player are well suited for. By U15, play time should be based on ability, performance, and work ethic and positions should be based on what is best for the team first and what is best for the player second. Soccer is a team sport and at the end of the day, you play where you are needed, not necessarily where you like are are most comfortable.

Develooment never really stops, but where development happens shifts. By High School ages, most players will be done with competitive soccer by 18. At some point, winning has to matter. 14-18 is that period. The reality is the competitive period for soccer in this country. Competing for High School glory and college roster spots/scholarships.

[Unregistered]

There needs to be a context for the development vs winning debate. The first is what age player are we talking about? The second is how you define development.

I've said this before, but U12 and under, the focus in games should be in developing players, not winning games. At U13/14, once players are playing 11v11 and are physically and emotionally more mature, winning should begin to be emphasized more and concepts like hard work, commitment, and earning starting positions and playing time should be introduced. By U15, the focus in games should be about winning matches and player development should be the focus during training, with a focus on owning personal development off the field.

As far as how we define "development", at the younger ages it means equal play time during games and opportunities for players to play all positions and not be branded a "defender", "keeper", or substitute/throw-away forward (where weak coaches hide bad players). As kids get older, play time should still be meaningful, but not necessarily equal based in the factors listed above. Players should start to settle into a few positions to really learn them and ideally they should be postitions that the player are well suited for. By U15, play time should be based on ability, performance, and work ethic and positions should be based on what is best for the team first and what is best for the player second. Soccer is a team sport and at the end of the day, you play where you are needed, not necessarily where you like are are most comfortable.

Develooment never really stops, but where development happens shifts. By High School ages, most players will be done with competitive soccer by 18. At some point, winning has to matter. 14-18 is that period. The reality is the competitive period for soccer in this country. Competing for High School glory and college roster spots/scholarships.

OP said U14.

[Unregistered]

More curious about your definition of focusing on winning.

There needs to be a context for the development vs winning debate. The first is what age player are we talking about? The second is how you define development.

I've said this before, but U12 and under, the focus in games should be in developing players, not winning games. At U13/14, once players are playing 11v11 and are physically and emotionally more mature, winning should begin to be emphasized more and concepts like hard work, commitment, and earning starting positions and playing time should be introduced. By U15, the focus in games should be about winning matches and player development should be the focus during training, with a focus on owning personal development off the field.

As far as how we define "development", at the younger ages it means equal play time during games and opportunities for players to play all positions and not be branded a "defender", "keeper", or substitute/throw-away forward (where weak coaches hide bad players). As kids get older, play time should still be meaningful, but not necessarily equal based in the factors listed above. Players should start to settle into a few positions to really learn them and ideally they should be postitions that the player are well suited for. By U15, play time should be based on ability, performance, and work ethic and positions should be based on what is best for the team first and what is best for the player second. Soccer is a team sport and at the end of the day, you play where you are needed, not necessarily where you like are are most comfortable.

Develooment never really stops, but where development happens shifts. By High School ages, most players will be done with competitive soccer by 18. At some point, winning has to matter. 14-18 is that period. The reality is the competitive period for soccer in this country. Competing for High School glory and college roster spots/scholarships.

[Unregistered]

So it sounds like you define a focus on winning by having a coach play players at their strongest positions and maximizing game time for starters?

There needs to be a context for the development vs winning debate. The first is what age player are we talking about? The second is how you define development.

I've said this before, but U12 and under, the focus in games should be in developing players, not winning games. At U13/14, once players are playing 11v11 and are physically and emotionally more mature, winning should begin to be emphasized more and concepts like hard work, commitment, and earning starting positions and playing time should be introduced. By U15, the focus in games should be about winning matches and player development should be the focus during training, with a focus on owning personal development off the field.

As far as how we define "development", at the younger ages it means equal play time during games and opportunities for players to play all positions and not be branded a "defender", "keeper", or substitute/throw-away forward (where weak coaches hide bad players). As kids get older, play time should still be meaningful, but not necessarily equal based in the factors listed above. Players should start to settle into a few positions to really learn them and ideally they should be postitions that the player are well suited for. By U15, play time should be based on ability, performance, and work ethic and positions should be based on what is best for the team first and what is best for the player second. Soccer is a team sport and at the end of the day, you play where you are needed, not necessarily where you like are are most comfortable.

Develooment never really stops, but where development happens shifts. By High School ages, most players will be done with competitive soccer by 18. At some point, winning has to matter. 14-18 is that period. The reality is the competitive period for soccer in this country. Competing for High School glory and college roster spots/scholarships.

[Unregistered]

So it sounds like you define a focus on winning by having a coach play players at their strongest positions and maximizing game time for starters?

Yes, with a few caveats. One, starter may not be defined by the best player for a particular position if factors like attitude, work ethic, commitment to the team, team dynamic are lacking. That's my personal preference, may not be the case for other coaches. Two, if I am playing to win and I have a player who I think can play a position that I need filled better than the one they are comfortable in or prefer playing, they will play where the team and I need them.

As far as substitutions go, I'm not going to be concerned with playing time or who is on the bench, it is going to be about performance on the field and the match ups. If we need to make adjustments to increase our odds of winning, we do.

Bottom line, at some point winning must be a priority as that is the goal of competitive sports. The World Cup, the Olympics, State Championships, etc., all about winning and proving who is the best. The other lessons learned from competition about losing with dignity, hard work, being part of a team, all come about in the process, but the end result is who wins.

As far as U14 goes, it fits with my previous post about introducing the concept of winning over developing all players and equal play. It is a transition year in my mind and should be balanced while preparing players for the more serious competition later on. I also think there are times when the development philosophy should be prioritized at the older ages over winning: showcase tournaments critical for recruiting and Academy play where the individual development may be more important than the team result in some cases. So, not 100% black and white, but for 95% of players it is pretty clear cut at the older ages.

[Unregistered]

If the kids get 3 to 4 hours of training for 12 weeks prior to playing games on 6 Saturdays, then the weaker players get about 40 hours of "equality" for every 6 hours of game time where there might be perceived "inequality". because they ride the bench or play midfield when they want to play forward. What's the big deal? They can experiment with other positions during scrimmages, but come game day, you put on your best jersey (not your practice T-shirt), and you play to win on a field with lines (not one made out of cones). Kids who have to ride the bench during that 15% of the team activity will understand that they have to make their own opportunities. Putting a kid in a position they don't like because they are good at it, or not playing them because they aren't good enough isn't going to kill them. It will incentivize them, and gives them an idea of how the real world works. The reality is, the kids know when they aren't good enough anyway. They can tell from the way they are treated by others. I had an assistant coach who was deluded into believing his kid was good at keeper, so he continually tried to play her there. But she knew she wasn't good at it, and it caused her a ton of stress. I put her in Defense, and she was actually relieved not to play a role she wasn't good at because her Dad was trying to make her into something she wasn't. Kids aren't stupid, and know when they need to work more.

[Unregistered]

Winning is a result, not a focus. Winning happens as a result of leadership, quality trainings, personal and collective development, team and player morale, attitude, work ethic, commitment, etc.

Personally, I think the focus on winning has taken a toll on our teams in the Olympics and World Cup.

Managing playing time is a difficult balance in getting the results you need and building a team. It takes effort and concern from a coach to accomplish both. Good luck when one of your starters goes down with injury. That sub will enter the game with little to no game experience. That lack of concern for the whole team will result in limited depth and experience on the roster. Good luck building from ground zero next season.

Yes, with a few caveats. One, starter may not be defined by the best player for a particular position if factors like attitude, work ethic, commitment to the team, team dynamic are lacking. That's my personal preference, may not be the case for other coaches. Two, if I am playing to win and I have a player who I think can play a position that I need filled better than the one they are comfortable in or prefer playing, they will play where the team and I need them.

As far as substitutions go, I'm not going to be concerned with playing time or who is on the bench, it is going to be about performance on the field and the match ups. If we need to make adjustments to increase our odds of winning, we do.

Bottom line, at some point winning must be a priority as that is the goal of competitive sports. The World Cup, the Olympics, State Championships, etc., all about winning and proving who is the best. The other lessons learned from competition about losing with dignity, hard work, being part of a team, all come about in the process, but the end result is who wins.

As far as U14 goes, it fits with my previous post about introducing the concept of winning over developing all players and equal play. It is a transition year in my mind and should be balanced while preparing players for the more serious competition later on. I also think there are times when the development philosophy should be prioritized at the older ages over winning: showcase tournaments critical for recruiting and Academy play where the individual development may be more important than the team result in some cases. So, not 100% black and white, but for 95% of players it is pretty clear cut at the older ages.

[Unregistered]

Winning is a result, not a focus. Winning happens as a result of leadership, quality trainings, personal and collective development, team and player morale, attitude, work ethic, commitment, etc.

Personally, I think the focus on winning has taken a toll on our teams in the Olympics and World Cup.

Managing playing time is a difficult balance in getting the results you need and building a team. It takes effort and concern from a coach to accomplish both. Good luck when one of your starters goes down with injury. That sub will enter the game with little to no game experience. That lack of concern for the whole team will result in limited depth and experience on the roster. Good luck building from ground zero next season.

Ha! Each kid spends 8 hours learning every position for every 1 hour that they don't play it in a game. Just because I have my best center-mid playing center-mid doesn't mean that the other kids can't play it. And those other kids can earn the right to play center-mid in games by putting in the effort.

And if "Winning happens as a result of leadership, quality trainings, personal and collective development, team and player morale, attitude, work ethic, commitment, etc. ", then isn't a focus on winning good because you have to create that environment? How do you think wins happen??? You have to develop the kids if you want to win. If you want to win a car race, you better develop a good racecar!

[Unregistered]

You play sports to win, if you don't then you are a loser and that will carry over into your adult life.

[Unregistered]

You play sports to win, if you don't then you are a loser and that will carry over into your adult life.

Exactly. It's like when you have an employee who only cares about putting up numbers, and not really understanding what they are doing. When it gets sticky, they are useless to me. Just sell some stuff to make President's club, then have everything come back as wrong.

Or, they guy who walks in the door with all the certifications in the world, but can't apply any of it in a real world environment.

Yep, you just prove the point of what I look for when hiring...completely opposite of what you just wrote.

[Unregistered]

Exactly. It's like when you have an employee who only cares about putting up numbers, and not really understanding what they are doing. When it gets sticky, they are useless to me. Just sell some stuff to make President's club, then have everything come back as wrong.

Or, they guy who walks in the door with all the certifications in the world, but can't apply any of it in a real world environment.

Yep, you just prove the point of what I look for when hiring...completely opposite of what you just wrote.

You think a guy who doesn't care about winning is going to come in a put up tons of numbers? He is going to do the least amount to get by and collect his check. When the poop hits the fan he won't be pitching in. Where do you work Candyland? A winner is going to know how to play the game and pick up teammates that are under performing while pulling in sales for himself.

The guy with the certifications..... they are called participation trophies. A winner will come in with an existing book of business he poached from his last place of employment and turn them into your customers.

You need a reality check. Speaking of checking have you checked little Landon's homework yet?