Doing what's best for the team

[Unregistered]

A Florida poster writes http://www.talking-soccer.com/TS4/showthread.php?t=5549

"When I was in junior high, I joined the basketball team. I played pickup ball since I was young and already had skills... but since I was one of the tallest kids at the school the coach took one look at me and put me as the center. So for 3 years I was stuck in that position. I didn't want to play center. I had better ball handling skills than the guards. But that is where the coach "needed" me. Just because I was the tallest kid around... does that mean I should play center? After all, in college I would have actually been the right size for a guard and way too small to play center. Was it really important to do what is "best for the team" at that age?

Just because a player develops early defensive skills, does that mean he should always play defense because the team "needs" him there? Or how many times have I seen the lightening fast player in ODP that can only play forward and has no defensive skills whatsoever (or footskills for that matter for all those kick and chase coaches out there)? You're not doing that kid any favors come college. Or right footed wing players who couldn't make a left cross if there life depended upon it. "

[Unregistered]

Are you saying the team or player is most important. My kid is playing in a position that is best forthe team but maybe not best for her future development - is it right?

[Unregistered]

Are you saying the team or player is most important. My kid is playing in a position that is best forthe team but maybe not best for her future development - is it right?

It's wrong! At development level they should be exposed to all positions. My child was big and fast and always played defense. Now everyone is the same size and he doesn't know any other position.

[Unregistered]

Interesting question

It's a team sport, so at what point does it stop being developmental and start to be about what's best for the team. My child is another playing in a defensive position because it's best for the team.

[Unregistered]

It's wrong! At development level they should be exposed to all positions. My child was big and fast and always played defense. Now everyone is the same size and he doesn't know any other position.

You guys are full of it.

[Unregistered]

This is why all clubs should strive for at least a 3:1 practice to game ratio. Most teams train together, regardless of position. There may be some differences between the application of skills between positions, but generally a player that is getting significant practice/training time will be OK regardless of where they play in a game. Lots of 3 v 3 and 7 v 7 in training means plenty of quality touches. It is also the greatest value in HS. Players who may be more role performers in club are often the go-to stud with their HS squad. Eventually all players are type casted. You do go to the spot and play in a style that best helps your team win. It is also unfortunate that parents don't value the real significance of defenders in high level play. Even with youth clubs. You need to be knowledgeable enough to value the subtle things that a great defender does, but it is just as important as the high scoring striker or flashy center mid.

[Unregistered]

It's a team sport, so at what point does it stop being developmental and start to be about what's best for the team. My child is another playing in a defensive position because it's best for the team.

a kid should be exposed to all positions young...he should start to specialize when he wants to stick with a position or finds one he likes best, rather than force him into positions he doesnt want or keep him from ones he likes.. they will eventually know what they are good at and if they enjoy themselves they will improve quicker.. they should be encouraged to ask or inform the coach what theyd like to do.

[Unregistered]

a kid should be exposed to all positions young...he should start to specialize when he wants to stick with a position or finds one he likes best, rather than force him into positions he doesnt want or keep him from ones he likes.. they will eventually know what they are good at and if they enjoy themselves they will improve quicker.. they should be encouraged to ask or inform the coach what theyd like to do.

And every kid should expect a big ice cream cone and a hardy hug after each practice. We are forgetting what youth sports is about. IT IS NOT ABOUT DEVELOPING SOCCER SKILLS!!! Its about developing leadership, learning to work with a team, subordinating to the authority of the coach, striving for victory but handling defeat. Be more concerned about the big picture and less about making sure that little Johnny or Amy gets to play the position that they want.

[Unregistered]

And every kid should expect a big ice cream cone and a hardy hug after each practice. We are forgetting what youth sports is about. IT IS NOT ABOUT DEVELOPING SOCCER SKILLS!!! Its about developing leadership, learning to work with a team, subordinating to the authority of the coach, striving for victory but handling defeat. Be more concerned about the big picture and less about making sure that little Johnny or Amy gets to play the position that they want.

true in town but at club level, where they want to learn the game, you are way off my comments above still stand , in my mind.. they should have more say in where they play

[Unregistered]

Why would we want a 13 or 14 year old to have a say were they want to play? Because they know best? Why not the paid coach who is in charge of the operation? Go look up the two terms that suit you best: ENABLER and ENTITLEMENT

[Unregistered]

Why would we want a 13 or 14 year old to have a say were they want to play? Because they know best? Why not the paid coach who is in charge of the operation? Go look up the two terms that suit you best: ENABLER and ENTITLEMENT

ouch youre right! i stand corrected and what of that coach who must win to pad his record and to keep the defections low! plus we win, then he must be a good developer!

[Unregistered]

Every successful team has players "out of position," playing effectively at one position even though they would be even better at another position. Sometimes this happens because there's an even better player available. Sometimes because the out of position player is the team's best option by far at her "second best" position and reasonably close alternatives exist at her "best" position. Most players accept this, and eventually every team settles into a pattern with defined roles for the season.

Almost every player has to decide at some point whether it's more important to play at her preferred position (or maybe her parents' preferred position) or play on the strongest team possible. Most players I know will opt for the stronger team. This means that coaches bear responsibility for giving players abroad range of skills so they can adapt to whatever role they're given in future years.

The training I've observed is pretty uneven on this account. Very, very few practices emphasize defensive skills. Coaches don't make sure that strikers learn how to pressure and cover, so they dive in and get beaten easily when they pressure. They don't teach defenders how to shoot or cross, so overlapping runs don't benefit the offense like they could. Heck, I'm not even sure our coaches teach strikers how to shoot or defenders how to defend. My kids' teams have relied on talent as much as training in these departments.

Accordingly, I think it is very fair to criticize our clubs for not developing the whole player. They don't train them, and they don't give players chances to try all parts of the field when younger. But, I don't think that this practice hurts only defenders. Many, many strikers will be asked to change position as they continue in the sport. They are handicapped if they don't understand defense when this occurs.

Finally, these discussions often operate on the premise that those who play striker or center mid get the "special" treatment and that defenders aren't valued and get exploited for the sake of the team. This isn't true. When my kids first got into soccer, I thought all the best players played forward or center mid. Over time, I've come to realize that the best teams have some of their best (and sometimes their very best) players in the back. Kids don't get relegated to defense. They're put there because they have skills that help the team win. They may not get attention from us parent types, but the players and coaches know the contribution of their defenders. For example, no less than Alex Ferguson credited Man U's center backs as the key to victory in the Champions Cup game yesterday. (http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/st...league&cc=5901). My guess is that's true more often than casual fans know.

[Unregistered]

Every successful team has players "out of position," playing effectively at one position even though they would be even better at another position. Sometimes this happens because there's an even better player available. Sometimes because the out of position player is the team's best option by far at her "second best" position and reasonably close alternatives exist at her "best" position. Most players accept this, and eventually every team settles into a pattern with defined roles for the season.

Almost every player has to decide at some point whether it's more important to play at her preferred position (or maybe her parents' preferred position) or play on the strongest team possible. Most players I know will opt for the stronger team. This means that coaches bear responsibility for giving players abroad range of skills so they can adapt to whatever role they're given in future years.

The training I've observed is pretty uneven on this account. Very, very few practices emphasize defensive skills. Coaches don't make sure that strikers learn how to pressure and cover, so they dive in and get beaten easily when they pressure. They don't teach defenders how to shoot or cross, so overlapping runs don't benefit the offense like they could. Heck, I'm not even sure our coaches teach strikers how to shoot or defenders how to defend. My kids' teams have relied on talent as much as training in these departments.

Accordingly, I think it is very fair to criticize our clubs for not developing the whole player. They don't train them, and they don't give players chances to try all parts of the field when younger. But, I don't think that this practice hurts only defenders. Many, many strikers will be asked to change position as they continue in the sport. They are handicapped if they don't understand defense when this occurs.

Finally, these discussions often operate on the premise that those who play striker or center mid get the "special" treatment and that defenders aren't valued and get exploited for the sake of the team. This isn't true. When my kids first got into soccer, I thought all the best players played forward or center mid. Over time, I've come to realize that the best teams have some of their best (and sometimes their very best) players in the back. Kids don't get relegated to defense. They're put there because they have skills that help the team win. They may not get attention from us parent types, but the players and coaches know the contribution of their defenders. For example, no less than Alex Ferguson credited Man U's center backs as the key to victory in the Champions Cup game yesterday. (http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/st...league&cc=5901). My guess is that's true more often than casual fans know.

Well said. My high school football coach drilled into us that if the other team can't score ,they can't win.Defense is the most important part of the team.

[Unregistered]

And every kid should expect a big ice cream cone and a hardy hug after each practice. We are forgetting what youth sports is about. IT IS NOT ABOUT DEVELOPING SOCCER SKILLS!!! Its about developing leadership, learning to work with a team, subordinating to the authority of the coach, striving for victory but handling defeat. Be more concerned about the big picture and less about making sure that little Johnny or Amy gets to play the position that they want.

What a line of horse manure! Using your logic, going to school is not about learning how to read and write. It's about learning how to subject oneself to the will of a teacher, learning to be a leader in the classroom, striving for school pride and learning to deal with budget cuts.

The "big picture" shouldn't have to be separated from learning and that applies to playing sports just as much as it does to the classroom.

[Unregistered]

What a line of horse manure! Using your logic, going to school is not about learning how to read and write. It's about learning how to subject oneself to the will of a teacher, learning to be a leader in the classroom, striving for school pride and learning to deal with budget cuts.

The "big picture" shouldn't have to be separated from learning and that applies to playing sports just as much as it does to the classroom.

It does in maple.