What should be the primary goal of competitive youth soccer?

[Unregistered]

What should be the primary goal of competitive youth soccer?...to be competitive or to develop?
As you answer, keep in mind that club structure may be different based on location and volume. Larger market clubs may have the volume to create multiple teams where smaller markets may not.

I ask this question because it boils down to two basic philosophies:
1) select the best players available for your team and field the team that give you the best opportunity to win (not everyone makes the team and you have to make the team each year). Continued development is a focus, but not the primary.
2) Selections are not based on the best available but rather on growing club numbers with idea that the club should be developing player or coaching them up. Players get equal playing time and winning is the goal but not the primary, development is.

I look at most other sports: Lacrosse, Hockey, Baseball and Basketball youth competitive travel teams and it appears these are based on a true competitive models...try out, best players are selected and the best players start and play the majority of the game. The goal is to win. They rely on the rec programs as the primary feeders systems. Continued development is a focus, but not the primary.

[Unregistered]

What should be the primary goal of competitive youth soccer?...to be competitive or to develop?
As you answer, keep in mind that club structure may be different based on location and volume. Larger market clubs may have the volume to create multiple teams where smaller markets may not.

I ask this question because it boils down to two basic philosophies:
1) select the best players available for your team and field the team that give you the best opportunity to win (not everyone makes the team and you have to make the team each year). Continued development is a focus, but not the primary.
2) Selections are not based on the best available but rather on growing club numbers with idea that the club should be developing player or coaching them up. Players get equal playing time and winning is the goal but not the primary, development is.

I look at most other sports: Lacrosse, Hockey, Baseball and Basketball youth competitive travel teams and it appears these are based on a true competitive models...try out, best players are selected and the best players start and play the majority of the game. The goal is to win. They rely on the rec programs as the primary feeders systems. Continued development is a focus, but not the primary.

No matter which philosophy I think the primary goal has to always remain continued development. Players and teams have to strive to become better, incorporate new strategies, and coaches have to get better as well. Even in the pros there are always things to improve.

[Unregistered]

No matter which philosophy I think the primary goal has to always remain continued development. Players and teams have to strive to become better, incorporate new strategies, and coaches have to get better as well. Even in the pros there are always things to improve.

Any competetive environment is win over development.. High School plays the best players. Clubs play the best players. If an athlete is good enough for college that coach is paid to win games. The coach is not there to develop a player for the pros. If a player makes it to the pros, the job is to win. Pro & college coaches do not develop anyone. They teach a system.. I believe it's the same for most competetive clubs. A players development is the responsibility of the player & family.. Think about it. High School, Club, College & Pro all have paid coaches. Coaches are graded on a bottom line, wins & losses. If you want to keep your job then win.. If your kid is on a winning team they will get looked at. Scouts don't scout losers...Think about your own job. You are paid to do a job, if you want to learn something more or develop, alot of that has to be done on your own time... We parents think it's the clubs job to develop our kids. We write a check and expect scholarship offers.

[Unregistered]

Any competetive environment is win over development.. High School plays the best players. Clubs play the best players. If an athlete is good enough for college that coach is paid to win games. The coach is not there to develop a player for the pros. If a player makes it to the pros, the job is to win. Pro & college coaches do not develop anyone. They teach a system.. I believe it's the same for most competetive clubs. A players development is the responsibility of the player & family.. Think about it. High School, Club, College & Pro all have paid coaches. Coaches are graded on a bottom line, wins & losses. If you want to keep your job then win.. If your kid is on a winning team they will get looked at. Scouts don't scout losers...Think about your own job. You are paid to do a job, if you want to learn something more or develop, alot of that has to be done on your own time... We parents think it's the clubs job to develop our kids. We write a check and expect scholarship offers.

They are not mutually exclusive. To develop players in a system is the way to win. Even the best players need to develop as a team in a system to win. It is the job of clubs and coaches to develop to win.

[Unregistered]

What should be the primary goal of competitive youth soccer?...to be competitive or to develop?
As you answer, keep in mind that club structure may be different based on location and volume. Larger market clubs may have the volume to create multiple teams where smaller markets may not.

I ask this question because it boils down to two basic philosophies:
1) select the best players available for your team and field the team that give you the best opportunity to win (not everyone makes the team and you have to make the team each year). Continued development is a focus, but not the primary.
2) Selections are not based on the best available but rather on growing club numbers with idea that the club should be developing player or coaching them up. Players get equal playing time and winning is the goal but not the primary, development is.

I look at most other sports: Lacrosse, Hockey, Baseball and Basketball youth competitive travel teams and it appears these are based on a true competitive models...try out, best players are selected and the best players start and play the majority of the game. The goal is to win. They rely on the rec programs as the primary feeders systems. Continued development is a focus, but not the primary.

Every club should try to establish a consistent and club-wide philosophy. However, in part, that consistency depends upon the tryout selection and individual philosophies of its coaches. Even those clubs which focus on a possession style of play and continued player development have a few coaches who, in order to win now, can't help but focus their try-out selections on bigger-stronger-faster players and have their teams play far more directly than their DOC likes.

As for me, player selection should not be based on growing the club's numbers, not every player should make the team and playing time should increase for the better players during tournament and championship play. However, and particularly in the younger age groups, winning is only one goal and player development should be far more important.

In answer to your question, I say the primary goal of competitive youth soccer should be player development and, in furtherance of that goal, clubs should focus on a possession style of play.

[Unregistered]

is this right?

Would you agree that practice is for player development and system training, league games and friendlies are for implementation and getting player experience (shared time with all players), and tournaments are to compete (which may mean not everyone has equal playing time, and in some cases, don't play). Is it wrong in a competitive environment to dish out playing time based on skill? Does every player deserve equal playing time?

[Unregistered]

Would you agree that practice is for player development and system training, league games and friendlies are for implementation and getting player experience (shared time with all players), and tournaments are to compete (which may mean not everyone has equal playing time, and in some cases, don't play). Is it wrong in a competitive environment to dish out playing time based on skill? Does every player deserve equal playing time?

The coach needs to make sure the kids who are working hard outside of practice and showing up for practice are rewarded. The kids who are not working hard or skipping practices should not have equal playing time. This is competitive soccer. It is the same in any other competitive sport.

[Unregistered]

Would you agree that practice is for player development and system training, league games and friendlies are for implementation and getting player experience (shared time with all players), and tournaments are to compete (which may mean not everyone has equal playing time, and in some cases, don't play). Is it wrong in a competitive environment to dish out playing time based on skill? Does every player deserve equal playing time?

It depends on the age.

[Unregistered]

Does it matter

The coach needs to make sure the kids who are working hard outside of practice and showing up for practice are rewarded. The kids who are not working hard or skipping practices should not have equal playing time. This is competitive soccer. It is the same in any other competitive sport.

Does it really matter who's working the hardest? The best players are the best players. Have you ever seen the best player or a top player not play. Sure they may not start, but I've never seen a top player sit for any real length of time in game that counts.

[Unregistered]

Would you agree that practice is for player development and system training, league games and friendlies are for implementation and getting player experience (shared time with all players), and tournaments are to compete (which may mean not everyone has equal playing time, and in some cases, don't play). Is it wrong in a competitive environment to dish out playing time based on skill? Does every player deserve equal playing time?

In competitive youth soccer I believe that: skill may be a significant factor in playing time; neither league games, friendlies nor tournament games require equal playing time; every player who attends all required practice sessions deserves some playing time in every league game, friendly and tournament game; and, regardless of talent, every player who was able to, but did not, attend the required practice sessions should not play at all in the next league game, friendly or tournament game.

[Unregistered]

In competitive youth soccer I believe that: skill may be a significant factor in playing time; neither league games, friendlies nor tournament games require equal playing time; every player who attends all required practice sessions deserves some playing time in every league game, friendly and tournament game; and, regardless of talent, every player who was able to, but did not, attend the required practice sessions should not play at all in the next league game, friendly or tournament game.

I like this. The part that is hard to put into action is the last part "regardless of talent, every player who was able to, but did not, attend the required practice sessions should not play at all in the next league game, friendly or tournament game." It is hard to define "who was able to" as a coach. How can determine how sick a player is or if the player had a more important family obligation or religious holiday. It should be cut and dry.. a player misses practice or a game for any reason, they do not start the next game and sit out time on the bench based on how many practices or games are missed. The coach would need to set the policy and keep accurate records for fairness, but sitting out the next whole game is a bit extreme. It can be tough on the team and the team might lose, but the players and coach need parameters.

[Unregistered]

What should be the primary goal of competitive youth soccer?...to be competitive or to develop?
As you answer, keep in mind that club structure may be different based on location and volume. Larger market clubs may have the volume to create multiple teams where smaller markets may not.

I ask this question because it boils down to two basic philosophies:
1) select the best players available for your team and field the team that give you the best opportunity to win (not everyone makes the team and you have to make the team each year). Continued development is a focus, but not the primary.
2) Selections are not based on the best available but rather on growing club numbers with idea that the club should be developing player or coaching them up. Players get equal playing time and winning is the goal but not the primary, development is.

I look at most other sports: Lacrosse, Hockey, Baseball and Basketball youth competitive travel teams and it appears these are based on a true competitive models...try out, best players are selected and the best players start and play the majority of the game. The goal is to win. They rely on the rec programs as the primary feeders systems. Continued development is a focus, but not the primary.

For the club it is a simple formula: Get as much money out of your parents as you can, while making them believe their kids is getting developed into a future superstar. Most parents figure this scam out by U10 - U11 But there is always a fresh set of suckers coming up each year to take advantage of. Believe it.

[Unregistered]

I like this. The part that is hard to put into action is the last part "regardless of talent, every player who was able to, but did not, attend the required practice sessions should not play at all in the next league game, friendly or tournament game." It is hard to define "who was able to" as a coach. How can determine how sick a player is or if the player had a more important family obligation or religious holiday. It should be cut and dry.. a player misses practice or a game for any reason, they do not start the next game and sit out time on the bench based on how many practices or games are missed. The coach would need to set the policy and keep accurate records for fairness, but sitting out the next whole game is a bit extreme. It can be tough on the team and the team might lose, but the players and coach need parameters.

Do not write an exam for the fear of failure?- Do not play in any game and what is so great by winning a trophy and losing a players evaluation opportunity?
Or is it that you did not prepare to write the exam?- did you fail to coach him or motivate the player to train hard?
Then how did you reach that grade you are in?- let the player drop out if cannot be trained.

[Unregistered]

Answer: Keeping soccer blogs alive!!

[Unregistered]

I like this. The part that is hard to put into action is the last part "regardless of talent, every player who was able to, but did not, attend the required practice sessions should not play at all in the next league game, friendly or tournament game." It is hard to define "who was able to" as a coach. How can determine how sick a player is or if the player had a more important family obligation or religious holiday. It should be cut and dry.. a player misses practice or a game for any reason, they do not start the next game and sit out time on the bench based on how many practices or games are missed. The coach would need to set the policy and keep accurate records for fairness, but sitting out the next whole game is a bit extreme. It can be tough on the team and the team might lose, but the players and coach need parameters.

Indeed, it is difficult to determine which players who miss practice were actually able to attend. While I agree that it must be fair, in order to avoid players shying away from any coach they believe to be too strict, the practice attendance policy should be set by the club. As for my last suggestion being a "bit extreme", I'm just "old school". As for me, if you were are able to but just didn't attend practice, then I'm sorry but you just don't get to play.