Qualifications

[Unregistered]

Those two factors are less important thank you think. Take an average soccer player, make her 5-11, put her in an upper middle class home, give her a blond pony tail, make her attractive, and teach her that stylized arm-position "club style" of running and she will get recruited far more often than an average looking, poor, dark-haired, 5-1 unattractive but highly skilled player.

Sorry you have such an unattractive daughter.

[Unregistered]

Humility has nothing to do with anything in this forum. And certainly not from my perspective. I have alot of experience with sports esp. soccer (and music) and I believe that I bring a meaningful and useful perspective to the discussion at hand. Beyond that I have no agenda to force people to see the world as I do. Nonetheless I do believe that I am on the right track much of the time.

Finally including Eric Clapton in the same sentence in which I discuss my guitar skills was to point out that I will never come close to his ability. If you think that is not displaying humility then you either have no idea what the word means, you didn't understand what I was saying, or you are trying to distort what I said by misrepresenting my intent.

But back on point here. There really seems to be two primary schools of thought. 1) Anybody can be good at anything if they just try hard enough, 2) that there are upper limits of skill and potential for anybody that undertakes any endeavour and that hard work and dedication are only a part of the reason why people become successful at the highest level. Personally I think that #1 is a load of crap and that #2 is more likely. That is not showing a lack of humility but rather shows that I am in touch with reality.

- Cujo

Cujo, a lot of us have had a lot of experience with sports and have other talents. You may have noticed that a good portion of the demographic has had athletic, business, and personal successes. You seem to think you have some uniquely unique background. You are very similar to btdt in that regard, believing that you have a perspective to share that will set the world straight.

[Unregistered]

Cujo, a lot of us have had a lot of experience with sports and have other talents. You may have noticed that a good portion of the demographic has had athletic, business, and personal successes. You seem to think you have some uniquely unique background. You are very similar to btdt in that regard, believing that you have a perspective to share that will set the world straight.

When did I ever say that I had the best perspective in this forum? There is alot of good insight and commentary in here. When I see that I try to learn from other's experiences and incorporate it into my world view and how I approach situations that can benefit from learning something new. At the same time I hope that my experiences and commentary help people from time to time. I am also under no illusions that I have a unique background. But I do have a background and set of experiences gathered during my 53 years on Planet Earth that others could benefit from. Just as I benefit from other's experiences.

There are times when there are posts in this forum that are just dead wrong. I then make a clear statement that I disagree with the post and then offer my opposing view. These things are all components of what some of us refer to as a "debate". I will sleep soundly tonight if people don't like my insights and will similarly sleep well if some people like some or all of my posts. It really does not matter to me.

But back to the central point. I don't think that there is much debate that being a good coach does not require having been a good player. Not only do facts back up that statement but many others involved in sports with more experience and insight than I have also clearly believe that to be the case.

If you feel that I am wrong then fine. Go select a club that has all star players for coaches and see how it works out for you. It is your money and I have no objections to you spending it as you choose.

- Cujo

[Unregistered]

When did I ever say that I had the best perspective in this forum? There is alot of good insight and commentary in here. When I see that I try to learn from other's experiences and incorporate it into my world view and how I approach situations that can benefit from learning something new. At the same time I hope that my experiences and commentary help people from time to time. I am also under no illusions that I have a unique background. But I do have a background and set of experiences gathered during my 53 years on Planet Earth that others could benefit from. Just as I benefit from other's experiences.

There are times when there are posts in this forum that are just dead wrong. I then make a clear statement that I disagree with the post and then offer my opposing view. These things are all components of what some of us refer to as a "debate". I will sleep soundly tonight if people don't like my insights and will similarly sleep well if some people like some or all of my posts. It really does not matter to me.

But back to the central point. I don't think that there is much debate that being a good coach does not require having been a good player. Not only do facts back up that statement but many others involved in sports with more experience and insight than I have also clearly believe that to be the case.

If you feel that I am wrong then fine. Go select a club that has all star players for coaches and see how it works out for you. It is your money and I have no objections to you spending it as you choose.

- Cujo

No disagreement at all that great coaches need not have been great or good athletes or even athletes at all. I would guess that many of the less athletic become really good coaches did find themselves intimately involved with their sport in some capacity, and again, the easiest examples are the sons of coaches and gym rats groups. What is not clear is if you truly believe being great at a sport is prohibitive of being a good coach, or are you simply of the opinion that the two things are unrelated -- positive correlation, negative correlation, or no correlation at all?

Let me throw out one other thing where I assume there is consensus. There likely are certain characteristics that good coaches have and that we can identify in making a good guess at who might become good coaches. Take 16-18 players on a very good club soccer or even high school team. I bet a panel that knew the kids well could take a good crack at which kids might be good coaches, which would not be, etc, and that those picked as having good potential would vary fairly evenly between the strongest to less strong players.

[Unregistered]

No disagreement at all that great coaches need not have been great or good athletes or even athletes at all. I would guess that many of the less athletic become really good coaches did find themselves intimately involved with their sport in some capacity, and again, the easiest examples are the sons of coaches and gym rats groups. What is not clear is if you truly believe being great at a sport is prohibitive of being a good coach, or are you simply of the opinion that the two things are unrelated -- positive correlation, negative correlation, or no correlation at all?

Let me throw out one other thing where I assume there is consensus. There likely are certain characteristics that good coaches have and that we can identify in making a good guess at who might become good coaches. Take 16-18 players on a very good club soccer or even high school team. I bet a panel that knew the kids well could take a good crack at which kids might be good coaches, which would not be, etc, and that those picked as having good potential would vary fairly evenly between the strongest to less strong players.

I think part of the reason less skilled players make good coaches is the fact that they have to struggle more to learn the technical aspects of a sport. Where I do agree that skill comes into play is that while technically deficient they probably have fairly strong tactical awareness. I think it is easier to teach a sport if you can break the technical parts down into digestible pieces. Players for whom the technical part is comparatively easier do not have the same grasp. Coaching is more about looking at what a group of players are doing, seeing where things are breaking down, stopping a training session and then demonstrating proper tactical decisions or technical components. There are obviously alot of other factors that come into play but this is one fairly important element.

- Cujo

[Unregistered]

Someone else besides Cujo has made this argument that a person who had a skill come naturally almost by definition can't teach the skill (or not as well), I guess on the idea that they never had to learn the "digestible bits" or detailed mechanics. I'm not sure I accept that. First, I think the use of term "natural" is a misnomer. Some people are more talented and perhaps learn more easily and quickly, like with the math example, but they still have to learn the skills. Maybe this is easier to think about with sports like golf and tennis but applies to all sports. I do agree that some great players aren't great coaches, but I think this is probably for other reasons and not this one. Just doesn't make any sense. Just as a hypothetical, would you want Beckham to instruct you on free kicks, or the 50 year high school coach who toes the ball? And while Magic Johnson might not be a great coach (for a game, for a season, for a group of guys, etc) that doesn't mean you wouldn't want him to teach a specific skill, like dribbling, or running a 2 on 1 fast break, or how to work on court vision. The more I think about the whole idea makes even less sense to me. Don't buy the argument at all.

[Unregistered]

Someone else besides Cujo has made this argument that a person who had a skill come naturally almost by definition can't teach the skill (or not as well), I guess on the idea that they never had to learn the "digestible bits" or detailed mechanics. I'm not sure I accept that. First, I think the use of term "natural" is a misnomer. Some people are more talented and perhaps learn more easily and quickly, like with the math example, but they still have to learn the skills. Maybe this is easier to think about with sports like golf and tennis but applies to all sports. I do agree that some great players aren't great coaches, but I think this is probably for other reasons and not this one. Just doesn't make any sense. Just as a hypothetical, would you want Beckham to instruct you on free kicks, or the 50 year high school coach who toes the ball? And while Magic Johnson might not be a great coach (for a game, for a season, for a group of guys, etc) that doesn't mean you wouldn't want him to teach a specific skill, like dribbling, or running a 2 on 1 fast break, or how to work on court vision. The more I think about the whole idea makes even less sense to me. Don't buy the argument at all.

Take a look at the successful hitting coaches in baseball. You rarely see a hitter like Boggs or Williams or Mantle or any elite hitter becoming a hitting coach. Rather it is the Madagans, Laus, Hriniaks who become the best teachers of the game. Great hitters really don't think about their mechanics. Williams used his superior eyesight, eye hand coordination, and discipline to become the greatest hitter of all time. It was basically see ball hit ball. Hriniak was a below average hitter but he understood the dynamics and elements of how to make consistent contact with the ball. Larry Bird was a proficient shooter because he did it without thinking. Endless repetition of his shot resulted in a muscle memory that was uncanny. Can Bird teach others to shoot? I'd say the answer is no.

I can name countless examples of mediocre players in every sport who become great teachers of the game and likewise name countless examples of elite players who failed miserably as coaches.

I guess that the prevailing wisdom for soccer is that it is so inherently different (magical?) from other sports that it is immune to the development principles that work in every other sport.

I would say that this is the major contributing factor that since the advent of club sports, high priced coaches, personal trainers, year round play and intense development from the age of 9 and beyond that we have advanced from being a middle of the pack soccer nation to clearly being the best in the world.

- Cujo

[Unregistered]

Take a look at the successful hitting coaches in baseball. You rarely see a hitter like Boggs or Williams or Mantle or any elite hitter becoming a hitting coach. Rather it is the Madagans, Laus, Hriniaks who become the best teachers of the game. Great hitters really don't think about their mechanics. Williams used his superior eyesight, eye hand coordination, and discipline to become the greatest hitter of all time. It was basically see ball hit ball. Hriniak was a below average hitter but he understood the dynamics and elements of how to make consistent contact with the ball. Larry Bird was a proficient shooter because he did it without thinking. Endless repetition of his shot resulted in a muscle memory that was uncanny. Can Bird teach others to shoot? I'd say the answer is no.

I can name countless examples of mediocre players in every sport who become great teachers of the game and likewise name countless examples of elite players who failed miserably as coaches.

I guess that the prevailing wisdom for soccer is that it is so inherently different (magical?) from other sports that it is immune to the development principles that work in every other sport.

I would say that this is the major contributing factor that since the advent of club sports, high priced coaches, personal trainers, year round play and intense development from the age of 9 and beyond that we have advanced from being a middle of the pack soccer nation to clearly being the best in the world.

- Cujo

Still shaking the cobwebs loose this morning?

Your two last sentences and attempt at sarcasm don't make sense. If soccer is so magical then it doesn't follow that anyone would need clubs, personal trainers, etc. They wouldn't need any coaching at all

Which gets to the second point. We agree that great often don't make great coaches. That's established in this debate. What is being debated is why? And your reasoning doesn't make sense. If the greats do it naturally without learning the skill and and without coaching, then obviously coaching is meaningless. You either have it or you don't. My guess is that it has more to do with temperament, relatedness (ability to teach/coach), and a better or different way of looking at things.

[Unregistered]

Still shaking the cobwebs loose this morning?

Your two last sentences and attempt at sarcasm don't make sense. If soccer is so magical then it doesn't follow that anyone would need clubs, personal trainers, etc. They wouldn't need any coaching at all

Which gets to the second point. We agree that great often don't make great coaches. That's established in this debate. What is being debated is why? And your reasoning doesn't make sense. If the greats do it naturally without learning the skill and and without coaching, then obviously coaching is meaningless. You either have it or you don't. My guess is that it has more to do with temperament, relatedness (ability to teach/coach), and a better or different way of looking at things.

By magical I meant exempt from the principles of development that have worked for the other major sports in this country for over 100 years. We dominate or compete at the highest level in all other major sports, yet in soccer we fail and have slid backwards. The rate of decline has increased over the last 10 years. Why? There has to be a reason why we cannot compete despite a huge population base, millions of players playing year round from the age of 8, personal coaches, professional coaches, high profile coaches, elite leagues, premier leagues. If you have a better explanation I want to hear it - maybe you have better insight than I do but merely dismissing my points without offering a better solution is pointless.

When you boil things down there are two focus points: 1) player skill (technical and tactical), 2) quality of coaching. #1 has players getting more touches, training time, game time and dedication than ever before. Our players are fit and mentally tough (I am not being jingoistic but that is a product of American can-do culture. So you can't blame it on effort. For young players immersion in a soccer culture now rivals S.A. or Europe. If you accept this premise as being fairly accurate then it boils down to coaching. Why are our players technically and tactically weaker than other countries? We are using feet, chests and heads that are shaped like everyone's else, the balls are round, the fields and nets are the same, the grass and turf are the same, the players are of the same physical builds and intelligence as other country's so what is wrong? Why are we regressing. I argue that it is predominantly a coaching problem and a problem with a club system that insists on identifying the outliers at ages before they have physically and mentally matured. I would argue (though I don't have the facts) that the average age of DOC's and coaches has decreased over the last decade. This may be a symptom but not the cause or at least just part of the cause. If you have better ideas I'd love to hear them. I am all ears because I don't have any other explanation other than the fact that our coaching, player identification, and player development philisophies are flawed and not working.

-Cujo

[Unregistered]

By magical I meant exempt from the principles of development that have worked for the other major sports in this country for over 100 years. We dominate or compete at the highest level in all other major sports, yet in soccer we fail and have slid backwards. The rate of decline has increased over the last 10 years. Why? There has to be a reason why we cannot compete despite a huge population base, millions of players playing year round from the age of 8, personal coaches, professional coaches, high profile coaches, elite leagues, premier leagues. If you have a better explanation I want to hear it - maybe you have better insight than I do but merely dismissing my points without offering a better solution is pointless.

When you boil things down there are two focus points: 1) player skill (technical and tactical), 2) quality of coaching. #1 has players getting more touches, training time, game time and dedication than ever before. Our players are fit and mentally tough (I am not being jingoistic but that is a product of American can-do culture. So you can't blame it on effort. For young players immersion in a soccer culture now rivals S.A. or Europe. If you accept this premise as being fairly accurate then it boils down to coaching. Why are our players technically and tactically weaker than other countries? We are using feet, chests and heads that are shaped like everyone's else, the balls are round, the fields and nets are the same, the grass and turf are the same, the players are of the same physical builds and intelligence as other country's so what is wrong? Why are we regressing. I argue that it is predominantly a coaching problem and a problem with a club system that insists on identifying the outliers at ages before they have physically and mentally matured. I would argue (though I don't have the facts) that the average age of DOC's and coaches has decreased over the last decade. This may be a symptom but not the cause or at least just part of the cause. If you have better ideas I'd love to hear them. I am all ears because I don't have any other explanation other than the fact that our coaching, player identification, and player development philisophies are flawed and not working.

-Cujo

You didn't have anything close to the 2nd paragraph as an attempted explanation previously. You didn't have anything, except the sarcasm. And you sort of left the topic about why many great players aren't great coaches. I think you are wrong about the latter, as it just doesn't make sense and there are counter-examples to that thesis. I don't know why either, except as I said I suspect temperament and a facility for teaching are factors. Just don't the the "too natural" argument. More willing to accept that Ted W or Magic are J are asses, though I don't know that either.

On your new topic, I mostly agree with your set-up and I also don't know why we aren't as good or better than the rest of the world. I don't think you know either, and your whole issue with the club scene and the parents and this generation is getting projected on to that. Drawing on your other theme, we must not have enough "naturals" in soccer although obviously that doesn't follow. The early age thing makes some sense but there are some kids who do remain at the top from 11 or 12 to 18/19, and so some percentage of those should be enough in theory with the massive initial population/participation base.

[Unregistered]

Someone else besides Cujo has made this argument that a person who had a skill come naturally almost by definition can't teach the skill (or not as well), I guess on the idea that they never had to learn the "digestible bits" or detailed mechanics. I'm not sure I accept that. First, I think the use of term "natural" is a misnomer. Some people are more talented and perhaps learn more easily and quickly, like with the math example, but they still have to learn the skills. Maybe this is easier to think about with sports like golf and tennis but applies to all sports. I do agree that some great players aren't great coaches, but I think this is probably for other reasons and not this one. Just doesn't make any sense. Just as a hypothetical, would you want Beckham to instruct you on free kicks, or the 50 year high school coach who toes the ball? And while Magic Johnson might not be a great coach (for a game, for a season, for a group of guys, etc) that doesn't mean you wouldn't want him to teach a specific skill, like dribbling, or running a 2 on 1 fast break, or how to work on court vision. The more I think about the whole idea makes even less sense to me. Don't buy the argument at all.

I think the key distinction should be whether the supremely talented or "natural" player (e.g., Beckham, Magic Johnson, Manny Ramirez) also has the TALENT for teaching. Just because one can easily manage a difficult task such as bending a free kick, commanding a fast break or hitting a curve ball does not mean that they can coherently communicate that task to another person. Compounding this difficulty is needing to transmit the information to an 8, 10 or 12 year old in a way that can make sense to that kid at his stage of development. To make it worse --- try it with a different gender! Yes, the coach must have the knowledge (tactical, technical or mental) necessary to handle the job. But, that's just the ante; a talent for teaching (and perhaps a fair amount of teaching training) is the difference-maker between a good and average coach...

[Unregistered]

If "magical" is to mean that some "greats" may be "naturals", requiring less time and/or effort to achieve the success that they do because they have attributes through genetics, means or opportunity that have contributed towards their development and achievement, then OK, they are "magical" - but they still needed their 10,000 hours, didn't they? To that end, this seems like a very silly discussion by virtue of that contradiction.

I thoroughly appreciate cujo's contributions to TS, officiating topics especially, but this has gone off the rails.

[Unregistered]

Can someone tell me what a fa badge 1&2 is compared to the ussf license. My brother lives and coaches in Florida and he says they there is a coach with these badges in every pub.are we getting the left overs of the great migration in mass?

[Unregistered]

Can someone tell me what a fa badge 1&2 is compared to the ussf license. My brother lives and coaches in Florida and he says they there is a coach with these badges in every pub.are we getting the left overs of the great migration in mass?

http://www.1st4sportqualifications.c...all-qcf-level1

[Unregistered]

I think the key distinction should be whether the supremely talented or "natural" player (e.g., Beckham, Magic Johnson, Manny Ramirez) also has the TALENT for teaching. Just because one can easily manage a difficult task such as bending a free kick, commanding a fast break or hitting a curve ball does not mean that they can coherently communicate that task to another person. Compounding this difficulty is needing to transmit the information to an 8, 10 or 12 year old in a way that can make sense to that kid at his stage of development. To make it worse --- try it with a different gender! Yes, the coach must have the knowledge (tactical, technical or mental) necessary to handle the job. But, that's just the ante; a talent for teaching (and perhaps a fair amount of teaching training) is the difference-maker between a good and average coach...

Good points. Another problem is that I think that we are far to focused on developing individual talent and thinking that by clustering all stars who do everything well that we can produce great teams. I think an approach that focused on development of teams with complementary players is the best. A team full of 12 Pele's or Beckhams could not compete. But it is nice to have one or two of them. I don't think that we are set up to develop players that help make great teams.

An earlier post once again disagreed that great players don't make great coaches. I keep hearing this but nobody can produce enough examples of elite players who are also great coaches. You can't prove a point by just saying something over and over without offering up facts. It is clear that they are just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing but where are the facts.

_ Cujo