Too much emphasis on footwork

[Unregistered]

Saying there is too much emphasis on footwork in youth soccer is like saying Usain Bolt spent to much time walking as a toddler.

Without solid footwork you cannot execute the tactical elements of the game.

One can understand baseball and all the tactics but knowing that you need to catch the ground ball and throw it to first is not the same as being able to do it. Knowing to play wide or deep means nothing if you cant receive or deliver a pass or have the footskills to do so under pressure.

Receiving and delivering a pass are reinforced playing the game, not by cone drills and juggling. Yes, you can mis-catch the ball requiring a little juggling, and yes, first touch might require that too, but the question is if we spent too much time doing it to the detriment of the rest of the game, such as passing and trapping, kicking goals, learning to block with the body, etc.

[Unregistered]

The problem with only knowing the tactical is without the technical, you may now how to play, but you don't know how to get the ball there. Technical should always come first. Otherwise, you could just teach the kids on an XBOX

Depending on the age group, our kids never "scrimmaged". Waste of time. As they got to 10+, then it was a controlled scrimmage (stops to correct) or smaller sided games to ensure lots of touches.

OK, there you go. Do the 8 year old Brazilian kids "scrimmage" (play the game) or do they do cone drills. The answer is: They play the game. Yet you're advocating that our kids should not play. Don't you think that could be part of our problem?

[Unregistered]

2 points:
1) when you consider developing "soccer IQ" or "field awareness", the age level is pretty important. Developmentally, most kids aren't ready to really see the field and the bigger picture of the game until they are much older. Some younger children can exhibit a soccer IQ, but they're outliers. Trying to develop such a thing with kids under age 10 is a fool's errand.

What? As a coach, I have routinely taught kids under the age to understand the game and develop their soccer IQ. I don't believe I'm the only one!

[Unregistered]

OK, there you go. Do the 8 year old Brazilian kids "scrimmage" (play the game) or do they do cone drills. The answer is: They play the game. Yet you're advocating that our kids should not play. Don't you think that could be part of our problem?

If they grew up with a ball at their foot from the time they were in diapers, played all day every day with a ball of rubber bands in their bare feet, and constantly, and only, played soccer, then yes, we should follow that model.

Until then, and since we are miles behind them technically, we should not.

Not too hard to grasp, is it?

[Unregistered]

Receiving and delivering a pass are reinforced playing the game, not by cone drills and juggling. Yes, you can mis-catch the ball requiring a little juggling, and yes, first touch might require that too, but the question is if we spent too much time doing it to the detriment of the rest of the game, such as passing and trapping, kicking goals, learning to block with the body, etc.

How many times in a game is receiving an actual pass actually reinforced versus small sided practice? The only thing the game teaches regarding receiving a pass is the where, not the how.

The problem is bridging the tactical with the technical, but there is no way you can have to much technical training.

[Unregistered]

Receiving and delivering a pass are reinforced playing the game, not by cone drills and juggling. Yes, you can mis-catch the ball requiring a little juggling, and yes, first touch might require that too, but the question is if we spent too much time doing it to the detriment of the rest of the game, such as passing and trapping, kicking goals, learning to block with the body, etc.

"kicking goals" ?? - doesn't that hurt their toes when they do that?

[Unregistered]

Receiving and delivering a pass are reinforced playing the game, not by cone drills and juggling. Yes, you can mis-catch the ball requiring a little juggling, and yes, first touch might require that too, but the question is if we spent too much time doing it to the detriment of the rest of the game, such as passing and trapping, kicking goals, learning to block with the body, etc.

It's become evident you aren't all that knowledgeable about how this thing called soccer works, and that's fine. I watch a little basketball here and there, but don't know much about it. The same applies here.

The fact that you don't understand that drills are nothing more than concentrated touches, done to get a kid as comfortable as possible with how to play with it, speaks volumes. It's about repetition repetition repetition. Playing a game, at a younger age, doesn't give enough opportunity to do that.

In time, when they have it mastered a bit, you then work on application of those touches. Until then, if you are scrimmaging in an (for example) 8v8 environment, there's 15 kids not touching the ball. That ain't good.

[Unregistered]

What? As a coach, I have routinely taught kids under the age to understand the game and develop their soccer IQ. I don't believe I'm the only one!

You have not. The age being discussed is primarily focused on themselves, not what pass to space means.
First thing taught in any license course is how age should dictate the training. It's the reason intensive training on foot skills is featured before u11/12.
Not to mention that passing requires a bit more strength to complete than footwork.

[Unregistered]

It's become evident you aren't all that knowledgeable about how this thing called soccer works, and that's fine. I watch a little basketball here and there, but don't know much about it. The same applies here.

The fact that you don't understand that drills are nothing more than concentrated touches, done to get a kid as comfortable as possible with how to play with it, speaks volumes. It's about repetition repetition repetition. Playing a game, at a younger age, doesn't give enough opportunity to do that.

In time, when they have it mastered a bit, you then work on application of those touches. Until then, if you are scrimmaging in an (for example) 8v8 environment, there's 15 kids not touching the ball. That ain't good.

That is exactly why small-sided games (3v3, 4v4) are the preferred method.

[Unregistered]

That is exactly why small-sided games (3v3, 4v4) are the preferred method.

Absolutely....for Training. Not tryouts. Not at U-little anyway

[Unregistered]

I understand that footwork is important. But it seems that the soccer establishment considers it more important than actually being able to play the game well. Is there an over emphasis on footwork that is entrenched into the system?

There is no aspect of soccer development mutually exclusive to another, but you can be damn sure that a 9-year old can begin to develop technique at that age differently than fitness or tactics. Conversely, good luck developing the technical skills of the 15-year old that could just outrun everyone when they were younger.

[Unregistered]

Receiving and delivering a pass are reinforced playing the game, not by cone drills and juggling. Yes, you can mis-catch the ball requiring a little juggling, and yes, first touch might require that too, but the question is if we spent too much time doing it to the detriment of the rest of the game, such as passing and trapping, kicking goals, learning to block with the body, etc.

This can't be real. Can it?

[Unregistered]

This can't be real. Can it?

Look at the soccer out on the field every weekend in most travel and in some clubs. Someone with misguided "knowledge" must be behind it. Bad leaders are a dime a dozen in NE soccer. There's clubs out there that claim all the development for the kids is done past U11 or U12 and it's all about wins after that.

[Unregistered]

Wow - just wow. I would suggest every parent read thorough this thread and get an understanding of what is wrong with USA soccer.

It's not the parents fault- it's low level coaching and folks don't know what real soccer high level is cause most club coaches don't know ( it's not USSDA by the way).

The gist of it is many on thread couldn't understand why they would look at footskills in tryout. Well , umhh ok. Many said need to just see the athleticism and just play games ( at going youth age).

It is Exactly the opposite at high level pro academy around the world. They look for smart hard working kids that can control a ball ( or yes freak of nature way mature beyond years and may try to teach him footskills) but 90 percent is based on skill and smarts!!! Not the other way around!! Teaching athleticism and fitness is a multi year project and much easier the mm teachin skill when it is too late.

At real academy ( where players go pro , not club academy in USA) a u14 team can beat a "physically ahead" team years older from the USA. Their skills and tactical advancement will make the ball move much quicker into openings the. The USA players who get tired trying to chase it down without nearly the skill. They won't even touch ball.

I saw this in Brazil. A visiting "academy" team got creamed by kids years younger and much lighter.

Yes there are very few USA kids that are overseas in pro academies and can just say it is very very different. Don't want to say much more then that cause don't want to identify any young kid in particular.

Parents got to wake up and stop buying the USA club kool aid. If the club has multiple players getting pro tryouts around the world it's legit, should look at their methods and how they pick players.

[Unregistered]

That is exactly why small-sided games (3v3, 4v4) are the preferred method.

OP here: This is the most sensible thing said here. In the small sided games you're getting the touches on the ball, but in real world scenarios. Would you rather have a kid who can play 4 vs. 4 brilliantly and doesn't juggle very well, or juggle and run cones brilliantly but has no clue how to move to space and when to pass in a game?