Qualifications

[Unregistered]

But this still does not get at the central point. Not only does US soccer need to revamp youth development but they need to revamp the way coaches are trained, and how their qualifications are established. No other sport has such a rigid and hierarchical coach training system yet it is the most dysfunctional of all major sports (based upon performance). None of the other major sports expend as much time and energy licensing and training coaches. Part of this I admit is that we have a longer and deeper pool of adults who played the sport but that argument is about to go over the cliff. We are heading into the third generation of soccer being a popular sport if you count the mid 70's as the take off point and about 1985 to 1990 as the acceleration point. We now have young children who have US born and bred parents who grew up in a soccer culture.

Part of the problem is that the reasons why parents have their kids play and why the kids themselves want to play frequently diverge. Soccer does not hold onto its young players because so much of the soccer culture is steeped in a cauldron of what can soccer do for my kid's resume and future and not out of love for the sport. The kids either buy into, burn out, or turn their back on those values. This is what happens when youth sports become a business rather than just a game. Unlike any other sport, soccer is a profit making business and IMHO that is the #1 problem in front of us.

- Cujo

Great observations re: coaching and development, even better not bogged down by the paragraph I omitted.

[Unregistered]

A microcosm of the prior discussion - great observations, even about size of fields for baseball...just not soccer. As stated a reader might simply think youth soccer plays full sides/full field and nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, they're more similar than different. Furthermore, for more than a decade soccer has been responsive to implementing SSG methods in training and play. As I know you know, players rather than field size is more, not only, but more impactful with respect to players getting more not fewer game touches. Thus the most recent move by MYSA to apply to club what has already been present in town, playing 8v8 at U12 (for now the option along side the 11v11).

Now you'd have been on to something had you changed the comment to reflect the differences in training methodologies regarding SSG in the different soccer cultures, where it is walking the walk elsewhere and ours is pure talk by comparison - yes, all the studies exclaiming the benefits have been dispensed for years, but one can routinely find a pitch where progressive coaching methods are no where in sight giving way to lines and lectures.

So overall you made some great points...despite a terribly misplaced and articulated example.

Thanks ( I think... ) :) Sorry but I have to get my posts out in hurry and don't have a lot of time to construct them like I should. I agree that there is a recent trend to reverse the 11 v 11 model for U12's which began around 1996 to 2000. But there is still resistance to 7 v 7 or 8 v 8 on smaller field and most of it comes from parents. Once again the clubs and towns have to kowtow to the demands of the consumer. I would love to see 6 v 6 on half sized fields through U10 and 8 v 8 on tween sized fields at U11 and U12. I would also like to see max roster size and meaningful minimum playing time through U14 and a two year commitment to recruited players. I would also like to see the reversal of the trend towards requiring A, B, C USSF licenses - these are more rewards for being a good player than being a good coach. Or changing the format of those courses to being purely coaching clinics.

I agree with the earlier poster seeing a decline in participation. Not big numbers yet but I am seeing town and club programs where I ref with smaller rosters and/or fewer teams at the U10 and U12 age levels. Nothing will get the attention of a business more than seeing fewer customers. They will start by cutting fees or contracting offered services before doing any meaningful changes to their business model.

Your point about training models is spot on. I see bored players standing around either in lines or with baffled looks as some guy yells at them in a deep scottish brogue for 10 minutes before they embark on some hopelessly complex training element that doesn't look like anything seen in a game. Half the time it sounds like Scotty yelling up to Capt Kirk that the "diffusion power evacuator module has just ****e the bed Cappin".

- Cujo

[Unregistered]

Thanks ( I think... ) :) Sorry but I have to get my posts out in hurry and don't have a lot of time to construct them like I should. I agree that there is a recent trend to reverse the 11 v 11 model for U12's which began around 1996 to 2000. But there is still resistance to 7 v 7 or 8 v 8 on smaller field and most of it comes from parents. Once again the clubs and towns have to kowtow to the demands of the consumer. I would love to see 6 v 6 on half sized fields through U10 and 8 v 8 on tween sized fields at U11 and U12. I would also like to see max roster size and meaningful minimum playing time through U14 and a two year commitment to recruited players. I would also like to see the reversal of the trend towards requiring A, B, C USSF licenses - these are more rewards for being a good player than being a good coach. Or changing the format of those courses to being purely coaching clinics.

I agree with the earlier poster seeing a decline in participation. Not big numbers yet but I am seeing town and club programs where I ref with smaller rosters and/or fewer teams at the U10 and U12 age levels. Nothing will get the attention of a business more than seeing fewer customers. They will start by cutting fees or contracting offered services before doing any meaningful changes to their business model.

Your point about training models is spot on. I see bored players standing around either in lines or with baffled looks as some guy yells at them in a deep scottish brogue for 10 minutes before they embark on some hopelessly complex training element that doesn't look like anything seen in a game. Half the time it sounds like Scotty yelling up to Capt Kirk that the "diffusion power evacuator module has just ****e the bed Cappin".

- Cujo

Now we're getting somewhere. ;)

Point about roster size is a good one - player to coach ratio is not a point of emphasis, especially at younger ages like it should be.

I think you're either seeing the field size/player numbers where they need to be or headed there in terms of games (I can only speak to east coast, NE to VA). But that isn't necessarily addressed effectively in training.

I read the first 20 pages of the latest NSCAA Soccer Journal last night and so much applies to what really isn't being done in terms of teams-programs administration/training (sessions and "environment"). Simply greater attention to the details would go a long way. We tell our kids to pass with purpose, don't play kick ball...but isn't that a metaphor for what many adults around the game at the height of development are doing in terms of beliefs, goals and actions?

As an aside, I bleed NSCAA and by comparison find USSF methods for coach development misguided and limited at best. USSF has an arrogance that is completely absent from NSCAA. I don't know anyone exposed to both that doesn't agree. I suspect this dynamic is not the least bit helpful in its impact on a grassroots level.

[Unregistered]

^^^^^The power of infrequent, intermittent positive reinforcement. The errors in someone's reasoning and/or exposure of agendas can be explained a hundred times, but if even one person comes along and says they agree then we're off and running again.

Let's simplify. Whatever irks Cujo with youth soccer can be formulated as the root causes of why the US doesn't have a better men's national team. He knows more than Reyna and Klinsman put together. Most of that stuff with field size, 6v6, 4v4, etc, and rosters is old news. And maybe the problem with the coach training is not some of the coaches being too athletic. Maybe they should just come up with a way to allow less able-bodied folks to still progress.

Enjoy the pellet.

[Unregistered]

You saw the wink right? ;)

Pardon me for trying to get us on a constructive track and away from pointless arguing.

I thought it made sense to actually dissect what points had validity, which ones might be on track or challenge and criticize others altogether with the purpose of getting somewhere.

For example, making specific distinctions as to what you seem to allude to - a lot of talk, studies and research, but implementation slow, inconsistent or absent.

[Unregistered]

^^^^^The power of infrequent, intermittent positive reinforcement. The errors in someone's reasoning and/or exposure of agendas can be explained a hundred times, but if even one person comes along and says they agree then we're off and running again.

Let's simplify. Whatever irks Cujo with youth soccer can be formulated as the root causes of why the US doesn't have a better men's national team. He knows more than Reyna and Klinsman put together. Most of that stuff with field size, 6v6, 4v4, etc, and rosters is old news. And maybe the problem with the coach training is not some of the coaches being too athletic. Maybe they should just come up with a way to allow less able-bodied folks to still progress.

Enjoy the pellet.

Every opinion in here is subjective so errors in reasoning can never be determined but you cannot deny that my assessment of the causes of our decline are not at least plausible and that my solutions have the potential of success. If you disagree please state facts that show my theories to be unworkable. Take for example mandatory playing time. So let's use REASONING to flesh that out. Club soccer does not have minimum playing time standards. FACT. Club soccer despite huge expenditures, participation, and time spent on the field is producing fewer and fewer players than can compete at the highest level. FACT. REASONING says that model isn't work. REASONING says if model A is not working try model B. If you are against mandatory playing time please state your reasons why you don't think it will work. To do this you will have cite examples where it has failed, if they exist.

BTW. Regarding Reyna. He's won just as many world cups as I have. And here's a wink for you ;)

- Cujo

[Unregistered]

Every opinion in here is subjective so errors in reasoning can never be determined but you cannot deny that my assessment of the causes of our decline are not at least plausible and that my solutions have the potential of success.

If you disagree please state facts that show my theories to be unworkable.

Take for example mandatory playing time. So let's use REASONING to flesh that out.

Club soccer does not have minimum playing time standards. FACT. (Town soccer does and their is no incentive to work hard to get better to receive more play time. So many coast and do not improve.. Work hard earn your time on the field.. FACT)

Club soccer despite huge expenditures, participation, and time spent on the field is producing fewer and fewer players than can compete at the highest level. FACT.
(Mewis sisters for one, go one top soccer and find 3-4 from mass in every age group.. This was not true 10-12 years ago.. FACT)

REASONING says that model isn't work. REASONING says if model A is not working try model B.
If you are against mandatory playing time please state your reasons why you don't think it will work. To do this you will have cite examples where it has failed, if they exist.

- Cujo

I disagree with many of CUJOisms..

I see more U10 teams than ever before in club soccer, and the younger teams are producing more skill than teams I was associated with at younger ages 12 years ago. Many u10 teams playing club have great possession skills, and many kids that can go 1v1 and win those battles.

Some areas (towns or communities) are lacking those younger teams because many of the behemoths clubs are scooping up everyone that comes to tryouts. In that big pool, they get some of the kids with potential, those talented kids used carry those teams. Clubs feel a bigger pool of player allows them to train them and see what develops rather than decide who has it or doesn't at a tryout when they are u9. Then as time goes on the weaker players slide south to rec style club teams or move to another sport. Lets face it if you kids is afraid of contact or does not want to run hard to challenge for loose balls IE 50-50's they are not long for the sport. To many parents send kids to town soccer so they can go food shopping for an hour, and pickup little Mia or Landon on the way home. Many use town soccer as a form of cheap babysitting.

12 years ago MASS was not producing many region one players to speak of and we were not doing well at regional's or advancing to national level. The difference is the pool is much larger now, coaching is better on the top teams, more kids are developing skills at a younger age. Every year we have teams doing well at both the regionals and many times even at nationals. More and more kids are playing regionally in DAP and ECNL teams. ODP is basically just another club with 2nd teir players. (Not the Olympic Development Program that the symbols represent)

I am not talking about NATIONAL TEAM PLAYERS, although we are producing those players more often than 10 years ago.

You still have to consider that the most athletic youths in America still do not make soccer their game of choice. I remember my sons peers telling him only sissy played soccer, come play Lax or Football and be a real man. (USA is developing more of a soccer couture than in the past but still we are second class citizens in the world of Futbol)

I believe that HYPE and SIZZLE is to tell parents IF your kid plays club they will get some $$ for college.. This is just that, SIZZLE and HYPE to lead you down the CLUB ROAD filled with buckets of money. Many will find some sort of help whether academic help for a soccer player or some D1 $$ for those elite athletes if they stick around to the ripe age of 18 but you hit HS, and you all of a sudden do not excel or your coach has his favorites and the kids start to bail.

Lets face it, odds are that an over weight non athletic kid won't play D1 college soccer, it's not impossible, but if someone tells you different and you buy into it, TS participants can sell you a rather large bridge on the cheap in NY.

For Cujo sake, nice guy, lots of incite, long on opinions, always been a pessimist, and my memory tells me his daughter was just an average player. Remember her at tryouts years ago, maybe some of his negativity stems from clubs failing to get his daughter to that elite level. ; )

Happy Holidays to all

[Unregistered]

Cujo, just to be clear, I did not author post #127. I am the guy going back and forth with you over what seems like several days now....the guy you think has a vendetta.

Your latest post repeats the same problems. Some of the individual things you say ring true, but they don't add up in terms of what the topic is about (i.e. why the US isn't better at the highest levels).

To take just one example, I am not against mandatory playing time at the lower ages. There actually are a lot of towns and clubs that have mandatory playing time. So I think playing time is a good thing. I don't think you jump from that, though, to failures in mandatory playing time having any statistically significant correlation with why the national team isn't better. The same applies for most of your other points. In other words, I agree the world might be a better place if all those things were true, but I don't think the national team would necessarily be better.

You and I have some similarities. I can't stand elitism and I see many of the things you see in the club soccer world. But I don't hate club soccer. At the several clubs I intersected with with my kids there certainly was much to criticize. Overall, though, they and I by extension, got fair deals. My kids improved. I didn't see the clubs make a ton of money as many suggest, as though they shouldn't make a living but that is another topic for another day.

I also don't like narcissism. I am certainly narcissistic but I see you going overboard. You dig in and dig in and I'm not sure you even know what you're arguing about. There is a part of you that actually believes you may have figured something, posting on here on TS, that the brightest soccer minds in our country (who also consult the brightest minds internationally) haven't figured out. That is where you trip over to narcissistic psychosis. Most of this started with your theory on great players not being great coaches because the game came to easily for them, and then your sociological issues with club soccer came in, with a little bit of a focus on alleged age discrimination with the licensing stuff, and everything got so mixed together that it no longer made sense. And btw, you initially were describing role players as being developed and coached as role players during the development phase and not at the end product stage. Remember telling us Spain doesn't have the best 11 players in the world. Your whole point was that kids should be trained differently, but everyone else agrees that it is optimal to focus on the kids who are 5 star kids with the hope they will develop into 5 or at least 4 star adult athletes. You were singing an entirely different tune.

[Unregistered]

I'm neither 127 or 128. But made a similar point about the disconnect between youth and natl team observations.

[Unregistered]

I disagree with many of CUJOisms..

I see more U10 teams than ever before in club soccer, and the younger teams are producing more skill than teams I was associated with at younger ages 12 years ago. Many u10 teams playing club have great possession skills, and many kids that can go 1v1 and win those battles.

Some areas (towns or communities) are lacking those younger teams because many of the behemoths clubs are scooping up everyone that comes to tryouts. In that big pool, they get some of the kids with potential, those talented kids used carry those teams. Clubs feel a bigger pool of player allows them to train them and see what develops rather than decide who has it or doesn't at a tryout when they are u9. Then as time goes on the weaker players slide south to rec style club teams or move to another sport. Lets face it if you kids is afraid of contact or does not want to run hard to challenge for loose balls IE 50-50's they are not long for the sport. To many parents send kids to town soccer so they can go food shopping for an hour, and pickup little Mia or Landon on the way home. Many use town soccer as a form of cheap babysitting.

12 years ago MASS was not producing many region one players to speak of and we were not doing well at regional's or advancing to national level. The difference is the pool is much larger now, coaching is better on the top teams, more kids are developing skills at a younger age. Every year we have teams doing well at both the regionals and many times even at nationals. More and more kids are playing regionally in DAP and ECNL teams. ODP is basically just another club with 2nd teir players. (Not the Olympic Development Program that the symbols represent)

I am not talking about NATIONAL TEAM PLAYERS, although we are producing those players more often than 10 years ago.

You still have to consider that the most athletic youths in America still do not make soccer their game of choice. I remember my sons peers telling him only sissy played soccer, come play Lax or Football and be a real man. (USA is developing more of a soccer couture than in the past but still we are second class citizens in the world of Futbol)

I believe that HYPE and SIZZLE is to tell parents IF your kid plays club they will get some $$ for college.. This is just that, SIZZLE and HYPE to lead you down the CLUB ROAD filled with buckets of money. Many will find some sort of help whether academic help for a soccer player or some D1 $$ for those elite athletes if they stick around to the ripe age of 18 but you hit HS, and you all of a sudden do not excel or your coach has his favorites and the kids start to bail.

Lets face it, odds are that an over weight non athletic kid won't play D1 college soccer, it's not impossible, but if someone tells you different and you buy into it, TS participants can sell you a rather large bridge on the cheap in NY.

For Cujo sake, nice guy, lots of incite, long on opinions, always been a pessimist, and my memory tells me his daughter was just an average player. Remember her at tryouts years ago, maybe some of his negativity stems from clubs failing to get his daughter to that elite level. ; )

Happy Holidays to all

I am not cujo, but I have posted on thsi topic , and here's my two cents.

Look, I'll be honest, I am a licensed coach, parent and Referee for many decades.
I'll agree that young players have more skill ( U 10 ) than in the past, but skill alone does not make you a potentially great player. I have trained many children who showed great skill and potential at age 10, only to collapse later. I have also trained children that at 10 didn't really stand out who emerged later in their team years as great players.

The system in place now, and the way it is heading, is seperating children at younger and younger ages , trying to " develop" those that have the visual perception of becoming great. When " premier " first started, and the travel teams where raided, and the " best" were taken away to form the " superior" premier teams, we always joked that who COULDN't take the perceived best and win trophies ? What real coaching is all about, is taking that " B' or even " C" level player, and developing them to an " A" . It isn't always possible, but under the Club model today, they aren't interested in that. Potentially great athletes are edged out early on, without any chance to develop. Indeed, some additonally are left out becasue they are not in the targeted socio-economic strata.

In the past, children were motivated to play organized sports for many reasons. Those reasons for the most part have been replaced by the agenda of parents and the adult enablers working for their dollars. Of course, Youth soccer is not alone in this , other sports and activities are equally guilty. By limiting the participation numbers of children, by cost , specialized and discriminatory practices at earlier and earlier ages, adults have changed the fabric of children's participation.

The agenda in the long run is actually more harmful to children in the long run than the previous model. The road that a child must face now in Youth soccer , in order to be a " success " , whatever that really is, is long , hard and expensive. At younger and younger ages , year round specialization and committment takes away from other activities, especially others where the child may grow and prosper. In additon, the jury is out on what all this time invested in the sport will do to their bodies. In my expeerince the past year, I have been a Referee in well over 150 outdoor matches. The number of young girls I see wearing braces, the amount of players sidelined by injury , and others hobbling around is alarming.If they keep up the pace, they will have the knees of 50 year olds when they are 28.

Oragnized youth sports used to be just one part of child development. It has been blown out of that, and seems to be for some people, the main part of it. Too much emphasis, too much invested. Very , very few children grow up to get anything meaningful from their expeeinces, if they even rememebr.

[Unregistered]

Cujo, just to be clear, I did not author post #127. I am the guy going back and forth with you over what seems like several days now....the guy you think has a vendetta.

Your latest post repeats the same problems. Some of the individual things you say ring true, but they don't add up in terms of what the topic is about (i.e. why the US isn't better at the highest levels).

To take just one example, I am not against mandatory playing time at the lower ages. There actually are a lot of towns and clubs that have mandatory playing time. So I think playing time is a good thing. I don't think you jump from that, though, to failures in mandatory playing time having any statistically significant correlation with why the national team isn't better. The same applies for most of your other points. In other words, I agree the world might be a better place if all those things were true, but I don't think the national team would necessarily be better.

You and I have some similarities. I can't stand elitism and I see many of the things you see in the club soccer world. But I don't hate club soccer. At the several clubs I intersected with with my kids there certainly was much to criticize. Overall, though, they and I by extension, got fair deals. My kids improved. I didn't see the clubs make a ton of money as many suggest, as though they shouldn't make a living but that is another topic for another day.

I also don't like narcissism. I am certainly narcissistic but I see you going overboard. You dig in and dig in and I'm not sure you even know what you're arguing about. There is a part of you that actually believes you may have figured something, posting on here on TS, that the brightest soccer minds in our country (who also consult the brightest minds internationally) haven't figured out. That is where you trip over to narcissistic psychosis. Most of this started with your theory on great players not being great coaches because the game came to easily for them, and then your sociological issues with club soccer came in, with a little bit of a focus on alleged age discrimination with the licensing stuff, and everything got so mixed together that it no longer made sense. And btw, you initially were describing role players as being developed and coached as role players during the development phase and not at the end product stage. Remember telling us Spain doesn't have the best 11 players in the world. Your whole point was that kids should be trained differently, but everyone else agrees that it is optimal to focus on the kids who are 5 star kids with the hope they will develop into 5 or at least 4 star adult athletes. You were singing an entirely different tune.

I think that people brighter than me know what the solutions are to the problems. Nobody is willing to implement because of the $$$ that would be lost alienating their customers.

I am far from narcisstic. In fact I am very self-deprecating which is pretty much a polar opposite. But I have been around the game a long time as a coach, board member at club and town level, player, parent of player, and as a ref. I think this broad based resume gives me a perspective that is different from some people (many?) because I have seen things from alot of different angles.

I don't think that I have a disconnect at all on the 5 star players because my point is that we are too focused on individual development and not team development. I disagree with those who believe that the solution is to constantly cut players, shift rosters, and to recruit the best players that they can find. Teams are not built that way.

I like using music as an example because I think there are many parallels with sports. Take 5 average musicians but who are all on the same page and that have played together for many years and they are going to better than putting a line-up of the 3 best lead guitarists , 3 best bass players, and 4 best drummers together. Tell a parent that their burgeoning star 16 year would make a great role player and you are going to have one angry parent.

Not to mention that half the time people in here are merely arguing just to be contrarion. It muddles the subject, nobody knows who is saying what, posters get misquoted or assumptions are drawn from simple statements that simply aren't true.

- Cujo

PS my response to the other poster is that I am not bitter about my daughter's club experience. Aside from the time she spent with the Hopkins coached Boston Lightning U11/12's (which was a miserable experience and total disaster from pillar to post) we have a lot of good memories. Hopkins was part of the first wave of accented young guys who were great players but without any coaching experience.

And yes my daughter was an average technical club player with superior fitness and mentality. Above average tactically.

[Unregistered]

^^^^^The power of infrequent, intermittent positive reinforcement. The errors in someone's reasoning and/or exposure of agendas can be explained a hundred times, but if even one person comes along and says they agree then we're off and running again.

Let's simplify. Whatever irks Cujo with youth soccer can be formulated as the root causes of why the US doesn't have a better men's national team. He knows more than Reyna and Klinsman put together. Most of that stuff with field size, 6v6, 4v4, etc, and rosters is old news. And maybe the problem with the coach training is not some of the coaches being too athletic. Maybe they should just come up with a way to allow less able-bodied folks to still progress.

Enjoy the pellet.

Thanks, I did enjoy the pellet. Now be careful when you put your slippers on. I left you a little present.

- Cujo