U12 Girls

That is all great and we know kids like to win and are competitive, but it is the standings that causes all the problems. They can play games and win and lose and develop into great soccer players without standings being kept at U12.

blah, blah blah. This is all part of the soccer mentality. The biggest high profile youth sporting event (which by the way is probably watched by more TV viewers than just about any MSL game) is the LL World Series. That involves... you guessed it / 12 year olds. By twelve most of these kids have taken the MCAS test at least twice, gotten at least three years of letter grades in school and played in other sports leagues, all of which keep standings and results. However, they are too young for all this in the world of soccer. Blah, blah, blah!!!

no, they aren't too young, it just doesn't necessarily mean they are becoming great soccer players. OR even good soccer players. And you have proved the point, that the standings are more for the parents checking the Maple website on the internet all day Monday than they are for the kids.

Win a game? Great, forget it and move on to next week. Lose a game? Too bad, move on to next week.

blah, blah blah. This is all part of the soccer mentality. The biggest high profile youth sporting event (which by the way is probably watched by more TV viewers than just about any MSL game) is the LL World Series. That involves... you guessed it / 12 year olds. By twelve most of these kids have taken the MCAS test at least twice, gotten at least three years of letter grades in school and played in other sports leagues, all of which keep standings and results. However, they are too young for all this in the world of soccer. Blah, blah, blah!!!

Remember Danny Almonte?

[FSM]

If the subs are strong enough to spell the top players for 15 minutes a game, over 5 games (the typical amount played in a weekend tournament like the Jeff Cup from prelims through final), that is an hour and fifteen minutes less wear, the equivalent of more than 1 game of rest.

DD, I hope you meant more like 15 minutes per half not per game at U12. While I'll agree players shouldn't expect equal playing time, their coaches should be striving to have players playing half the game.

It's not the winning that's the problem it's when this is the superordinate goal that it becomes a problem. Adults who have this as focus number 1 will stoop to very low levels to achieve this goal. Let's face it all this talk about good vs bad eleven year olds - in the context of world class soccer players they all s*ck.

There is a documentary on HBO right now talking about John Wooden - his players say that he never talked about winning - it was just a byproduct of doing the task at hand very well. The players practiced to perfection and the wins came as a result.

Like a previous poster said - you can't control the refs, the weather, or you might just be facing an opponent that is better. If all that matters is whether or not you got 1 more goall than the opponent so much else gets lost.

My son played for a coach that superordinated winning over all else. He'd berate young refs to get his way, he played 13 kids - even though he carried 17 on the roster. We left and after rebuilding my son's self-esteem he's doing just fine. There is one boy who played 5 -10 minutes a game back then (several years ago) and he's still playing on this team. His parent's response is "but the team wins". Who cares - so they win a few more games in a state soccer league and at what cost?

[FSM]

blah, blah blah. This is all part of the soccer mentality. The biggest high profile youth sporting event (which by the way is probably watched by more TV viewers than just about any MSL game) is the LL World Series. That involves... you guessed it / 12 year olds. By twelve most of these kids have taken the MCAS test at least twice, gotten at least three years of letter grades in school and played in other sports leagues, all of which keep standings and results. However, they are too young for all this in the world of soccer. Blah, blah, blah!!!

Soccer is a player's game. This is something most Americans who have played traditional sports like baseball don't get. Players have to learn to make decisions on the field for themselves. The over involvement of adults to the game keeps that from happening. Give the game back to the kids and you'll have better soccer players. Maybe that is a lesson Little League would benefit from. Those parents are even crazier than soccer parents.

[dd]

FSM,

I meant 15 minutes of rest for a top player per game. The subs would wind up with the about number of minutes you suggest. Here's how I think it roughly works out.

Suppose there are 16 field players. The coach considers 5 to be the best, 5 as starters for the game, and 6 subs. The top 5 play most of the game, getting approximately 15 minutes of rest during the game. The 5 starters play a bit more than half the game, getting say 20 minutes of rest (10 minutes off per half). I believe this creates 175 minutes of "open time" (75 top players' minutes and 100 starters' minutes). The remaining 6 players can split those 175 minutes, averaging 29 minutes per game, or just under 15 minutes per half. They 6 subs would get these minutes by subbing for different players during their shifts (i.e. the first 7 minutes of a half at forward for a top player, and moving to outside mid for a starter for the next 8).

Obviously, this isn't a precise plan. I imagine coaches would adjust things here and there. But it seems possible to give everyone meaningful time while allowing a team's top players to impact a game more.

dd

blah, blah blah. This is all part of the soccer mentality. The biggest high profile youth sporting event (which by the way is probably watched by more TV viewers than just about any MSL game) is the LL World Series. That involves... you guessed it / 12 year olds. By twelve most of these kids have taken the MCAS test at least twice, gotten at least three years of letter grades in school and played in other sports leagues, all of which keep standings and results. However, they are too young for all this in the world of soccer. Blah, blah, blah!!!

Are your skulls thicker than concrete blocks?

It's about teaching the kids the proper techniques so they become better soccer players. There isn't anything wrong with the kids wanting to win.

A coach should teach his defenders how to play the ball out of the back. But a coach doesn't want his U12 defender doing this in a MAPLE game because the defender could make a bad pass, give the ball to the other team in a dangerous area, and have a goal scored against his team which may cause them to lose. Instead, coaches tell the defenders to either kick the ball out of their end as high and as hard as they can, or to kick the ball out of bounds at the slightest hint of pressure. That is coaching to win, not coaching to teach. When the defender gets to U16 and is not composed enough to play the ball out of the back (because he was never allowed to learn properly under pressure in a game) we bemoan the lack of quality players coming out of Massachusetts.

These concepts are to be taught up to U14 because up to that age has been determined to be the critical age of teaching and development. But that can't happen with all you glory hunting U12 parents looking for state cups and tournament wins at this age.

TROLL

Say what you want but it's true

Pat why don't you get a job?

This is my job

[dd]

In jest: I don't know if my skull is thicker than a concrete block. It depends on the dimensions of the block you're referring to.

More seriously: I often hear about this "defenders are taught to boot it as far as they can" tactic, and I've seen it, especially in high school games (a different topic of contention!) and from teams with moderate records of success. However, I don't associate the tactic with the teams that win Irwin Cups, etc. Most of those try to possess the ball, and sometimes do it very nicely.

I actually think that the level of play at the top of our state is good enough that a "pure boot it out of here" team is unlikely to win an Irwin Cup, and even less likely to win a state championship at U13 and up.

Do others share that perception? Or is it truly the case that to win an Irwin Cup, you're better off playing boot it as far as you can out of the back?

I actually think that the level of play at the top of our state is good enough that a "pure boot it out of here" team is unlikely to win an Irwin Cup, and even less likely to win a state championship at U13 and up.

Do others share that perception? Or is it truly the case that to win an Irwin Cup, you're better off playing boot it as far as you can out of the back?

You are probably mostly right - the good clubs with good coaches don't practice win at all cost behaviors - they wouldn't be around for too long. Problem is that there are the wanna be's who try to take short cuts.

In jest: I don't know if my skull is thicker than a concrete block. It depends on the dimensions of the block you're referring to.

More seriously: I often hear about this "defenders are taught to boot it as far as they can" tactic, and I've seen it, especially in high school games (a different topic of contention!) and from teams with moderate records of success. However, I don't associate the tactic with the teams that win Irwin Cups, etc. Most of those try to possess the ball, and sometimes do it very nicely.

I actually think that the level of play at the top of our state is good enough that a "pure boot it out of here" team is unlikely to win an Irwin Cup, and even less likely to win a state championship at U13 and up.

Do others share that perception? Or is it truly the case that to win an Irwin Cup, you're better off playing boot it as far as you can out of the back?

That is only one example. Others are teams that emply their big fast kid as a sweeper instead of teaching the defenders to play as a unit. Or the strikers with well developed kicking strength that hits it high where no U12 GK can get it.

FSM Said:

Soccer is a player's game. This is something most Americans who have played traditional sports like baseball don't get. Players have to learn to make decisions on the field for themselves. The over involvement of adults to the game keeps that from happening. Give the game back to the kids and you'll have better soccer players. Maybe that is a lesson Little League would benefit from. Those parents are even crazier than soccer parents.

All sports are "Player's games" but to think that there was some golden era of youth sports is aboslute revisionist history. Prior to WWII a child of 12 was a lot more likely to be working a factory or farm job than playing sports. Post WWII, the baby boom generation saw the arrival of organized youth sports but the pupose was to instill upon pre-high school boys the values of athletic competition including fitness, effort, commitment and team-work. The idea that you could and should develop sport specific talent out of youth programs is much more a vestige of the eastern eurpean system than what was going on in the US. Here, winning and losing was emphasized because that was how Americans compete.

[dd]

I think we need to be careful to distinguish between (presumably problematic) coaching practices and tactics that don't advance soccer skills (like boot it out of here all the time defense) and those that take advantage of differences in skill and athleticism (which aren't necessarily problematic, as those differences exist in varying degrees at all age levels).

Thus, I don't find it problematic that a coach plays a "big fast kid" at sweeper, while it is troubling if the coach doesn't teach the defense to play as a unit. Moreover, the two aren't mutually exclusive. Similarly, I don't think there's anything wrong with skilled players putting the ball high, where U12 goalies can't get it. After all, strikers will always put the ball where goalies can't get it, and that will always include the occasional top shelf shot. Sure, it's frustrating to goalies (with whom I sympathize) that they can do nothing to stop the shot. However, learning to shoot high is a skill that will serve a striker well over the long run in a way that playing kick and run won't.