How we can improve the youth soccer environment?

[FSM]

Several different topics came up today including training the creativity out of players and selecting players based on size. There is an interesting discussion currently in the coaching forum entitled Is age the best way? It is questioning how we group players by age and asks the question whether we should group players by size instead, like some other sports do. The topic originator brings up the point of early selection based on size and others mention the early bloomer/late bloomer quandrum. I'm not starting this thread for that purpose; however.

The reason I've started this thread is to throw out some ideas of how to develop better players. IMO one of the first things we need to do is get away from the static team mentality. So once again, I'll mention what the Chicago Sockers are doing as they seem a pretty innovative club with their eye on the best development practices that they can apply to their program within the confines of youth soccer in the US.

Previously I mentioned that their A and B teams are coached by the same coach and players are regularly moved between the two teams. In the opinion of one of their parents, the difference between the two teams is more often than not a difference in size in the early years. They are also involved in providing those players interested in an alternative to high school soccer a program where they can continue to play and train during the high school season. Only those who wish to play and they combine players from various teams and age groups. If capable, some of them will actually play in adult leagues. Here is another description of one of the things they do that was mentioned in the size/age thread. Keep in mind that one of the directors of the Sockers program grew up in Brazil and played for the Brazilian National team, so I am assuming some of the things they do are draw from his experiences. The son of the poster I am quoting played for this Brazilian coach as a U13 and U14.

The Brazilian youth clubs move kids down as well as up, and being moved down doesn't mean the club thinks the boy sucks (because if they thought that, they would just cut him), but rather that he should be matched up against players who are similar physically.

My son's soccer club is aware that "ability" can make a 14 year old a starter on one of the state's top high school teams, when the competition is older players who are inferior technically, tactically, and athletically, but that "ability" doesn't get the job done at the club level, when the competing players are similar technically, tactically, and athletically. There, that boy gets his lunch eaten at his own age group by the more physically advanced players. So the club places him on an indoor team with other players who are at a similar level of physical maturity, and promotes kids his very same age who are more physically advanced into an older group.

Doesn't mean they think the other guys are better college prospects, means the other guys have bodies right now that enable them to do different things.

Brazilian youth clubs have similar approaches, they move kids down as well as up according to how their bodies are developing.

Another poster pointed out the inherent danger in grouping kids by physical maturity is that they might not have the emotional and psychological maturity to play with older kids to which the Socker dad wrote:

Good point, that's why such an exercise should be conducted by somebody who understands the issues, and who has full knowledge of the player.

FYI, our club currently groups the kids into multi-year age bands for indoor training, and for intermural matches. To cite an example, one band consists of -

1) 50% of the U16s
2) 85% of the U15s
3) 25% of the U14s

Groupings to an extent are done on "ability," but for the most part on age/maturity. The U16s in this band would be the younger/smaller less mature U16s, the handful of U15s that are absent are all physically mature kids born in the first half of the club calendar who were promoted up to the next age band, and the U14s in this band are the relatively old, large, and mature players of the U14s.

To cite another example, last year the most gifted player technically at the U15 group was placed on the middle team when the U15s were split into 3 groups, because he was physically less mature and relatively young. He played against a younger age group that session than did the less talented players of his age group who were older, larger, stronger, more developed.

So in his case, it was decidedly not "ability" that placed him in the middle group for his age cohort.

Re: How we can improve the youth soccer environment?

Several different topics came up today including training the creativity out of players and selecting players based on size. There is an interesting discussion currently in the coaching forum entitled Is age the best way? It is questioning how we group players by age and asks the question whether we should group players by size instead, like some other sports do. The topic originator brings up the point of early selection based on size and others mention the early bloomer/late bloomer quandrum. I'm not starting this thread for that purpose; however.

The reason I've started this thread is to throw out some ideas of how to develop better players. IMO one of the first things we need to do is get away from the static team mentality. So once again, I'll mention what the Chicago Sockers are doing as they seem a pretty innovative club with their eye on the best development practices that they can apply to their program within the confines of youth soccer in the US.

Previously I mentioned that their A and B teams are coached by the same coach and players are regularly moved between the two teams. In the opinion of one of their parents, the difference between the two teams is more often than not a difference in size in the early years. They are also involved in providing those players interested in an alternative to high school soccer a program where they can continue to play and train during the high school season. Only those who wish to play and they combine players from various teams and age groups. If capable, some of them will actually play in adult leagues. Here is another description of one of the things they do that was mentioned in the size/age thread. Keep in mind that one of the directors of the Sockers program grew up in Brazil and played for the Brazilian National team, so I am assuming some of the things they do are draw from his experiences. The son of the poster I am quoting played for this Brazilian coach as a U13 and U14.

The Brazilian youth clubs move kids down as well as up, and being moved down doesn't mean the club thinks the boy sucks (because if they thought that, they would just cut him), but rather that he should be matched up against players who are similar physically.

My son's soccer club is aware that "ability" can make a 14 year old a starter on one of the state's top high school teams, when the competition is older players who are inferior technically, tactically, and athletically, but that "ability" doesn't get the job done at the club level, when the competing players are similar technically, tactically, and athletically. There, that boy gets his lunch eaten at his own age group by the more physically advanced players. So the club places him on an indoor team with other players who are at a similar level of physical maturity, and promotes kids his very same age who are more physically advanced into an older group.

Doesn't mean they think the other guys are better college prospects, means the other guys have bodies right now that enable them to do different things.

Brazilian youth clubs have similar approaches, they move kids down as well as up according to how their bodies are developing.

Another poster pointed out the inherent danger in grouping kids by physical maturity is that they might not have the emotional and psychological maturity to play with older kids to which the Socker dad wrote:

[quote:3gt0b17r]Good point, that's why such an exercise should be conducted by somebody who understands the issues, and who has full knowledge of the player.

FYI, our club currently groups the kids into multi-year age bands for indoor training, and for intermural matches. To cite an example, one band consists of -

1) 50% of the U16s
2) 85% of the U15s
3) 25% of the U14s

Groupings to an extent are done on "ability," but for the most part on age/maturity. The U16s in this band would be the younger/smaller less mature U16s, the handful of U15s that are absent are all physically mature kids born in the first half of the club calendar who were promoted up to the next age band, and the U14s in this band are the relatively old, large, and mature players of the U14s.

To cite another example, last year the most gifted player technically at the U15 group was placed on the middle team when the U15s were split into 3 groups, because he was physically less mature and relatively young. He played against a younger age group that session than did the less talented players of his age group who were older, larger, stronger, more developed.

So in his case, it was decidedly not "ability" that placed him in the middle group for his age cohort.

[/quote:3gt0b17r]

Good stuff FSM

1> PARENTS, more than players I think, have a stigma with their kid labelled as a "B" player and would rather up and leave to be on an "A" team even if the club and coaching was drastically inferior. We all see this after spring tryouts.
2> Super Y, not Maple, affords coaches to move players up and down for game play through the passcard system.

[Guest]

my daughter recently moved to a club and joined the B team there. We knew going in what the deal was and are thrilled with being there. The talent level is exellent and she is pushed to play at a higher level than in the past due to a larger pool of better players. And they do train and scrimmage with the A team on a consistant basis, though there are different coaches. Just an observation frfom one parent.

Same issues, different accent

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/606/A30261412

Interesting info, FSM. Thanks for posting it.

I think the idea of grouping by size like youth (American) football which does it by weight makes some sense. However, would you use height or weight or some combo of both to make this stratification?

Do the kids who play up tend to be large for there age or do they tend to be technically superior?

[Coup de Boule]

I think the idea of grouping by size like youth (American) football which does it by weight makes some sense.

I disagree, because US youth soccer is already excessively biased in favor of big, fast, athletic kids instead of favoring technical ability. In our town, I know of sixth graders that have to play football against third graders because of their size. Having a smaller U12 soccer player compete against U9s wouldn't help anyone get better.

I would imagine that part of the stigma of being named to a "B" team is do to our overemphasis on winning or being the "best," rather than having the most fun or improving the most -- but it's hard to get away from that attitude.

Some more interesting comments from the Chicago Socker's dad. He had been MIA in one of the forums for a while and was asked by another poster (the father of the National pool player I mentioned recently) where he has been to which he replied:

Backing off, realizing the foolishness of taking 8th and 9th grade boys' sports even the tiniest bit seriously.

Watching a B teamer on our club and realizing that he almost certainly will be taller and faster than a national teamer I know, and he is also better on the ball, but he is a B teamer because he is not an "athlete" and the other guy is.

Or maybe it was hearing that Michael Bradley, currently the most successful young American playing in Europe, was regarded as a borderline A/B player as a U14. He was not an "athlete," in fact he was the slowest player on the U14 A team, and one of the smallest as well.

Remember those articles about Damon Bailey when he was an 8th grader? He was national news. Meanwhile, nobody ever heard of Michael Jordan except for his mama, because MJ wasn't the "athlete" that Damon Bailey was.

So nobody knows crapola about picking adult athletes at this age, yet the biggest part of "talent" evaluation consists of finding the allegedly superior athlete.

It's junk, and I reject it as junk.

By about the U17 year, that is the junior year of high school, looking for athletes starts to become something better than junk.

Fortunately, the kid's club (Sockers) also has this belief system, so I am tucked away in a small pocket of sanity.

Another poster from Wisconsin:

The good news is that maybe there is still hope for kids relegated to B teams at this age.

The bad news is the lack of quality coaching on most B teams at this age either results in self-fulfilling prophecy or it drives kids away out of frustration before they begin to bloom...

Bottom Line: The Status Quo is Maintained

Chicago Sockers dad:

It's not just coaching, although that is a part of it. The B team at my son's club is treated royally as far as B teams go, train with the A team, same game coaches (the two coaches at the age groups split games), top-level matches, etc.

But we still get kids quitting the team and/or sport every year off the B team, and never off the A team. Those kids get discouraged, other kids are beating them on the field, talking to them ... they get worn down being the betas, with the alphas lording over them.

Not intrinsic to soccer of course, and not solely a developmental pattern, it is also related to talent and how much work the player has put into the game. Although the latter is a smaller effect than the genetic gifts of early development and/or natural talent.

[FSM]

Darn it. Me again!!! :x

[FSM]

Another good post from a Canadian coach:

My U15 boys team is sitting at the midseason break right now at 4 wins, 3 ties and 4 losses. We are a tier 2 select team, but playing in a very fine league of 12 teams, 7 or 8 of which can play some terrific soccer and are as good as A level teams in our region. We have had some good games and all but two of the matches have been very close. I've been pleased with the team's improvement, although we still have a long way to go. We lost 1-2 last week to the best team in the league, on a dubious foul leading to a PK, and the other coach told me afterwards he thought we were "the hardest working, most technical, and best organized team in the league." That was a nice compliment.

The parents are reasonably happy and the players too. But, come spring we won't recruit many top players from elsewhere because many of the top players tend to shop around for the teams with the best records. In addition, we may lose a top player or two ourselves. Parents and players all want to play on teams that win and our parents are no different. The thing is if all I was doing was coaching to win we'd have at least 2-3 more wins. Here is what I have done differently in the name of player development.

1. I demand that we play the ball out of the back on the ground rather than clear it. I'll allow clearances in our own box in desperate circumstances but I'm really focusing on playing under pressure in our back third. Early in the season our backs coughed up quite a few balls, trying to play out on the ground under pressure, that led to goals. But, they are increasingly looking like Italy back there and we've only given up 3 goals in our last 6 games despite playing out on the ground nearly every time.

2. We are trying to use varied build ups in our attacks. I have one really fast player. If I play him up front and we hoof the ball up the field he's going to get 3 or 4 breakaways a game. It is sooooo tempting to play this way, and sometimes on counterattacks we'll play the long ball, for sure. But, I'm really working hard on slower buildups. When you do this you lose the ball in the midfield quite a bit against good teams. But when it works, and it is starting to work more and more, it is a thing of beauty.

3. If they are training, and training hard, everybody plays. Not equally necessarily, but I try to maintain a minimum playing time of 30-40 minutes a game per player, averaged out over the length of the season. You can't develop players on high level select teams if they sit on the bench. Playing our weaker players at critical times in key games has cost us at least one game this season. My view is, if we pick them, we play them.

4. Our team selectors picked a lot of smaller, skilled, players rather than big, strong, athletes. We play some teams of grade 9 boys where every starter is over 5' 8" tall. We took a chance on some smaller guys who have heart, skill, and promise. The result is we are in tough against some of the teams who are loaded with early growth kids. We lost a game this season on a late header where our 5' 2" wide back was 1 v 1 with a 6 foot forward. Still, somebody has to give these little guys a chance to improve, and, if we thought they had technical skill and potential, we took a chance on 5 or 6 of these little guys. Our DOC calls it "an investment."

I'll post on this team again in two years time because by then I think we'll be dominating our league. That is, if the parents and players remain patient and we don't lose them to the teams that are winning sooner, rather than later.

You wonder though how you can develop players in this youth sport pressure cooker. I'm lucky, I've got the parents largely on side with my philosophy. I've got a friend trying to do similar things on a U14 team, playing just under .500 soccer, and he's got a revolution on his hands. Sigh.

interesting.

I disagree with #1. It is simply not always possible at ANY level to 'play the ball out of the back' all of the time. Forcing players to do so when they do not have the skill, judgement, maturity,ability is not a wise move.]
agree with #2 BUT if I have that fast player up front, we will look for him/her and score. period. as would ANY other team at any other level. to do otherwise would be foolish.

agree with 3. if I pick them, they play. and not just 'gee, it's time to give keith his 4 minutes'.

disagree with 4. I will take a big strong SKILLED player any day over a small, weak skilled player. it seems to be 'in vogue' in soccer to toss aside athletic ability. hopefully all of those coaches who do so will send those cast aside to me as I will TAKE their athletic prowess and TEACH them skill and kick the fanny of the other group all day.

Another good post from a Canadian coach:

My U15 boys team is sitting at the midseason break right now at 4 wins, 3 ties and 4 losses. We are a tier 2 select team, but playing in a very fine league of 12 teams, 7 or 8 of which can play some terrific soccer and are as good as A level teams in our region. We have had some good games and all but two of the matches have been very close. I've been pleased with the team's improvement, although we still have a long way to go. We lost 1-2 last week to the best team in the league, on a dubious foul leading to a PK, and the other coach told me afterwards he thought we were "the hardest working, most technical, and best organized team in the league." That was a nice compliment.

The parents are reasonably happy and the players too. But, come spring we won't recruit many top players from elsewhere because many of the top players tend to shop around for the teams with the best records. In addition, we may lose a top player or two ourselves. Parents and players all want to play on teams that win and our parents are no different. The thing is if all I was doing was coaching to win we'd have at least 2-3 more wins. Here is what I have done differently in the name of player development.

1. I demand that we play the ball out of the back on the ground rather than clear it. I'll allow clearances in our own box in desperate circumstances but I'm really focusing on playing under pressure in our back third. Early in the season our backs coughed up quite a few balls, trying to play out on the ground under pressure, that led to goals. But, they are increasingly looking like Italy back there and we've only given up 3 goals in our last 6 games despite playing out on the ground nearly every time.

2. We are trying to use varied build ups in our attacks. I have one really fast player. If I play him up front and we hoof the ball up the field he's going to get 3 or 4 breakaways a game. It is sooooo tempting to play this way, and sometimes on counterattacks we'll play the long ball, for sure. But, I'm really working hard on slower buildups. When you do this you lose the ball in the midfield quite a bit against good teams. But when it works, and it is starting to work more and more, it is a thing of beauty.

3. If they are training, and training hard, everybody plays. Not equally necessarily, but I try to maintain a minimum playing time of 30-40 minutes a game per player, averaged out over the length of the season. You can't develop players on high level select teams if they sit on the bench. Playing our weaker players at critical times in key games has cost us at least one game this season. My view is, if we pick them, we play them.

4. Our team selectors picked a lot of smaller, skilled, players rather than big, strong, athletes. We play some teams of grade 9 boys where every starter is over 5' 8" tall. We took a chance on some smaller guys who have heart, skill, and promise. The result is we are in tough against some of the teams who are loaded with early growth kids. We lost a game this season on a late header where our 5' 2" wide back was 1 v 1 with a 6 foot forward. Still, somebody has to give these little guys a chance to improve, and, if we thought they had technical skill and potential, we took a chance on 5 or 6 of these little guys. Our DOC calls it "an investment."

I'll post on this team again in two years time because by then I think we'll be dominating our league. That is, if the parents and players remain patient and we don't lose them to the teams that are winning sooner, rather than later.

You wonder though how you can develop players in this youth sport pressure cooker. I'm lucky, I've got the parents largely on side with my philosophy. I've got a friend trying to do similar things on a U14 team, playing just under .500 soccer, and he's got a revolution on his hands. Sigh.

interesting.

I disagree with #1. It is simply not always possible at ANY level to 'play the ball out of the back' all of the time. Forcing players to do so when they do not have the skill, judgement, maturity,ability is not a wise move.]
agree with #2 BUT if I have that fast player up front, we will look for him/her and score. period. as would ANY other team at any other level. to do otherwise would be foolish.

agree with 3. if I pick them, they play. and not just 'gee, it's time to give keith his 4 minutes'.

disagree with 4. I will take a big strong SKILLED player any day over a small, weak skilled player. it seems to be 'in vogue' in soccer to toss aside athletic ability. hopefully all of those coaches who do so will send those cast aside to me as I will TAKE their athletic prowess and TEACH them skill and kick the fanny of the other group all day.

Another good post from a Canadian coach:

My U15 boys team is sitting at the midseason break right now at 4 wins, 3 ties and 4 losses. We are a tier 2 select team, but playing in a very fine league of 12 teams, 7 or 8 of which can play some terrific soccer and are as good as A level teams in our region. We have had some good games and all but two of the matches have been very close. I've been pleased with the team's improvement, although we still have a long way to go. We lost 1-2 last week to the best team in the league, on a dubious foul leading to a PK, and the other coach told me afterwards he thought we were "the hardest working, most technical, and best organized team in the league." That was a nice compliment.

The parents are reasonably happy and the players too. But, come spring we won't recruit many top players from elsewhere because many of the top players tend to shop around for the teams with the best records. In addition, we may lose a top player or two ourselves. Parents and players all want to play on teams that win and our parents are no different. The thing is if all I was doing was coaching to win we'd have at least 2-3 more wins. Here is what I have done differently in the name of player development.

1. I demand that we play the ball out of the back on the ground rather than clear it. I'll allow clearances in our own box in desperate circumstances but I'm really focusing on playing under pressure in our back third. Early in the season our backs coughed up quite a few balls, trying to play out on the ground under pressure, that led to goals. But, they are increasingly looking like Italy back there and we've only given up 3 goals in our last 6 games despite playing out on the ground nearly every time.

2. We are trying to use varied build ups in our attacks. I have one really fast player. If I play him up front and we hoof the ball up the field he's going to get 3 or 4 breakaways a game. It is sooooo tempting to play this way, and sometimes on counterattacks we'll play the long ball, for sure. But, I'm really working hard on slower buildups. When you do this you lose the ball in the midfield quite a bit against good teams. But when it works, and it is starting to work more and more, it is a thing of beauty.

3. If they are training, and training hard, everybody plays. Not equally necessarily, but I try to maintain a minimum playing time of 30-40 minutes a game per player, averaged out over the length of the season. You can't develop players on high level select teams if they sit on the bench. Playing our weaker players at critical times in key games has cost us at least one game this season. My view is, if we pick them, we play them.

4. Our team selectors picked a lot of smaller, skilled, players rather than big, strong, athletes. We play some teams of grade 9 boys where every starter is over 5' 8" tall. We took a chance on some smaller guys who have heart, skill, and promise. The result is we are in tough against some of the teams who are loaded with early growth kids. We lost a game this season on a late header where our 5' 2" wide back was 1 v 1 with a 6 foot forward. Still, somebody has to give these little guys a chance to improve, and, if we thought they had technical skill and potential, we took a chance on 5 or 6 of these little guys. Our DOC calls it "an investment."

I'll post on this team again in two years time because by then I think we'll be dominating our league. That is, if the parents and players remain patient and we don't lose them to the teams that are winning sooner, rather than later.

You wonder though how you can develop players in this youth sport pressure cooker. I'm lucky, I've got the parents largely on side with my philosophy. I've got a friend trying to do similar things on a U14 team, playing just under .500 soccer, and he's got a revolution on his hands. Sigh.

And what team are you coaching now?

[
And what team are you coaching now?

That's an odd question -- I mean, I didn't write the post you are questioning (in a sorta snotty way, if you ask me - given the word "And" at the beginning), but why can't a person be knowledgeable about soccer or at the very least have an opinion about styles of play without being a coach? Being a real fan of soccer and watching a lot of it at a lot of different levels can at least give one insight into the game, don't you think? It's amusing that so few contribute to threads about pro soccer or the athletes that play or even college soccer, but the threads about our kids go on forever. True fans of the game watch all these levels and really can pick up a lot of knowledge about the way the game is played, just like any other sport.

And by the way, I don't necessarily agree with what the poster is saying in any or all of items 1, 2, 3 or 4, but at least it is an opinion about the game itself and not an attack on somebody.

[
And what team are you coaching now?

That's an odd question -- I mean, I didn't write the post you are questioning (in a sorta snotty way, if you ask me - given the word "And" at the beginning), but why can't a person be knowledgeable about soccer or at the very least have an opinion about styles of play without being a coach? Being a real fan of soccer and watching a lot of it at a lot of different levels can at least give one insight into the game, don't you think? It's amusing that so few contribute to threads about pro soccer or the athletes that play or even college soccer, but the threads about our kids go on forever. True fans of the game watch all these levels and really can pick up a lot of knowledge about the way the game is played, just like any other sport.

I would like to know what context that opinion is written.

And by the way, I don't necessarily agree with what the poster is saying in any or all of items 1, 2, 3 or 4, but at least it is an opinion about the game itself and not an attack on somebody.

So what's your opinion then?

If you really wanted to know the context, wouldn't it have been more civil to write: "are you currently coaching a team and if so, what age group?"
But I regress, there is no place for civility on this board.

As for your other question, I do in fact have several thoughts on the post (one being that I disagree with the statement that it is not always possible to play the ball out of the back). No matter what the age group, if we really, truly care about developing our players, I do personally have faith in that style of play -- and if that means losing a state cup final at U13 I would like to think I would still applaud the coach who is trying to teach my kid. I will try to respond with more after Christmas but be forewarned that I am only a parent who happens to watch a lot of soccer, I am not a coach. So that opinion must be put into that context. (Ergo, you may discount if you feel you must).

Merry Christmas, I say with no attempt at political correctness! :roll: