In what other sports is winning not important?

[Unregistered]

That is not a universal truth. I think you will find that generally in the very top level programs you still have more US born players on the roster than international ones. What you are seeing is once you get by the very top level US players, there is a huge drop off in the quality of what we are producing relative to what the international players are bringing to the table so there seems to be a run on recruiting internationally. This is where the ECNL actually failed. So much for the one stop shopping for college coaches.

It's different on the men's side vs the women's - playing catchup to the rest of the world vs trying to stay AHEAD of the rest of the world. In college international players are much of a factor in the women's game but growing. they enhance rosters not take up 1/3+. For the men it varies - D1 you'll see 4-10 usually, D2 much more (lower academic standards) and D3 very few (higher academic standards). The fact that international academy rejects are usually much better trained than our supposedly highest level players is very telling. If you haven't bee through the process of somehow involved at the college level its something very few people are aware of. When we stop importing players for college and taking more of our own then we've made some progress. But I don't see that trend stopping any time soon.

[Unregistered]

I.e., don't be a bad coach. I was (hopefully obviously) being sarcastic when I laid out some of the (innumerable) ways to cheat.

As a player, this drives me mad, and as a coach, I won't teach it: http://www.footballitaliano.co.uk/p6...-furbizia.html

I was trying to use it to shed light on the "winning vs development" issue, but I don't think I was clear. I was hoping that (almost) everybody here would agree that coaches should prioritize player development (in the skills/soccer-IQ sense) over furbizia, and then they would draw the obvious inference to the following two issues:

The first issue is whether to prioritize winning for the TEAM in the short-term (e.g., direct play, rostering quicker-maturing rather than high-soccer-IQ kids) vs the long-term (playing out of the back, retaining the ball). I believe in the long term view for the team.

The second issue is whether to prioritize the development of every INDIVIDUAL player in the medium-to-long-term, over the short-term winning for the TEAM.

It is my goal to make sure that, by the end of the season, each individual player has developed as much as is humanly possible during the course of that season.

-a coach

As a parent, what you posted is everything we are looking for in a coach.

Unfortunately, there aren't many coaches like that out there. AND most parents don't care about any of that. They think, if the team is winning the coach must be doing something right.

Do kids love to win? Sure. But what's the #1 reason they play? To have fun.

Kids who aren't playing, because the coach wants to win, aren't having fun. Kids who are favored now for speed, size etc. often eventually peak.

I appreciate your post and coaching style. Hopefully you can keep at it. Coaching is a thankless job.

[Unregistered]

Pathetic how you seem to need to pat yourself on the back like that

[Unregistered]

Going further off topic here, if you really want a dose of "US soccer development reality" take a look at some college rosters and see how many players list foreign "hometowns". I've been to three different college games this fall involving 6 different teams (an admittedly small sample) and 1/3 to 2/5 of the rosters were foreign. (This does not count the kids that a less culturally sensitive me would assume are foreign because I can't pronounce either their first or last names.). Furthermore, watching these games I noticed that the most effective and influential players on the field were foreign. I won't say these kids were the best athletes or the most physically impressive, but clearly they played the game on a different level.
So, when you think about college soccer, realize it's not just "town or club" but really everything the US can develop in our systems against foreign kids who were trained to be professionals until they "washed out" and opted to play some soccer and get a college degree.

This is very true for D1 programs and more so toward the top of the bunch. Somewhat so for D2 schools, and significantly less so for D3 schools.

[Unregistered]

Take note in 5 years when your kid is just one of the bottom half of the team. Fact is 9-13% of kids go on to play college (any division). If (and I really mean IF) that is a goal, then the training and attitude starts very early......and, although against what many want to hear, the ball hog and the one who wants to win it all alone will be the one who develops most. By the way, the value of multiple small sided games is to allow that attitude to be shared by more than just one or two in a 11 v 11 game.

Clearly, your kid doesn't have the attitude or you are not interested in your kid being selfish enough to develop beyond his/her piers. Which is OK....I am sure that there is some place for you kid, perhaps on defense of a weaker team.

There has been a rather large up tick in participation at the club level which really came at the expense of the traditionally "rec" focused town programs. Besides turning club soccer into a sort of rite of passage, now we have parents paying $2,000-3,000 a year to learn what they used to learn for $200-300. With that escalation in price came a reasonable escalation in expectations. The problem though is the kids don't necessarily meet those expectations as cleanly as say a more expensive car will.

Well, I started this about 11 years ago and paid 2000-3000 dollars then for club and got significantly less than what I am getting this year (e.g. 2 vs 4 practices per week). Aside from town soccer or the local mom and pop Newton United club, I am not sure what club ever charged less 500-1000 for the year.
The problem is two fold....

First is the combination of the money and coaching. Clearly, if you pay you should expect. You should not only expect good coaching but your kid should get some minimum of playtime spelled out.

Second....and, in my mind, most significant is the player attitude. Your kid better want to be out there otherwise stop paying the money and, as many have stated, stay with the town stuff for a fraction of the cost. This is also where the kids attitude has to be aggressive and competitive. They should also be motivated enough to go out on non-practice days just to 'fool around' with the ball and get even more creative. The attitude has to be one that recognizes the value of fitness.

I might sound like an ogre, but to continue to pay for something that your child doesn't have a vested interest in does seem like a waste....or, it would be a waste of resources and time for me.

[Unregistered]

Pathetic how you seem to need to pat yourself on the back like that

OMG, the writing style is the same, right down to comma usage and space skipping! That's hilarious!

[Unregistered]

Everyone should have their kids read the College Commitment threads someone does each year on how much each class is playing - or not. It's a great face slap of reality. Some never see the field, many hardly play, few play all four years. You want to be optimistic but I think it's good to show your kids the realities as well. It made my player more carefully assess the school fit than she had been before reading them.

No disrespect to you, but if the Club and parents are doing their jobs, this is pretty clear.
By mentioning it, you are, but its also obvious from the transfer rates and bench sitting that many are unrealistic and/or ill-informed.

[Unregistered]

OMG, the writing style is the same, right down to comma usage and space skipping! That's hilarious!

I forgot to add the periodic capitalization of whole words for emphasis. God that's funny!

[Unregistered]

That is not a universal truth. I think you will find that generally in the very top level programs you still have more US born players on the roster than international ones. What you are seeing is once you get by the very top level US players, there is a huge drop off in the quality of what we are producing relative to what the international players are bringing to the table so there seems to be a run on recruiting internationally. This is where the ECNL actually failed. So much for the one stop shopping for college coaches.

This 100000 pct. The ECNL HAS failed the layers its supposed to help. Why? becasue showcasing is irrelevant without talent. Claiming all these cant miss kids on YNTS etc is NOT how you should be measuring the ECNL. Its looking at WHERE kids committed from the middle of the bell curve. Is the ECNL training up kids to commit to "better" schools? I dont think they are. Yes, they are doing a great job of making sure there is a one stop shop and loads of merchandise to sell, but the actual player were are producing is not improving.

[Unregistered]

No disrespect to you, but if the Club and parents are doing their jobs, this is pretty clear.
By mentioning it, you are, but its also obvious from the transfer rates and bench sitting that many are unrealistic and/or ill-informed.

op here - clubs and parents don't do their jobs often times. Clubs push for the nice placements for their lists; parents can be overly optimistic, not realistic. Some college coaches can also charm the skin off a snake and tell you what you want to hear.

[Unregistered]

Pathetic how you seem to need to pat yourself on the back like that

Actually, I'm a soccer mom with a U14 son and I posted the response to the coach.

As a parent that cares that her kid is 1. Having fun 2. Growing and developing, I completely agree with that coaches philosophy.

I've coached, served on our clubs BOD, taken licensing courses, and read numerous coaching books.

What's your experience?

[Unregistered]

OMG, the writing style is the same, right down to comma usage and space skipping! That's hilarious!

Busted!

[Unregistered]

All middle school sports.

Late to the thread but actually on topic:

The similarity I see is early middle school basketball coaches playing zone defense the entire game. To develop the kids let them play man to man (or woman to woman) defense at least half of the game. Zone defense for youngsters teaches kids nothing other than to stand in their area and not be tricked out of their area. I see coaches of 6th-8th graders play entire games in zone defense. That is just to win or keep the game close.

I'd rather see a youth team lose in basketball playing man to man defense than win playing zone.

[Unregistered]

Late to the thread but actually on topic:

The similarity I see is early middle school basketball coaches playing zone defense the entire game. To develop the kids let them play man to man (or woman to woman) defense at least half of the game. Zone defense for youngsters teaches kids nothing other than to stand in their area and not be tricked out of their area. I see coaches of 6th-8th graders play entire games in zone defense. That is just to win or keep the game close.

I'd rather see a youth team lose in basketball playing man to man defense than win playing zone.

Me, I always taught full court mark to mark. It laid the foundation for everything AND I got to embarrass a whole lot of schmuck coaches along the way.

[Unregistered]

,,,,,