Private soccer coaching in CT -- Is MA next?

[perspective]

Is this the same poster with these horribly negative views? A lot of people speaking a lot of sense on here, no one saying that a private coach can take a complete novice and turn them into the next Messi overnight. However there are plenty of small-minded and ignorant posts on the other end of the scale.

There is a more than a decent chance that the poster with the "horribly negative views" has a player at the very top of the pyramid who most likely has had at least several years of private training that it is still ongoing. For the most part, I personally agree with the poster. For the very top levels, raw talent is essential, as are drive, tremendous work ethic, and a desire to be better than great. That said, kids who have good to very good talent, and who have the latter qualities, may well fulfill their goals/dreams. Where I disagree with the poster is that there can be goals/dreams that correspond to multiple levels, and in some of these cases specialized training of some sort may augment efforts to fulfill goals at whatever level fits that particular kid.

[perspective]

Pro youth academies (especially in Europe) will often look at players who can turn a game in an instant (the X factor). Players with vision and the ability to think 2 or 3 steps ahead combined with great technique will stand out well above an "athlete".

I'm sure there are some parents may have unrealistic dreams of their kid becoming a future National Team superstar but these are few and far between. The large majority who invest in private training want to help their kid get to the next level and a talented private trainer will help them achieve that. The poster above who said they used to provide private training and just saw it as stealing obviously didn't do a very good job and is now projecting their bitterness on here.

Nope, your theory is likely off target.

[Unregistered]

Nope, your theory is likely off target.

Not really a theory tbh, these are all attributes that the top academies in Europe with identify when scouting youth prospects. The US is a little different; the physical attributes (for males) are often favored above all else hence why you get robots at the pro level and especially the college level.

[Unregistered]

Absolute bullcrap. Coaches start with the body and project where it will top out first and then start looking at the skills. Coaches always figure they can teach the skills, whereas the body is born with and really can't be improved upon much.

Totally agree that a lot of youth coaches do that. If you just want to win now, it makes sense. If you are picking who can develop into a star down the road, it is wrongheaded and not the way the best pro developmental coaches do it.

Coaches sell "possibilities" to pry your money from your wallet.

I am a bit less cynical. Pretty much every personal coach or trainer in any activity is going to try to promote the benefits of their services. I agree that trainers should not over-promise what can be achieved. I'm sure some do, but many don't.

There is no such thing as "extraordinary technical skill, good quickness and excellent ability to read the game" at U12.

I disagree. And you read the articles about US kids accepted into European training academies, the coaches always praise their extraordinary technical skill and vision of the game, not their physical abiltiy.

Most of the standout players at that age are just early bloomers who have a little more size/agility/speed for their age so they can run by other kids to put the ball in the net. Most of the problem with soccer in this country is that kid never really learns how to play intelligent soccer with other players so when their athletic advantage naturally levels out they can no longer play the game at a high level.

Agreed.

If you really do have a true diamond at that age everyone can see it but even then you are still years away from figuring out what that player will ultimately grow up to be. Far easier to spot the ones that will not make it as opposed to the ones who will.

I don't disagree

No amount of coaching will help them but that doesn't stop these coaches from cashing their parent's checks though does it?

Become help them become a pro? Almost certainly not, but then again, even the top prospects probably won't become pro either. Help them become a D3 player? Play in HS? Get more playing time on their club or travel team? Different people have different goals. Regardless of the goal, the training may put them a little closer to it. Again, I agree that trainers should not over-promise what their services will help you achieve. Some may, many don't.

[Unregistered]

Pro youth academies (especially in Europe) will often look at players who can turn a game in an instant (the X factor). Players with vision and the ability to think 2 or 3 steps ahead combined with great technique will stand out well above an "athlete".

I'm sure there are some parents may have unrealistic dreams of their kid becoming a future National Team superstar but these are few and far between. The large majority who invest in private training want to help their kid get to the next level and a talented private trainer will help them achieve that. The poster above who said they used to provide private training and just saw it as stealing obviously didn't do a very good job and is now projecting their bitterness on here.

Especially when that "next level" entails a jump from masc to maple d3.

[Unregistered]

There is a more than a decent chance that the poster with the "horribly negative views" has a player at the very top of the pyramid who most likely has had at least several years of private training that it is still ongoing. For the most part, I personally agree with the poster. For the very top levels, raw talent is essential, as are drive, tremendous work ethic, and a desire to be better than great. That said, kids who have good to very good talent, and who have the latter qualities, may well fulfill their goals/dreams. Where I disagree with the poster is that there can be goals/dreams that correspond to multiple levels, and in some of these cases specialized training of some sort may augment efforts to fulfill goals at whatever level fits that particular kid.

Isn't the issue really that the amount of improvement is likely all relative to the amount of raw talent? Lets be real, being the best one can be might very well mean making the high school varsity team but even then the desire to achieve that goal is actually way more significant than any training environment a parent can put their child in. After all it is the amount of work the kid does to achieve the goal that will make the difference, not who they work with. You can take the most talented player in the world and match them up with one of the best and brightest trainers but unless that player is motivated to listen and follow through on what the trainer is teaching the benefit will be marginal. You can flip the equation which ever way you want, unless there is a true desire to improve no amount of training will change anything. This puts the end result all squarely on the back on the individual athlete and not on the trainer. Trainers are nothing more than a means to an end yet so many here seem to want to overly elevate their importance in their children achieving their athletic goals. All of this talk about private trainers is stupid.

[Unregistered]

Most US evaluators favor athleticism assuming they can coach up the rest. Other countries favor skills and vision FIRST, knowing it is much easier to condition an athlete in a structured club environment. Soccer culture here in the US is evolving, and in another generation or so hopefully the knowledge and passion will match that of other soccer first countries.

[Unregistered]

Nope, your theory is likely off target.

Would be interested in your take on the crossover subjects being discussed in this and the Cosgrove Canned thread. How much credit do these "trainers" deserve for developing talent? Do you think it is appropriate for someone like MK to make innuendos claiming he "made" one of the best players to come out of the region in order to sell his value to the Stars North families? Just wondering where the line is with you.

[perspective]

Not really a theory tbh, these are all attributes that the top academies in Europe with identify when scouting youth prospects. The US is a little different; the physical attributes (for males) are often favored above all else hence why you get robots at the pro level and especially the college level.

I meant the last sentence in that post.

[perspective]

Would be interested in your take on the crossover subjects being discussed in this and the Cosgrove Canned thread. How much credit do these "trainers" deserve for developing talent? Do you think it is appropriate for someone like MK to make innuendos claiming he "made" one of the best players to come out of the region in order to sell his value to the Stars North families? Just wondering where the line is with you.

To be honest, I haven't followed that closely. But based on what you write above, I would say that I would abhor serious false advertising, doctored resumes, and making claims that have no relation to reality at all. That said, I think it would be unrealistic to expect someone not to make use of and reference the experiences they have had. If they have worked with some top players I think mentioning that would be advisable. I see the bios of college coaches mention players they have worked with in the past all the time. Claiming responsibility for a kid's talent and accomplishments, as though they only would have achieved those by virtue of the contact with that person, I think is where I would tend to draw the line. I certainly wouldn't expect a club or coach never to mention "success stories" that have passed through their ranks. ANY club who has had some has advertised that...and usually quite prominently. Would you expect them not to mention these kids or stories at all???

[Unregistered]

MK spends an awful lot of time telling anyone who will listen that he trained MA.

[Unregistered]

MK spends an awful lot of time telling anyone who will listen that he trained MA.

And he did, from what I've read.

But "training her" is waaaay different than implying that he's responsible for what's she's become. Unless he can show me an interview where she says, "I owe everything to hard work and MK. He made me what I am today…", he'd be smart not to overstate the impact he's had.

[ForzaAzzurri]

Speaking of prominent "local" players:

“Some things you can’t teach, you are either born with it or do it on your own. All the stuff I do I was born with it, I wasn’t taught to do it.’’

--DF, Boston Globe Interview, Feb 2011

[Unregistered]

“Some things you can’t teach, you are either born with it or do it on your own. All the stuff I do I was born with it, I wasn’t taught to do it.’’

--DF, Boston Globe Interview, Feb 2011

Bravado

[Unregistered]

“Some things you can’t teach, you are either born with it or do it on your own. All the stuff I do I was born with it, I wasn’t taught to do it.’’

--DF, Boston Globe Interview, Feb 2011

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/foo...ulensteen.html