Qualifications

[Unregistered]

As long as they go through the process, etc. amounts to a big if. Some clubs want or need the bodies and are less genuinely interested in the development of their staff.

It's just another case of the consumer needs to do their homework because each club is different, this area being among those differences.

I am out of coaching now because I simply can't get hired. I have a Nat'l C and other creds. I have College, HS, Premier coaching and playing experience. Problem is I am nearly 60. I recently applied for a U12 Premier team coaching opening recently. I interviewed and thought that I really did well. I asked them if I could do a practical interview by running a training session for players so I could show them my coaching skills. They said thanks but no thanks. They hired a fresh out of college player with no experience but with a fabulous accent. The team cannot even beat middling town teams. The coach has no control over the team and is in over their head.

I guess shaggy blond hair, a cool accent, and ripped abs in a $200 warm-up suit helps them sell roster spots better than I can.

I still have alot to offer youth soccer but nobody really wants to hire an old guy with grey hair and lots of experience.

[Unregistered]

As the OP on the point about "teaching" and "imparting knowledge" it is a pleasure to read the recent and EXCELLENT replies. At least I'm not the only one watching what's going on...

And just to take the heat off the young Brits, as some are really good coaches as well, equally offensive to me is the American Stalwart - that is how I refer to a coach dead set in his ways, often blinded by his ego with respect to teaching and behavior, hasn't had a progressive thought much less sought any form of learning through any of the endless continued education or certification opportunities available with NSCAA or USSF...can't be bothered when he already knows it all.

[Unregistered]

I am out of coaching now because I simply can't get hired. I have a Nat'l C and other creds. I have College, HS, Premier coaching and playing experience. Problem is I am nearly 60. I recently applied for a U12 Premier team coaching opening recently. I interviewed and thought that I really did well. I asked them if I could do a practical interview by running a training session for players so I could show them my coaching skills. They said thanks but no thanks. They hired a fresh out of college player with no experience but with a fabulous accent. The team cannot even beat middling town teams. The coach has no control over the team and is in over their head.

I guess shaggy blond hair, a cool accent, and ripped abs in a $200 warm-up suit helps them sell roster spots better than I can.

I still have alot to offer youth soccer but nobody really wants to hire an old guy with grey hair and lots of experience.

Not to kijack the thread, but can you tell me where you are located and looking to work. Maybe the moderator can help me give you a hand if I hear of any openings.

[dd2]

I'm not sure if I agree with the implicit point of the original poster, namely that a recent college graduate is necessarily unqualified to be a youth soccer coach, especially when compared to others who (presumably) have more experience and licenses.

There's a big variance in recent college grads and their readiness to coach. If you're talking about a kid who played youth soccer and intramurals in college, then I agree that qualifications are probably weak. It's quite different if the new coach graduated after playing for 4 years at a D1 college program. Those experiences (exposure to very experienced and skilled coaches, advanced training, high skill games) are part of the background that a skilled coach should have. I'd be much more interested in my kids playing for a coach with that background than someone who has been a high school coach for 15 years and has a D license after being a former player in high school and not playing in college.

[Unregistered]

Not to kijack the thread, but can you tell me where you are located and looking to work. Maybe the moderator can help me give you a hand if I hear of any openings.

Thanks for the offer but I think I am going to start working on getting my patches for officiating. It will keep me involved in the game.

[Unregistered]

I'm not sure if I agree with the implicit point of the original poster, namely that a recent college graduate is necessarily unqualified to be a youth soccer coach, especially when compared to others who (presumably) have more experience and licenses.

There's a big variance in recent college grads and their readiness to coach. If you're talking about a kid who played youth soccer and intramurals in college, then I agree that qualifications are probably weak. It's quite different if the new coach graduated after playing for 4 years at a D1 college program. Those experiences (exposure to very experienced and skilled coaches, advanced training, high skill games) are part of the background that a skilled coach should have. I'd be much more interested in my kids playing for a coach with that background than someone who has been a high school coach for 15 years and has a D license after being a former player in high school and not playing in college.

What you are saying defies what everybody knows about coaching any sport. Your post suggests that the higher level the player the better they are as a coach. In the vast majority of cases for all sports this simply is not true. In fact those of us who have been around the game understand why this is so. For the elite player things tend to come naturally and they progress more rapidly due to innate field vision, coordination, reaction time, speed of thought and action. Lesser skilled players have to work harder at the individual elements of what it takes to succeed on the field. Therefore they are able to articulate these things and break down the elements of tactical and technical game components into digestible bits that young players can understand.

This is why Magic Johnson is a crappy coach while Doc Rivers is not.

[Unregistered]

I'm not sure if I agree with the implicit point of the original poster, namely that a recent college graduate is necessarily unqualified to be a youth soccer coach, especially when compared to others who (presumably) have more experience and licenses.

There's a big variance in recent college grads and their readiness to coach. If you're talking about a kid who played youth soccer and intramurals in college, then I agree that qualifications are probably weak. It's quite different if the new coach graduated after playing for 4 years at a D1 college program. Those experiences (exposure to very experienced and skilled coaches, advanced training, high skill games) are part of the background that a skilled coach should have. I'd be much more interested in my kids playing for a coach with that background than someone who has been a high school coach for 15 years and has a D license after being a former player in high school and not playing in college.

Who is a better coach - Wayne Gretzky or Claude Julien? Who was the better player? Your post would be 100% accurate if you merely said the exact opposite of what you meant............

[Unregistered]

Thanks for the offer but I think I am going to start working on getting my patches for officiating. It will keep me involved in the game.

An admirable decision and appreciated by this coach.

[Unregistered]

I'm not sure if I agree with the implicit point of the original poster, namely that a recent college graduate is necessarily unqualified to be a youth soccer coach, especially when compared to others who (presumably) have more experience and licenses.

There's a big variance in recent college grads and their readiness to coach. If you're talking about a kid who played youth soccer and intramurals in college, then I agree that qualifications are probably weak. It's quite different if the new coach graduated after playing for 4 years at a D1 college program. Those experiences (exposure to very experienced and skilled coaches, advanced training, high skill games) are part of the background that a skilled coach should have. I'd be much more interested in my kids playing for a coach with that background than someone who has been a high school coach for 15 years and has a D license after being a former player in high school and not playing in college.

Pretty tame version of the parochial thinking I referred to early, but as others have responded, it's there.

YES - I agree with you, that a recent college graduate of a D1 program has an exposure to qualified coaching that a person who only played youth soccer, maybe some high school back in the day and only kept kicking it around in an adult league has not. And this means nothing. It MIGHT mean something, but tangibly means nothing. It does NOT preclude that player that never became anything as a player from being a GREAT coach, nor does it guarantee that D1 player with that exposure amounts to anything but a poor teacher and mentor to players of any age.

Again, the bias in the post is tame. I have had some fairly interesting to heated discussions with a variety of coaches on the subject and invariably I steer it to the teaching. I believe I am an excellent coach personally because I NEVER stop trying to learn. I have more friends who are coaches that I respect than I can count on all of my fingers and over the years I have never become complacent with what they've taught me or I've observed, I still seek out collaboration, tutelage. In terms of that dynamic, playing ability or experience means nothing. If you have a great player, who fails to embrace that mindset when it comes to his/her professional coaching career as a constant evolution, they will come up short, probably way short.

[Unregistered]

Since others mentioned hockey and basketbal, there's no better example for coaching greatness (rather than managerial) than Charlie Lau. Major league baseball career that amounted to a batting average of .255 with 16 career homeruns and 140 RBI.

Teacher to numerous HOFers and other hitting coaches who themselves coached HOFers and his pupils readily attribute their success to his teaching and instruction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charley_Lau
http://www.lauhitting.com

[Unregistered]

Pretty tame version of the parochial thinking I referred to early, but as others have responded, it's there.

YES - I agree with you, that a recent college graduate of a D1 program has an exposure to qualified coaching that a person who only played youth soccer, maybe some high school back in the day and only kept kicking it around in an adult league has not. And this means nothing. It MIGHT mean something, but tangibly means nothing. It does NOT preclude that player that never became anything as a player from being a GREAT coach, nor does it guarantee that D1 player with that exposure amounts to anything but a poor teacher and mentor to players of any age.

Again, the bias in the post is tame. I have had some fairly interesting to heated discussions with a variety of coaches on the subject and invariably I steer it to the teaching. I believe I am an excellent coach personally because I NEVER stop trying to learn. I have more friends who are coaches that I respect than I can count on all of my fingers and over the years I have never become complacent with what they've taught me or I've observed, I still seek out collaboration, tutelage. In terms of that dynamic, playing ability or experience means nothing. If you have a great player, who fails to embrace that mindset when it comes to his/her professional coaching career as a constant evolution, they will come up short, probably way short.

Can you please explain your use of the word 'tame' here? Makes no sense. Are you possibly using the word incorrectly or the wrong word?

[Unregistered]

What you are saying defies what everybody knows about coaching any sport. Your post suggests that the higher level the player the better they are as a coach. In the vast majority of cases for all sports this simply is not true. In fact those of us who have been around the game understand why this is so. For the elite player things tend to come naturally and they progress more rapidly due to innate field vision, coordination, reaction time, speed of thought and action. Lesser skilled players have to work harder at the individual elements of what it takes to succeed on the field. Therefore they are able to articulate these things and break down the elements of tactical and technical game components into digestible bits that young players can understand.

This is why Magic Johnson is a crappy coach while Doc Rivers is not.

BTDT, this is a perfect example of what happens with you and so I thank you for posting this.

First, you are criticizing a poster's post, so this isn't starting with someone going after you.

Your thinking here is so contorted that it is hard to explain how off it is.

Was Tommy Heinsohn a good coach? Your implication is that good coaches typically weren't great players, and in typical distorted fashion, you use Doc Rivers as an example? That is such a distortion of what can count as great, similar to the whole Williams/Harvard 3.0 argument. Doc Rivers was an incredible athlete and bball player. He was a McDonalds All-American, one of the greats in Chicago high school history. He was a good pro. Do you know what percentile you have to be in to get to where he did? Same thing with Lin and so many others, and akin to kids who get in Harvard or Williams regardless of what they end up with as a gpa.

Was Billy Donovan a good player? Is he a good, even great coach? Doug Collins? Pat Riley? I could go on and on. Sure, there are great coaches who were not great athletes, but it's not as distorted or inverted as you suggest.

I don't see the objection to what dd2 said. He said a recent college grad should not necessarily be disqualified, that such a person might be a good coach. He also said all things being equal a player with true collegiate experience probably is better than any 'ol kid who maybe played some intramural soccer in college. Not much to disagree with there. And then he said he would prefer someone with real collegiate experience over someone who happens to coach high school for a long time and maybe played a little in high school many moons ago. Again, I think many of us would prefer that if the two options are posed in a generalized way. Are there cases where the opposite is true? Sure, but we can evaluate that, and we probably would have some data about that in specific cases. But are you telling me I'm not going to take Keith Caldwell over a 50+ year old guy with a permanently locked-in job at the high school who has buddies out there that he appeases by putting that guy's club players on varsity as frosh just to embellish the buddy's club profile a bit?

The idea that being really skilled or having skills that come naturally prohibits someone from being a good coach is ludicrous. There are other criteria at work when a Van Gundy is better than a Johnson or a Jordan. It's not the simple formula you constructed, the kind of construction that sells well in terms of getting some quick agreement from folks out there who don't want to think past the most obvious and easy, lazy points.

[Unregistered]

Can you please explain your use of the word 'tame' here? Makes no sense. Are you possibly using the word incorrectly or the wrong word?

Reduced, no longer wild, friendly, docile...

No tame is exactly what I meant. It was rather diplomatic, or subtle, in its presentation. Better? As opposed to making the argument laced with self-righteous indignation.

[Unregistered]

BTDT, this is a perfect example of what happens with you and so I thank you for posting this.

First, you are criticizing a poster's post, so this isn't starting with someone going after you.

Your thinking here is so contorted that it is hard to explain how off it is.

Was Tommy Heinsohn a good coach? Your implication is that good coaches typically weren't great players, and in typical distorted fashion, you use Doc Rivers as an example? That is such a distortion of what can count as great, similar to the whole Williams/Harvard 3.0 argument. Doc Rivers was an incredible athlete and bball player. He was a McDonalds All-American, one of the greats in Chicago high school history. He was a good pro. Do you know what percentile you have to be in to get to where he did? Same thing with Lin and so many others, and akin to kids who get in Harvard or Williams regardless of what they end up with as a gpa.

Was Billy Donovan a good player? Is he a good, even great coach? Doug Collins? Pat Riley? I could go on and on. Sure, there are great coaches who were not great athletes, but it's not as distorted or inverted as you suggest.

I don't see the objection to what dd2 said. He said a recent college grad should not necessarily be disqualified, that such a person might be a good coach. He also said all things being equal a player with true collegiate experience probably is better than any 'ol kid who maybe played some intramural soccer in college. Not much to disagree with there. And then he said he would prefer someone with real collegiate experience over someone who happens to coach high school for a long time and maybe played a little in high school many moons ago. Again, I think many of us would prefer that if the two options are posed in a generalized way. Are there cases where the opposite is true? Sure, but we can evaluate that, and we probably would have some data about that in specific cases. But are you telling me I'm not going to take Keith Caldwell over a 50+ year old guy with a permanently locked-in job at the high school who has buddies out there that he appeases by putting that guy's club players on varsity as frosh just to embellish the buddy's club profile a bit?

The idea that being really skilled or having skills that come naturally prohibits someone from being a good coach is ludicrous. There are other criteria at work when a Van Gundy is better than a Johnson or a Jordan. It's not the simple formula you constructed, the kind of construction that sells well in terms of getting some quick agreement from folks out there who don't want to think past the most obvious and easy, lazy points.

Was that really necessary? I mean, when I read the example of Doc Rivers I thought it was both poor and incomplete, but by its juxtaposition with Magic, wasn't the point made by implication and inference? I think I got it.

As an aside that other football has plenty of examples of great players, terrible players and non-players with disparate coaching results.

[Unregistered]

Reduced, no longer wild, friendly, docile...

No tame is exactly what I meant. It was rather diplomatic, or subtle, in its presentation. Better? As opposed to making the argument laced with self-righteous indignation.

So you liked the post, or you didn't?