Qualifications

[Unregistered]

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

Cujo, you distort worse than btdt. That's not what I said. I said I AGREED that most great players probably won't make great coaches. I disagreed with your theory about why this is. I offered a couple of my own thoughts about it and admitted that I really don't know, as you don't either.

And you don't make a great team with the intention of developing complementary players. You develop the best players you can and then on a particular team some of those players end up becoming complementary players. The great 6th men of the Celtics years ago weren't developed as complementary guys when they were in high school or college. Your problem here is that square your two competing interests here: 1) your diatribe against the club and elite training world and defense of high school play, and good, solid, Gene Hackman, Hoosiers-type values; and 2) your view that we aren't competing internationally so the coaching actually must not be good enough.

[Unregistered]

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

The pool of people who are available to become great coaches is limited only by population.

The pool of great players who are available to become great coaches is limited first by the number of great players - what percent of the population become great players. Lets see 3%ish of HS players become college players. A similar percent go on to pros (not soccer but close enough). And then a similar percent of pros become great players. So now you have 1 out of 50,000 hs players going on to become a great pro.

Add to that that of those great players 1) most are financially set, so the driving factor has to be a desire to give back (yes regular guys should have this to suceed, but the need for a paycheck will keep many guys going through inevitable hardship that might send a rich man to the Caribbean) and 2) how many are going to have the patience to develop their teaching talents (for baseball how many hall of famers are going to take a rookie league job as a hitting coach).

I'm not saying being a HOFer is a plus (though it could be argued that exposure to talented coaches might help for those that bothered to pay attention on the way up), but rather there is no disadvantage for those HOF.

No, they will not all have the ability to become great coaches but they have the similar likelyhood as they not so great players.

[Unregistered]

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

Level 1 - Similar to the State E license, however it has recently been revamped. Learning outcomes and hours are similar to D license. Level 1 is almost impossible to fail,and is aimed at Parent Coaches of travel teams.

Level 2- Used to finish with a 6v6 match, at the time I took it, the course was 8 full days (including assessment). I have been told it has been revamped, and is most similar the NSCAA diploma/USSF C in terms of material covered.

There are no equivalencies in qualifications between the USA and Europe, and vice versa however coaches with high qualifications (e.g. Uefa A) can usually enter at the B License level in the USA.

[Unregistered]

Level 1 - Similar to the State E license, however it has recently been revamped. Learning outcomes and hours are similar to D license. Level 1 is almost impossible to fail,and is aimed at Parent Coaches of travel teams.

Level 2- Used to finish with a 6v6 match, at the time I took it, the course was 8 full days (including assessment). I have been told it has been revamped, and is most similar the NSCAA diploma/USSF C in terms of material covered.

There are no equivalencies in qualifications between the USA and Europe, and vice versa however coaches with high qualifications (e.g. Uefa A) can usually enter at the B License level in the USA.

Just for clarification, I think you omitted national or advanced national for the "NSCAA diploma" (I'm guessing adv natl).

[Unregistered]

The pool of people who are available to become great coaches is limited only by population.

The pool of great players who are available to become great coaches is limited first by the number of great players - what percent of the population become great players. Lets see 3%ish of HS players become college players. A similar percent go on to pros (not soccer but close enough). And then a similar percent of pros become great players. So now you have 1 out of 50,000 hs players going on to become a great pro.

Add to that that of those great players 1) most are financially set, so the driving factor has to be a desire to give back (yes regular guys should have this to suceed, but the need for a paycheck will keep many guys going through inevitable hardship that might send a rich man to the Caribbean) and 2) how many are going to have the patience to develop their teaching talents (for baseball how many hall of famers are going to take a rookie league job as a hitting coach).

I'm not saying being a HOFer is a plus (though it could be argued that exposure to talented coaches might help for those that bothered to pay attention on the way up), but rather there is no disadvantage for those HOF.

No, they will not all have the ability to become great coaches but they have the similar likelyhood as they not so great players.

I still don't think we are answering the question at hand. I think we do a pretty good job developing players up to about U13 because team play is less important until tactics are being taught. I really think the problem starts at U13/14 because clubs do not make a transition from developing individual talent to team talent. I don't think we do a good job of developing teams with a vertical skill set. Teams need role players. Where I disagree with you is the notion that elite players fall into niche rolls. I just don't think there are enough of those players. Dean Conway was always clear that he believed a team should have one player on the field that thought only about offense. Beyond that you had 2 or 3 more 5 tool players. The rest of the team was comprised of players who were good at several things i.e. throw ins, CK's, DK's, defenders who could clear balls played in the air, distributors. I see alot of games these days and I see teams that have full squads that play cookie cutter styles. Lots of speed and dexterity but 90% wasted effort. I am not sure what the solution is but whether you agree with my assessment of how the problems you cannot deny that we are not making progress and may be regressing.

- Cujo

[Unregistered]

I still don't think we are answering the question at hand. I think we do a pretty good job developing players up to about U13 because team play is less important until tactics are being taught. I really think the problem starts at U13/14 because clubs do not make a transition from developing individual talent to team talent. I don't think we do a good job of developing teams with a vertical skill set. Teams need role players. Where I disagree with you is the notion that elite players fall into niche rolls. I just don't think there are enough of those players. Dean Conway was always clear that he believed a team should have one player on the field that thought only about offense. Beyond that you had 2 or 3 more 5 tool players. The rest of the team was comprised of players who were good at several things i.e. throw ins, CK's, DK's, defenders who could clear balls played in the air, distributors. I see alot of games these days and I see teams that have full squads that play cookie cutter styles. Lots of speed and dexterity but 90% wasted effort. I am not sure what the solution is but whether you agree with my assessment of how the problems you cannot deny that we are not making progress and may be regressing.

- Cujo

Huh??? how does your response relate to great players can't become great coaches?

[Unregistered]

Level 1 - Similar to the State E license, however it has recently been revamped. Learning outcomes and hours are similar to D license. Level 1 is almost impossible to fail,and is aimed at Parent Coaches of travel teams.

Level 2- Used to finish with a 6v6 match, at the time I took it, the course was 8 full days (including assessment). I have been told it has been revamped, and is most similar the NSCAA diploma/USSF C in terms of material covered.

There are no equivalencies in qualifications between the USA and Europe, and vice versa however coaches with high qualifications (e.g. Uefa A) can usually enter at the B License level in the USA.

I think you are giving these badges a bit too much credit.

It sounds like the 1 is USSF F&G- 2 E and 3 D possible some C. NSCAA Advance Regional has some intro to match analysis and fitness but not really in depth until the national.

This is from a coaching forum"Level 1 is obviously easy and thats really because its more like an introduction to the idea of coaching and setting up practices and consists largely of what i would describe as a step up from warm up drills. Level 2 starts to add a little more meat to it with pratices becoming more game specific. Level 3 is where you really have to be a lot more clued up with regards to analysing mistakes and being able to correct them. Practices revolve aroung small sided games and functions ie defending set pieces"

This is from the FA" The first step for new coaches is to take the Level One Certificate in Coaching Football, which is available throughout the country. It covers the organisation and delivery of safe and enjoyable coaching sessions for players. The course will provide practical drills to develop players’ technical skills and is suited to those working with groups of young players.

The Level Two Certificate in Coaching Football provides a more in-depth understanding of coaching. The course also introduces new themes such as looking at different coaching styles, preparing for accidents and emergencies and players’ nutritional needs.

The Level Three Certificate in Coaching Football teaches coaches to apply the principles of performance profiling. This knowledge will aid them to evaluate player and team performance and set goals accordingly. Coaches learn how to analyse matches, assess fitness, provide a psychological analysis of players and build on nutritional awareness.
"

[Unregistered]

Huh??? how does your response relate to great players can't become great coaches?

This was one Cujo should have left alone. He hasn't made any sense on this topic from the very beginning and he misinterprets every response he gets. He is seriously confusing end product with process. You don't develop a great international team by mixing 5 star players in with 3 star players. Every player for Barcelona or Spain is a 5 star player, even though some may in the context of the team play a complementary role. He's trying to maintain his position on 3 or 4 different things and he can't, so he's reduced to making no sense.

One of the best posts on this topic was the one talking statistically. There are very few great players, so the pool already is small. Then some don't have a facility for coaching, so the pool gets smaller. But of course a great player CAN be a great coach. This idea that their very facility with skills makes coaching prohibitive for them is just abject silliness.

[Unregistered]

This was one Cujo should have left alone. He hasn't made any sense on this topic from the very beginning and he misinterprets every response he gets. He is seriously confusing end product with process. You don't develop a great international team by mixing 5 star players in with 3 star players. Every player for Barcelona or Spain is a 5 star player, even though some may in the context of the team play a complementary role. He's trying to maintain his position on 3 or 4 different things and he can't, so he's reduced to making no sense.

One of the best posts on this topic was the one talking statistically. There are very few great players, so the pool already is small. Then some don't have a facility for coaching, so the pool gets smaller. But of course a great player CAN be a great coach. This idea that their very facility with skills makes coaching prohibitive for them is just abject silliness.

A very well articulated post.

[Unregistered]

I think you are giving these badges a bit too much credit.

It sounds like the 1 is USSF F&G- 2 E and 3 D possible some C. NSCAA Advance Regional has some intro to match analysis and fitness but not really in depth until the national.

This is from a coaching forum"Level 1 is obviously easy and thats really because its more like an introduction to the idea of coaching and setting up practices and consists largely of what i would describe as a step up from warm up drills. Level 2 starts to add a little more meat to it with pratices becoming more game specific. Level 3 is where you really have to be a lot more clued up with regards to analysing mistakes and being able to correct them. Practices revolve aroung small sided games and functions ie defending set pieces"

This is from the FA" The first step for new coaches is to take the Level One Certificate in Coaching Football, which is available throughout the country. It covers the organisation and delivery of safe and enjoyable coaching sessions for players. The course will provide practical drills to develop players’ technical skills and is suited to those working with groups of young players.

The Level Two Certificate in Coaching Football provides a more in-depth understanding of coaching. The course also introduces new themes such as looking at different coaching styles, preparing for accidents and emergencies and players’ nutritional needs.

The Level Three Certificate in Coaching Football teaches coaches to apply the principles of performance profiling. This knowledge will aid them to evaluate player and team performance and set goals accordingly. Coaches learn how to analyse matches, assess fitness, provide a psychological analysis of players and build on nutritional awareness.
"

The FA Level 3 is the Uefa B license, meaning someone with an FA level 3 license can enter the USSF education at the B license- as would coaches with the Uefa A or Uefa Pro licences.

Level 2 info: http://eventspace.thefa.com/bedfords...=57839#regform

A coach who has completed the Level 1 and 2 Licenses in the UK (as well as other pre-requisite courses for level 2- First Aid, Safeguarding Children, Laws of the Game) will have had 120 hours of education.

A US coach completing G,F,E, D and C will have had (4+8+16+32+60) 120 hours of guided learning, with a large degree of repitition from G to D.

[Unregistered]

Huh??? how does your response relate to great players can't become great coaches?

I guess I have to spell it out. Can't anyone think for themselves in here? Coaches select players, coaches select players based upon picking the most amount of the best players they can find without regard to how they fit together within a team context. At less than U14 this is not important. Between U14 to U18 this is very important. Rather than trying to pick all-star teams they should be picking complementary players with specific roles in mind.

If this clarification is not useful I am not sure what else I can do to get you to understand my point.

- Cujo

[Unregistered]

A very well articulated post.

Of course because it criticizes me and you can't stand me.

Let me break it down into first grade terminology. A team comprised of 11 Beckhams would lose to a mediocre team comprised of compatible players.

This relates back to qualifications. Coaches are younger and younger and are being selected based upon playing ability. This trend has coincided with the US being less competitive than at any other time in recent history. These coaches do not know how to train players nor do they know how to select players. Now that licensing has been brought up. Let's look at it carefully. USSF A to C were always geared towards playing rather than coaching ability. They were supposed to change that but it never happened. Clubs now want C's and higher for credentials. The result? More and more skill oriented coaches rather than coaches. This is one of the reasons why I no longer coach. I have a D which I got about 8 years ago at age 45. It was demanding but not that bad despite taking it in 95 degree summer heat. I have been told more than once that I need a C license. At age 53 with a ruptured disk and bad knees it just ain't gonna happen.

Coaches are coaches and players are players. The things that make you a good player frequently do not make you a good coach and vice versa. That is a fact and not an opinion I pulled out of my butt.

I know this is a hard pill for some to swallow given the thousands of dollars they kick out every year so their kids can drive that shiny new BMW coach who played third division soccer for West Sheepcrap United.

Disagree all you want but the facts are the facts. 1) More players than ever before, 2) more players playing only soccer earlier than ever, 3) more money for training and tournaments, 4) younger and younger coaches with more playing than coaching experience, 5) proliferation of elite leagues. The result? Women's leagues that have twice folded because the play is uninspired and boring. MLS is barely equivalent to English Third Division. USMNT? A joke.

I'll pre-empt those that say I am bitter because I can't get a coaching job. Here is a fact - I don't want a coaching job. I am very happy officiating. I don't want to be part of the mess that is youth club soccer. I know my time has come and gone and I accept that.

- Cujo

[Unregistered]

I guess I have to spell it out. Can't anyone think for themselves in here? Coaches select players, coaches select players based upon picking the most amount of the best players they can find without regard to how they fit together within a team context. At less than U14 this is not important. Between U14 to U18 this is very important. Rather than trying to pick all-star teams they should be picking complementary players with specific roles in mind.

If this clarification is not useful I am not sure what else I can do to get you to understand my point.

- Cujo

In other words, you've changed the subject and have no interest in debating the merits of my points at all.

Good way to put an end to an interesting discussion.

[Unregistered]

Of course because it criticizes me and you can't stand me.

Let me break it down into first grade terminology. A team comprised of 11 Beckhams would lose to a mediocre team comprised of compatible players.

This relates back to qualifications. Coaches are younger and younger and are being selected based upon playing ability. This trend has coincided with the US being less competitive than at any other time in recent history. These coaches do not know how to train players nor do they know how to select players. Now that licensing has been brought up. Let's look at it carefully. USSF A to C were always geared towards playing rather than coaching ability. They were supposed to change that but it never happened. Clubs now want C's and higher for credentials. The result? More and more skill oriented coaches rather than coaches. This is one of the reasons why I no longer coach. I have a D which I got about 8 years ago at age 45. It was demanding but not that bad despite taking it in 95 degree summer heat. I have been told more than once that I need a C license. At age 53 with a ruptured disk and bad knees it just ain't gonna happen.

Coaches are coaches and players are players. The things that make you a good player frequently do not make you a good coach and vice versa. That is a fact and not an opinion I pulled out of my butt.

I know this is a hard pill for some to swallow given the thousands of dollars they kick out every year so their kids can drive that shiny new BMW coach who played third division soccer for West Sheepcrap United.

Disagree all you want but the facts are the facts. 1) More players than ever before, 2) more players playing only soccer earlier than ever, 3) more money for training and tournaments, 4) younger and younger coaches with more playing than coaching experience, 5) proliferation of elite leagues. The result? Women's leagues that have twice folded because the play is uninspired and boring. MLS is barely equivalent to English Third Division. USMNT? A joke.

I'll pre-empt those that say I am bitter because I can't get a coaching job. Here is a fact - I don't want a coaching job. I am very happy officiating. I don't want to be part of the mess that is youth club soccer. I know my time has come and gone and I accept that.

- Cujo

Cujo, let's simplify this for YOU.

We agree in general with you that there is a phenomenon, that you described pretty well (i.e the US is not doing as well as it should with soccer).

We don't agree with your explanations for this. Perhaps the answers take more than five minutes to figure out and then with a post on T-S. It's OK if it remains a question. On top of that, your various fave themes all conflict with each other.

Your whole complementary player thing ni particular makes no sense. Taken literally, we would put middling varsity high school players on the national team and MLS squads. You don't take a kid at 14-16, and say, "I am going to develop you as a complementary player." Wittingly or unwittingly, you are actually arguing to have LESS talent on the national team rather than more. I think most believe we need MORE talent -- perhaps meshing together better, yes, but your proposal makes no sense at all.

And with all due respect, I doubt giving more of a role to 50+ year old D license guys who maybe took a team to MTOC or a state cup semifinal is the answer. And I am one of those myself.

[Unregistered]

Of course because it criticizes me and you can't stand me.

Let me break it down into first grade terminology. A team comprised of 11 Beckhams would lose to a mediocre team comprised of compatible players.

- Cujo

First, no that's not why it was a well articulated post. You had nothing to do with my reply. Don't be a presumptuous douche.

Second, I'm the one that had the objectivity to cite your other valuable contributions here and my appreciation for them, despite feeling you're a bit all over the place chasing an initially poorly stated point of view. Again, don't be a presumptuous douche.

Third, on this and the prior post re: player selection, I get it. And while I'm not saying your wrong necessarily or that it isn't the way it is, I don't believe that a generalization applies. To me you revealed the significant problem that too many coached, focused on winning and coaching to win, don't develop players. Far too early Johnny is a fullback and Janey is a striker, one never develops ball control and creativity and the other can't defend individually or with team tactics. For this reason what you state re: 11 best talents vs. 11 complementary parts might not perform as a team as expected (this has application outside of soccer obviously). This underscores that this problem is more culture and methods than individuals (coaches, players or their parents). I raised this point in the futsal thread asking the simple question, because as a single example it highlights it well - if we know it's the right thing to do and so beneficial, why don't we more fully and enthusiastically embrace it? As a simple answers coaches, parents and together aren't married to the same sets of beliefs, I dqre not call them values, when it comes to the process of development, never mind the focus on results muddying the waters along the way.