U12 Girls

Until MAPLE figures out that the best soccer playing countries still play 8V8 at U-12, we will not develop better players here in MA. Take away time and space for the players and don't let "fast and athletic" Susie dominate on a big field...then you'll see players develop!

[Cujo]

Fixed it a bit - too early...

No it only proves that you don't get it and that you'll be singing a different tune when your kid is a U16 or U19 (if they're still even playing).

There can be moments of "brilliance in a U12" game, but kids are NOT sending the ball 30 yards to the foot of a teammate routinely, playing the ball routinely out of the air is a minimal part of the game. As they age the game becomes more and more complex they get better at seeing and being able to execute plays that they don't see or can't routinely execute when they are younger.

To say the game is 1 dimensional at U12 is not right, but the options that a player has with the ball are so many fewer when s/he is 11 than when s/he is 16.

Good points, the other thing I would add is that even when a player understands tactically what they should do they frequently do not have the physical strength or technical refinement to execute. Where I ref there is an 8 year old who is tactically equivalent to the best 14 year olds. His decision making is so good it is shocking. His play away from the ball is very advanced as well. He is not even 4 feet tall and weighs 60 pounds soaking wet. He is also technically advanced. However he simply is too small to be effective - he knows what to do but cannot do it. He is playing on a u10 team playing in a u12 league. Is this the right thing. Two schools of though on it. But this just shows you the limitations that young players face because they are not fully mature or even close to it. Why the know it all parents cannot grasp this simple fact is beyond me.

BTW U12 Parent, you did not answer my previous questions: Is this your first child competing at this level? What is your child's team's typical soccer schedule like? Is it basically 2 days of practice and 1 game per week?

To answer your question FSM, this is notmy first child competing at this level and that's why I learned along time ago that in sports there are two different philosophies on winning. It all depends on how much you understand sports and competition and what you expect or your kid expects out of playing. I know that most people I've met that don't believe winning matters are usually people who are neither passionate about sports or someone who never played themselves. I'm sure every team in the state has both type of people, but the one's who don't care will eventually drop off. Again, I'm talking about the highest level of play and if a kid cannot compete at that level, there are plenty of other levels s/he can play. If winning didn't matter in U-12 how do teams play sub-reg. at 13, at 13 you have to win to get in reg.1, at 14 you have to win to play Red Bull and etc...Fortunately the system is not manipulated by people who believe everyones a winner. To answer your other question, my U-12 practices 3/4 times per week with one game. It's funny to hear people like Cujo down parents when some parents like myself, coached many many youth teams and played sports their entire life including college but yet we're idiots on the sidelines who don't know nothing. I understand every aspect of the game and that's exactly why I feel the way I do.

BTW U12 Parent, you did not answer my previous questions: Is this your first child competing at this level? What is your child's team's typical soccer schedule like? Is it basically 2 days of practice and 1 game per week?

To answer your question FSM, this is notmy first child competing at this level and that's why I learned along time ago that in sports there are two different philosophies on winning. It all depends on how much you understand sports and competition and what you expect or your kid expects out of playing. I know that most people I've met that don't believe winning matters are usually people who are neither passionate about sports or someone who never played themselves. I'm sure every team in the state has both type of people, but the one's who don't care will eventually drop off. Again, I'm talking about the highest level of play and if a kid cannot compete at that level, there are plenty of other levels s/he can play. If winning didn't matter in U-12 how do teams play sub-reg. at 13, at 13 you have to win to get in reg.1, at 14 you have to win to play Red Bull and etc...Fortunately the system is not manipulated by people who believe everyones a winner. To answer your other question, my U-12 practices 3/4 times per week with one game. It's funny to hear people like Cujo down parents when some parents like myself, coached many many youth teams and played sports their entire life including college but yet we're idiots on the sidelines who don't know nothing. I understand every aspect of the game and that's exactly why I feel the way I do.

Dude - please let know when you are going to be on the touchline so I can be sure to move 50 or so yards away

To answer your question FSM, this is notmy first child competing at this level and that's why I learned along time ago that in sports there are two different philosophies on winning. It all depends on how much you understand sports and competition and what you expect or your kid expects out of playing. I know that most people I've met that don't believe winning matters are usually people who are neither passionate about sports or someone who never played themselves. I'm sure every team in the state has both type of people, but the one's who don't care will eventually drop off. Again, I'm talking about the highest level of play and if a kid cannot compete at that level, there are plenty of other levels s/he can play. If winning didn't matter in U-12 how do teams play sub-reg. at 13, at 13 you have to win to get in reg.1, at 14 you have to win to play Red Bull and etc...Fortunately the system is not manipulated by people who believe everyones a winner. To answer your other question, my U-12 practices 3/4 times per week with one game. It's funny to hear people like Cujo down parents when some parents like myself, coached many many youth teams and played sports their entire life including college but yet we're idiots on the sidelines who don't know nothing. I understand every aspect of the game and that's exactly why I feel the way I do

[FSM]

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.

All sports are not a "player's game" in the same sense as is soccer. The three traditional American sports (basketball, football and baseball) are most definitely "coaches' games" with coaches and managers calling the shots. This same mentality has unfortunately extended to youth soccer.

Here is something to also consider as regards the comparison of soccer to traditional American sports. How many NFL, MLB, or NBA teams have youth academies to teach their sports to elite youth players? The answer is obviously none. In this country, we leave it in the hands of amateurs who may understand their sports (if you're lucky), but usually have little understanding of children's physical or mental development. The comments in this thread prove that to be true.

The Europeans have invested millions if not billions of dollars to learn how to teach children sports so that they can increase their rate of producing successful adult athletes and thus increase their return on investment. We in the US would be stupid not to take advantage of what the Europeans have learned.

To think Americans are the only ones who play to win is also false thinking; however, your point about the eastern Europeans is well taken, but what came out of eastern Europe after the iron curtain fell are good ideas to be applied to youth sports, things like sensitive age training, multilateral training and periodization. You'd be wise to learn something about those concepts.

I disagree with your point in regards to children prior to WWII. The first federal child labor laws regulating minimum age and maximum hours were passed in 1938 but 100 years earlier many U.S. states (Mass. being among the first) had enacted laws restricting or prohibiting the employment of young children in industrial settings. By the late 1800s, all states and territories had passed laws regulating work conditions and limiting or forbidding child labor, most using the age of 14 or 15 as a starting point. I suppose it should be noted that these laws were not always enforced and did not necessarily extend to the children of immigrants, but the idea that children had no time for play is false. In fact, many in youth sports today lament the loss of those days when children had time for free play unencumbered by the intrusion of adults. It is felt that it is in this setting that children learn and develop the fundamentals of their sports.

BTW U12 Parent, you did not answer my previous questions: Is this your first child competing at this level? What is your child's team's typical soccer schedule like? Is it basically 2 days of practice and 1 game per week?

To answer your question FSM, this is notmy first child competing at this level and that's why I learned along time ago that in sports there are two different philosophies on winning. It all depends on how much you understand sports and competition and what you expect or your kid expects out of playing. I know that most people I've met that don't believe winning matters are usually people who are neither passionate about sports or someone who never played themselves. I'm sure every team in the state has both type of people, but the one's who don't care will eventually drop off. Again, I'm talking about the highest level of play and if a kid cannot compete at that level, there are plenty of other levels s/he can play. If winning didn't matter in U-12 how do teams play sub-reg. at 13, at 13 you have to win to get in reg.1, at 14 you have to win to play Red Bull and etc...Fortunately the system is not manipulated by people who believe everyones a winner. To answer your other question, my U-12 practices 3/4 times per week with one game. It's funny to hear people like Cujo down parents when some parents like myself, coached many many youth teams and played sports their entire life including college but yet we're idiots on the sidelines who don't know nothing. I understand every aspect of the game and that's exactly why I feel the way I do.

Some how I don't believe you have been involved with high level youth soccer before. Your comments are so typical of a first time parent of a U12 soccer player. More than just I recognize that. Your philosophy is one I might have expressed myself back in 1995, but I have learned a lot over the years, some from personal experience, but most from searching out those who have grown up with the sport and have had years of coaching experience.

Maple is not the highest level of play. What the European have is the highest level of play and how they deal with their elite youth players is completely different than what we do with ours. Don't you understand that? You speak about passion. It is those that ARE passionate about the sport of soccer that counter your philosophy, those that play and coach at the highest levels. And it is those that ARE passionate about the sport of soccer that want to see these changes to our system that will allow kids in the US to play the beautiful game and kick the butts of those Europeans.

We have more kids in the US playing soccer and we have invested more money at the grassroots level then just about any country in the world save a few, yet we are not producing players that can play the international game at a high level. Our best male players find themselves relegated to teams in lower leagues and divisions in Europe. Soccer is the number 1 team sport among female athletes in this country, yet we were humiliated in the recent Women's World Cup. Ask yourself why that is if the Darwin theory of American youth sports is working in this sport.

Me ^^^^

[FSM]

Dammit!!! I was logged in.

FSM, I certainly understand your positions and I respect many of your thoughts and input about the game. I also understand the development process that you speak of, and why it has worked in other countries. The difference is, in other countries soccer is the #1 sport and thus attracts the top athletes to play that sport. In the U.S., soccer is currently not #1 and thus alot of top athletes are playing other sports. U.S. soccer is obviously growing, but that's why you see a difference in the success on an International level between the mens and womens national teams. The top athletes on the girls side tend to play more soccer than the top athletes on the boys side thus the U.S. Women have done well internationally. There are many flaws with the current system, the number one being that many athletes choose not to play for teams in leagues like MAPLE because they cannot afford to do so. What I've noticed through the years is that only the families who can afford the high costs can continue and sometimes some very good athletes cannot. This limits the talent pool dramatically and is ultimately not the highest level of players. I know MAPLE is not the highest level of play, but it's the highest level in the state and most of the kids will never play a higher level. As someone stated earlier, most kids at U-12 are playing to win and understand exactly what that means. They don't care about developing into some well developed soccer player that isn't going to play anymore after high school. This is their time to enjoy the game, play competitively, and learn to deal with victory and defeat. The kids know who is who on the field and if you don't let the top level players play each other or the top teams then in a few years their chance is gone just like the disparity we see in the older groups.

Here for your benefit, U12 Parent, are the words of a passionate soccer fan speaking of young teams. I believe you will find that he meets your qualifications: played soccer in college, started a very successful youth club whose players have gone on to play on the national team and in MLS, owns a PDL franchise, is involved administratively with youth soccer at it's highest levels. It is not an indictment of any specific team, but of youth soccer in general, but what is being said should be kept in mind when speaking of 11 and 12 year old players and the teams they play for.

MYTH ABOUT YOUTH SOCCER
The team that is blessed with the best athletes and does win, usually by speed and not any semblance of skill, is deemed the best coached though in truth any moron could have produced the same result. To them the game is still speed. Come tryouts they dutifully study each player. They put their heads together with other evaluators. The run sprints with the times all recorded. They may even have a juggling session, having read in book full of drills or at a soccer course that juggling teaches something important. Maybe they have 1v1's. They then post the teams. Big and fast to the "A" team. The rest to lower squads.

We do have some who do train skills, but most produce robots. Skillful little robots, but robots nonetheless. They run up and down the field in channels with the coach yelling at them. Overlaps? By accident. Diagonal runs or passes - Happenstance. Their teams may learn skills, but not how to use them.

In any given area you will find exceptions and they tend to rise to the top over time. For every million people in a city you can expect about one team that qualifies as an exception per age group. The coaches who teach skill and understanding often lose at early ages. To teach and encourage risk taking means you will often lose until your players become proficient at the task where they are taking the risk. But for some coaches, such loses are failures and are to be avoided.

Go out and watch a travel team sometime and ask their coach when was the last time the club's DOC, if they have one, came out and watched a practice or game? When did the coach get feedback on training? When was the coach evaluated? I will bet in the overwhelming majority of cases the answer will be, "Never". If the coach is not subject to scrutiny how can s/he be sure they are doing things right? Is it by the number of wins- that is the measure. The bad we see is the result of poor coaching, most often uninformed coaching. It is these coaches that have wins as their only metric for success.

Do not confuse avoiding "pressure to win" with being noncompetitive. What I criticze is not a desire to win or be competitive. Far from it. It is the mentality that to win you take the easy way, you avoid risks, you harp at players for "mistakes" rather than praise them for attempting to use new skills. To say winning is not important is not to embrace losing. Far from it. It is to say as a coach it does not matter if I win or lose. What matters is my players development. I remove the pressure to win and replace it with a pressure to grow. Do not mix the PC, AYSO credo, that is more about false self esteem with an attitude that condemns winning at the cost of development. You can have winning teams that are developing and you want to encourage the competitive urge players are already blessed with. What I am bashing is the mentality that tells kids to take the safe route so we can win this game. To learn skills players have to be able to perform them in a game under pressure. This means mistakes and mistakes can equal losses. I believe in segregating players by ability. I want to win every game, but I will not sacrifice a player's growth in the sport to win a game.

Working with the ball is the essence of young soccer, but teaching skillful play is a long term project. Rarely are there immediate rewards and each growth spurt will create a lack of agility and coordination. But without skillful players, we will not achieve the other things necessary for success. At young ages it is very important to focus on developing confidence and a sure touch with the ball.

It takes about six hours to teach one skill to a child. With a six hour learning time for one skill, an hour and a half practice that's spents in different drills, about 30 minutes on any one skill, it takes about ten weeks to train a skill. This time can be accelerated if a player works at home, but with all you have to teach, it takes about two years to teach a minimum level to children. They then need the time to perfect those skills under pressure so they can learn to play the game at speed. Finally, they need to be taught tactical play. It is at this final stage that the separation is made based on intelligence. Intelligence is a combination of vision, the ability to anticipate play and then make the correct decision quickly. Many, many players, parent and coaches never understand this.

At every age and stage it is a balance of athleticism, skill and intelligence. At certain ages athleticism is given a leg up either because skills have not been taught or intelligence is not as significant a factor, or due to the onset of puberty (either early or late) there is a wide disparity in athleticism. In the beginning athleticism often seems to triumph, but this is only because players are learning skills. As their skills increase the advantage of athleticism diminishes.

Skills will trump pure athleticism for a few years, but a surge in athletic ability will occur as players enter puberty and the players with great athletic ability will again surge to the forefront, even though their skills are below par. But it tends to be temporary. In boys it begins to fade about age 17 as players age through their hormones. In girls it is about two years earlier. As the physical differences in growth rates even out, we return to our balance. At this time, as tactics become more complex intelligence and the ability to anticipate play becomes vital. At high levels we reach a point where players must have a minimum level in all three to succeed. It is a balance. It is not one that is better, it is the sum of all that matters. Further, if a player does not have a minimum threshold of either skill, athleticism or intelligence, they will fail.

What we need to do is stop focusing on the winning or the winning vs. development juxtaposition and focus instead on how we can teach what by definition is a competitive sport in the most effective manner for our players. Every player is different. If the coaches learned to be coaches; if they learned to teach the skills and told players how to exploit the advantages of their size - be it large or small; if the coaches learned to recognize to seek out the factors that lead to success later, factors like intelligence, vision, balance, coordination, as well as the more easily recognized speed and strength (or more simply size), then we will have a far better environment for player development.

Soccer has enough participation from quality athletes in the US. We have more raw numbers than many nations that are soccer powers. We do face unique problems involving talent being dispersed in areas of the country other than the Boston to Washington corridor, Southern California, Dallas metro, Chicago/lower Wisconsin/northern Indiana areas, but most of us have figured out how to solve those problems. The biggest problem we have is that the athletes are not being trained right.

Saying that other sports use winning as the measure of success is wrong. Winning is used, but it is winning combined with basic skills instruction. The other sports also have a much lower threshold of basic skills to teach and in baseball, football or basketball the youth coach is qualified in probably half of the instances. In soccer it is less than 2%.

Soccer has improved here, but do not be blind to how much further we need to go. If you have the right program the players will more often stay and not migrate to other sports. If we allow the sport its full measure of beauty it will seduce and hold the players. If we destroy that beauty early it will remain a niche sport. I am not a believer in burn out, but I do believe that many leave the sport because we have failed to give them the tools to succeed. The level of internal reward the player receives from the activity is often the reward that motivates the return. It is the reward that is the root of enjoyment. What reward is there if you are told you suck? Teach skills and players will play a lifetime. All the player needs to stay is the ability to play without being embarrassed. Allow them the opportunity to have a few moments of solid play and they will come back.

[FSM]

Me ^^^^ AGAIN !!!! :x

[FSM]

FSM, I certainly understand your positions and I respect many of your thoughts and input about the game. I also understand the development process that you speak of, and why it has worked in other countries. The difference is, in other countries soccer is the #1 sport and thus attracts the top athletes to play that sport. In the U.S., soccer is currently not #1 and thus alot of top athletes are playing other sports.

As far as males are concerned, there are plenty who believe as you do, but consider that the 4 traditional American sports tend to require athletes who are BIG. Soccer does not which means there are plenty of boys that do not have the height or weight to play those sports that could be excelling in soccer. But for some reason, we still have not produced soccer players capable of playing at the highest levels of the game. It has nothing to do with their athleticism, because if you ask the Europeans about our male players, this is the one area that the US is praised.

But as far as female player is concerned, soccer IS the #1 team sport. It does attract the very best female athletes. While we remain one of the top teams, considering the pool of players from which to choose, and the support that women's sports gets in this country that other countries lack, we should be unquestionably THE top team.

U.S. soccer is obviously growing, but that's why you see a difference in the success on an International level between the mens and womens national teams. The top athletes on the girls side tend to play more soccer than the top athletes on the boys side thus the U.S.

U12 Parent, you are exposing how little you know of what is going on in the rest of the country. Believe it or not, there are parts of this country where boys play soccer like you probably played basketball or sand lot baseball growing up. Southern California and Texas are two of these areas. These are the kids that Clint Dempsey initially learned to play with, but the problem is they do not have the resources to travel all over the country playing club soccer. This is one of the issues that have people going crazy in Cal. now that the DAP is in place. Those kids are going to be excluded from high level youth soccer and no one is going to benefit from their exclusion.

Women have done well internationally. There are many flaws with the current system, the number one being that many athletes choose not to play for teams in leagues like MAPLE because they cannot afford to do so. What I've noticed through the years is that only the families who can afford the high costs can continue and sometimes some very good athletes cannot. This limits the talent pool dramatically and is ultimately not the highest level of players. I know MAPLE is not the highest level of play, but it's the highest level in the state and most of the kids will never play a higher level. As someone stated earlier, most kids at U-12 are playing to win and understand exactly what that means. They don't care about developing into some well developed soccer player that isn't going to play anymore after high school.

The kids that learn to love the sport will play it after high school and after college. With our sedentary life style, this should be the goal of the adults involved, to see that these kids are indeed playing at some level as adults. You don't teach 11 or 12 year olds to love the game by excluding them from it, particularly when we know that puberty is going to be a major determining factor of who can and can not play at a high level a few years down the road.

This is their time to enjoy the game, play competitively, and learn to deal with victory and defeat. The kids know who is who on the field and if you don't let the top level players play each other or the top teams then in a few years their chance is gone just like the disparity we see in the older groups.

I hate to tell you this, but the kids sitting the bench are not enjoying the game. And the team stars ought to learn the same lessons as their "weaker" teammates, like learning what it to sacrifice for teammates. If it's learning to deal with victory and defeat, then why are you trying to spare your child that lesson by putting her on a "winning" team?

U12 Parent, I can tell you from experience that at U12 the cream will rise regardless. What is important at this age is that they be taught how to play the game well, so that when it does really matter whether they win or lose, they will be able to contribute. That is very much dependent on the coach at this age and should be the only concern of a U12 parent.

I know MAPLE is not the highest level of play, but it's the highest level in the state and most of the kids will never play a higher level. As someone stated earlier, most kids at U-12 are playing to win and understand exactly what that means. They don't care about developing into some well developed soccer player that isn't going to play anymore after high school. This is their time to enjoy the game, play competitively, and learn to deal with victory and defeat. The kids know who is who on the field and if you don't let the top level players play each other or the top teams then in a few years their chance is gone just like the disparity we see in the older groups.

WOW! That attitude of today is the only thing that matters is one I'd expect from a rec league parent than a premier league parent. If you are transferring that thinking to your kid, you won't have to worry beyond today because mentally she won't be able to cut what it's going to take to make it in the future.

[ If winning didn't matter in U-12 how do teams play sub-reg. at 13, at 13 you have to win to get in reg.1, at 14 you have to win to play Red Bull and etc....

And otherwise how will my child get a college scholarship and get scouted for the US National team?