Doing what's best for the team

[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.

this all depends on the age or level of team and individual developemen at younger ages kids should learn and that should be the main focus .. does it matter that you win a u-11 game?? i dont remember much of mine pre high school... the kid will figure out where they WANT to play or if at all.. they will be more prone to burn out if you force him .

at a very basic level although soccer is generally the same , each position requires certain natural skill sets. and comfort level . a true striker is very different than a middy and defender etc etc and let alone goalkeeper.. Ive played and coached for many years and I dont know many fowards who like to play back or defenders who like to play up ..

pros, college, mens league high school are different.. and usually why you are asked to play somewhere other than preffered position is there is someone better than you there and to stay on the pitch you need to suk it up

[Unregistered]

Youth associations have a universally expected duty to do what is in the best interest of the individual player and to do its best to allow all the players to enjoy their experience with soccer. This idea differs greatly from what is considered priority at the professional or collegiate level. At those levels, it is considered appropriate to place team priorities over individual development. At the professional level, winning is the priority and people’s jobs depend on results. Everyone on the professional team is expected to put the team first and to sacrifice himself for the sake of the team. Those players sitting on the bench are being paid well to do just that. Youth players are not being paid to sit on the bench. In actuality, they are paying to sit on the bench. At the youth level, the player must come first!!

[Unregistered]

Youth associations have a universally expected duty to do what is in the best interest of the individual player and to do its best to allow all the players to enjoy their experience with soccer. This idea differs greatly from what is considered priority at the professional or collegiate level. At those levels, it is considered appropriate to place team priorities over individual development. At the professional level, winning is the priority and people’s jobs depend on results. Everyone on the professional team is expected to put the team first and to sacrifice himself for the sake of the team. Those players sitting on the bench are being paid well to do just that. Youth players are not being paid to sit on the bench. In actuality, they are paying to sit on the bench. At the youth level, the player must come first!!

thats why training with a great coach in a great program is what matters not so much the 1 hour a week game..

[Unregistered]

thats why training with a great coach in a great program is what matters not so much the 1 hour a week game..

The game is the test of what goes on in training, so the game is still very important to a great coach, because s/he can not evaluate his/her training sessions unless s/he sees the kids play.