What's more important: Training or games?

[Unregistered]

I hear about players that live in Bend and play for teams like Eastside or Westside Timbers (I am sure other clubs as well). Sounds like they just come to games and do very little, if any, training with their supposed club team.

So that begs the question: What is more valuable for the player, training or games?

In a system that truly has the goal to "develop" players, training is where the value is. Games are supposed to evaluate learning.

Would you send you kid to a school just to take tests, but never require them to sit through a lecture or learning activity?

And if they are training with a club in their hometown, why not play for that team? Your tests (games) will actually relate to the study material (training).

So ask yourself, where do you get the most value at your club? Quality of training? Or lots of games and tournaments? Maybe it's time to reconsider where you are putting your money.

There are probably examples less extreme than a Bend player playing in Portland -- just an easy example.

[Unregistered]

How about Portland player playing in Bend. Or a Vancouver player playing Tacoma or Seattle?

[Unregistered]

Euro Model

In the old country they don't really bother with "games" unit U14 or U15.

The value of playing games with and against better competition is more than a measuring stick. It is a way to intergrate what you have learned into game situations!

[Unregistered]

I don't get how players can even play in games without practicing. Why would any team want them? Why would any parent pay that doesn't get the benefit of practice. I think it is wrong.

[Unregistered]

I don't get how players can even play in games without practicing. Why would any team want them? Why would any parent pay that doesn't get the benefit of practice. I think it is wrong.

Thinking outside the box, why not train with one coach or group and play with another (or more than 1 other)? If we're trying to develop great pro soccer players (and not just great youth teams) , why bother with permanent teams, or leagues, at all? Why not have training academies and then have teams formed for special tournaments as needed?

[Unregistered]

Potential reasons that individuals would play on out of town teams:

Geography does not support a level of competition that is appropriate for the player's ability. This is usually the case in rural areas.

The perception of increased opportunity. Maybe the club offers something that the local club doesn't like National Select Teams or the ability to play as a discovery player on an ECNL team.

I am not sure how these players keep in shape or keep their skillset up but they must or the team would not accept them.

[Unregistered]

Thinking outside the box, why not train with one coach or group and play with another (or more than 1 other)? If we're trying to develop great pro soccer players (and not just great youth teams) , why bother with permanent teams, or leagues, at all? Why not have training academies and then have teams formed for special tournaments as needed?

Totally agree!

[Unregistered]

I hear about players that live in Bend and play for teams like Eastside or Westside Timbers (I am sure other clubs as well). Sounds like they just come to games and do very little, if any, training with their supposed club team.

So that begs the question: What is more valuable for the player, training or games?

In a system that truly has the goal to "develop" players, training is where the value is. Games are supposed to evaluate learning.

Would you send you kid to a school just to take tests, but never require them to sit through a lecture or learning activity?

And if they are training with a club in their hometown, why not play for that team? Your tests (games) will actually relate to the study material (training).

So ask yourself, where do you get the most value at your club? Quality of training? Or lots of games and tournaments? Maybe it's time to reconsider where you are putting your money.

There are probably examples less extreme than a Bend player playing in Portland -- just an easy example.

They are not mutually exclusive. I believe it comes down to a case by case basis, and in many cases the players are getting private training or training with small groups while playing with other clubs. Also, add this to your query: Are you better off training and playing with a subpar team, or training in a variety of ways (on your own, with small groups, with the subpar team) and then playing games with the better team. Additionally, haven't we all seen training that is a complete waste of time - the player would have been better practicing with mom or dad. Personally, I believe that a player gets better by playing with better players, even if the opportunities may be more limited. Ultimately, I don't believe there is only one mold for development.

[Unregistered]

They go together.

Training and game playing are solidly linked. You simply can't break them apart. My DD's club team had several out of town players on it. They were always difficult to integrate into the team games. A few of the out of towners did get to practice, and it really showed in their play. The ones that didn't, practiced with their friends and coaches in their cities. Didn't prepare them for the actual games.