Best way to teach possession ball?

[Unregistered]

This is almost as good as watching monkeys in the zoo.

Nevermind that you people sound like complete idiots but its even more funny how someone can seem like the smarter idiot trying to make sense of why your kids team can't hold on to a little ball.

Hahahahahahah

Kettle, meet teapot. Teapot, meet kettle.

[Unregistered]

Possession is soooo ten years ago. Modern La Liga teams teach Sniffy Ball. Developed in secret Spanish Labs...it uses the olfactory sense instead of relying on that age old (and tired) sense of sight or VISION as these fools keep harping on about. Pa leeze. Sniffy Ball, or SB, teaches us nose-centric creativity and play...ever wonder why Messi has such a big snoz....answer...Sniffy Ball. Get out of 90's and wake up and smell the pitch!

Have you ever heard someone try to be funny and they actually sound really dumb. Yaaa, well....

[Unregistered]

Exactly

All youth Soccer players in Oregon filter in from RECREATIONAL CLUBS from the age of 4yrs old to at least 10 years old.

NO club in Oregon is getting the best of the best 4yr olds to 10yr olds and teaching them 'possession' attacking, defending or tiddlywinks soccer.

The organization of Soccer in the USA and Oregon is designed for the casual, recreational player. Period.

Until this Country embraces this sport as at least a relevant one in lexicon of those available to choose from you will continue to possess only Oranges and Sunny Delight at halftime.

Possess that and feel good.

You are correct that that is the approach in the good ole US of A in general but there are pockets in WA, TX and CA where the philosophy is a day one issue coached by qualified individuals.

[Unregistered]

You are correct that that is the approach in the good ole US of A in general but there are pockets in WA, TX and CA where the philosophy is a day one issue coached by qualified individuals.

Part of the problem is that when it comes to soccer, we are not good consumers in the U.S. Parents generally don't have a lot of experience with the sport so they can't really distinguish quality coaching from boot ball, and are easily bamboozled by a couple of hollow catch phrases like "we're all about long term development". The fact that "direct soccer", which is really just another way of saying boot ball, is even argued as being a reasonable way to develop players at the youth levels speaks volumes to this lack of understanding of how to develop players. A small number of parents, and I emphasize a small number, might get it after watching their kids for 6 or 7 years, but these are only the ones who think and pay attention, and by the time they've been through the full cycle, it's too late, they move on, and the cycle repeats itself as one more generation grows up on boot ball. Maybe the next generation will set a new standard in this country, but it will be tough because many of the future soccer parents were raised on low quality soccer, or "direct soccer" themselves.

That's not to say there isn't a huge deficit of quality coaching in the U.S. and that that's not a big part of the problem. It certainly is. But it is to say that without parents expecting more from the clubs that take their $1,400 every year, not to mention the additional $2,000 to $5,000 for uniforms, fees, travel, etc..., the chances that those clubs will start to close that coaching gap diminishes.

The article below, written by somebody trying to change the poor developmental environment of his club, does a good job of explaining the importance of long term development.

http://www.lhssca.org/direct_indirect.pdf

[Unregistered]

Spaz.

Have you ever heard someone try to be funny and they actually sound really dumb. Yaaa, well....

Hi Spaz!

[Unregistered]

Education and dedication is the key to change

Part of the problem is that when it comes to soccer, we are not good consumers in the U.S. Parents generally don't have a lot of experience with the sport so they can't really distinguish quality coaching from boot ball, and are easily bamboozled by a couple of hollow catch phrases like "we're all about long term development". The fact that "direct soccer", which is really just another way of saying boot ball, is even argued as being a reasonable way to develop players at the youth levels speaks volumes to this lack of understanding of how to develop players. A small number of parents, and I emphasize a small number, might get it after watching their kids for 6 or 7 years, but these are only the ones who think and pay attention, and by the time they've been through the full cycle, it's too late, they move on, and the cycle repeats itself as one more generation grows up on boot ball. Maybe the next generation will set a new standard in this country, but it will be tough because many of the future soccer parents were raised on low quality soccer, or "direct soccer" themselves.

That's not to say there isn't a huge deficit of quality coaching in the U.S. and that that's not a big part of the problem. It certainly is. But it is to say that without parents expecting more from the clubs that take their $1,400 every year, not to mention the additional $2,000 to $5,000 for uniforms, fees, travel, etc..., the chances that those clubs will start to close that coaching gap diminishes.

The article below, written by somebody trying to change the poor developmental environment of his club, does a good job of explaining the importance of long term development.

http://www.lhssca.org/direct_indirect.pdf

The article is a very nice summary of what has been said in the previous posts by those who have been saying why we here in Oregon do not have an example of a club dedicated to the play of possession soccer.

If we want to make a change it's going to take an admission of the "Powers That Be" in the leading clubs that they are not serving either the players or the parents by "talking" possession soccer without committing to it at the earlier ages so that by the time our kids are U14 they are accomplished tactically and able to blend that skill with their more fully developed bodies and compete out of state and for top scholarships and playing time.

As you correctly pointed out most of the parents do not have a sophisticated enough understanding that what has been "promised" is not being delivered until its too late. Therefore it is up to those active parents who read theses and other open forums to push the Boards of the clubs to take a more sophisticated approach to development which can only be accomplished via and coaching development and the enforcement of a club philosophy on all teams.

It's not rocket science and there are panty of examples to follow. I have hope that OR Crossfire can emulate their Northern Cousins. For the other five top clubs there is no reason other than the EGO of your DOC why you too can't grow and deliver a better product to your customers and the players.

[Unregistered]

So, reading the 02 rankings thread there seems to be a dispute on how teams are playing. Apprently, TS and ***C girls are winning teams and in head of the rest of teams but, from post most of the goals are made by one to two players on throughballs where the forward outruns the defense.

From the posts THUSC and Eastside seem not have size and speed on the front line and do more passing to move ball around but, do no score as much.

That being said at U11 which is better development? Should a parent be concerned if a team plays most goals by throughballs one or two players who score majority of goals. How does this play out as the girls get older? What should a parent be looking for at this age level for their child?

This forum as had some really good objective post so I thought might get some good comments.

[Unregistered]

So, reading the 02 rankings thread there seems to be a dispute on how teams are playing. Apprently, TS and ***C girls are winning teams and in head of the rest of teams but, from post most of the goals are made by one to two players on throughballs where the forward outruns the defense.

From the posts THUSC and Eastside seem not have size and speed on the front line and do more passing to move ball around but, do no score as much.

That being said at U11 which is better development? Should a parent be concerned if a team plays most goals by throughballs one or two players who score majority of goals. How does this play out as the girls get older? What should a parent be looking for at this age level for their child?

This forum as had some really good objective post so I thought might get some good comments.

It all depends. You mention that the goals made by the two winning teams’ “are made by one or two players on throughballs where the forward outruns the defense”. As described, this can mean different things to different people, and it’s difficult for me to comment on these teams without seeing them play. Does “throughball” mean that balls are being smashed by their defensive players as far as they can into the opposing team’s defensive half in an attempt to create a foot race over and over again. Or, are these “throughballs” made after solid intentional passing has unbalanced the opposing team’s defense creating opportunities to split the defense hitting one of these super forwards on a well-timed diagonal run? The former is consistent with poor development and the latter very consistent with good development.

But having a couple of dominant forwards is generally neither a plus nor minus for development of the rest of the team. It just depends on the development of the entire team, including these couple of forwards. In fact, it can be good to have a couple super forwards. To have two forwards that can execute a good run and finish or who can successfully go one v one and beat defenders after quality passing has created a one v one opportunity is icing on the cake for any quality coach focused on development. It reinforces what he or she is teaching.

Keep in mind that there’s some guy on this forum that believes teaching possession soccer comes at the expense of teaching one v one and the ability to take defenders on by dribbling at the younger ages. He has developed a view that possession soccer means you just pass the ball around, and never take anyone on or dribble. Nothing could be further from the truth and these views reflect someone who is very uninformed and has no experience coaching or playing at any level of significance. I wouldn’t listen to him. He’ll just confuse you.

So to answer your question, you need to focus on what the entire team is doing. An actual throughball that results in a goal can simply be the culmination of a much larger effort driven by quality possession and build up. It can also be the culmination of smash ball. Without watching these teams, I can’t really say which one describes your particular cases. I do have my suspicions though, but I’m not going to go there.

As to how this plays out as they get older, it depends. Whether these super forwards achieve their full potential or not will depend on coaching. Either way, while the athletic advantage will diminish over time, they will likely remain the stronger players, even with below average coaching. However, well developed teams will be well equipped to deal with them tactically, technically, and mentally so their impact will not be as pronounced, particularly if they are not well coached.

[Unregistered]

It all depends. You mention that the goals made by the two winning teams’ “are made by one or two players on throughballs where the forward outruns the defense”. As described, this can mean different things to different people, and it’s difficult for me to comment on these teams without seeing them play. Does “throughball” mean that balls are being smashed by their defensive players as far as they can into the opposing team’s defensive half in an attempt to create a foot race over and over again. Or, are these “throughballs” made after solid intentional passing has unbalanced the opposing team’s defense creating opportunities to split the defense hitting one of these super forwards on a well-timed diagonal run? The former is consistent with poor development and the latter very consistent with good development.

But having a couple of dominant forwards is generally neither a plus nor minus for development of the rest of the team. It just depends on the development of the entire team, including these couple of forwards. In fact, it can be good to have a couple super forwards. To have two forwards that can execute a good run and finish or who can successfully go one v one and beat defenders after quality passing has created a one v one opportunity is icing on the cake for any quality coach focused on development. It reinforces what he or she is teaching.

Keep in mind that there’s some guy on this forum that believes teaching possession soccer comes at the expense of teaching one v one and the ability to take defenders on by dribbling at the younger ages. He has developed a view that possession soccer means you just pass the ball around, and never take anyone on or dribble. Nothing could be further from the truth and these views reflect someone who is very uninformed and has no experience coaching or playing at any level of significance. I wouldn’t listen to him. He’ll just confuse you.

So to answer your question, you need to focus on what the entire team is doing. An actual throughball that results in a goal can simply be the culmination of a much larger effort driven by quality possession and build up. It can also be the culmination of smash ball. Without watching these teams, I can’t really say which one describes your particular cases. I do have my suspicions though, but I’m not going to go there.

As to how this plays out as they get older, it depends. Whether these super forwards achieve their full potential or not will depend on coaching. Either way, while the athletic advantage will diminish over time, they will likely remain the stronger players, even with below average coaching. However, well developed teams will be well equipped to deal with them tactically, technically, and mentally so their impact will not be as pronounced, particularly if they are not well coached.

I agree with the majority of your posts, thanks for the thoughtful response. I would have to disagree with your point about the dominant forwards not affecting the rest of the team. My experience tells me that if a team has a dominant forward it is typically, at U11, because he/she is larger/quicker than the opposing defenders. Then, the coach will utilize this during every game because, well, it achieves results and that is what the parents want. But this is where your comment about focusing on the entire team is important.

To answer the other question on what will happen to these teams/players, it is quite simple. The larger/quicker athletes are not developing their technical skills as much as they should be. After the other kids catch-up on athleticism, they will become average. But, if the coaches forced the ball to be played through the midfielders, then to the forwards and not always through but at least sometimes to their feet facing away from goal, that forward would develop much better.

The problem I believe is pointed out perfectlly by the person that you replied to. The parents are just not educated enough to get it. My daughter played a WST team yesterday and, even though their parents have talked high and low about the great style of play that their team plays on this site, this team plays nothing but boot/bash ball.Worse yet, they were consistently yelling at their daughters to "send it long" and other comments that would fit in perfectly for the Butterflies in U8 rec. The only saving grace to this game is that the team that actually played soccer won.

[Unregistered]

Is it that hard?

Tell me which one looks more like the majority of the teams in OPL and which doesn't? This really isn't that hard...

http://blog.3four3.com/2013/09/16/so...3+%283four3%29

[Unregistered]

I agree with the majority of your posts, thanks for the thoughtful response. I would have to disagree with your point about the dominant forwards not affecting the rest of the team. My experience tells me that if a team has a dominant forward it is typically, at U11, because he/she is larger/quicker than the opposing defenders. Then, the coach will utilize this during every game because, well, it achieves results and that is what the parents want. But this is where your comment about focusing on the entire team is important.

To answer the other question on what will happen to these teams/players, it is quite simple. The larger/quicker athletes are not developing their technical skills as much as they should be. After the other kids catch-up on athleticism, they will become average. But, if the coaches forced the ball to be played through the midfielders, then to the forwards and not always through but at least sometimes to their feet facing away from goal, that forward would develop much better.

The problem I believe is pointed out perfectlly by the person that you replied to. The parents are just not educated enough to get it. My daughter played a WST team yesterday and, even though their parents have talked high and low about the great style of play that their team plays on this site, this team plays nothing but boot/bash ball.Worse yet, they were consistently yelling at their daughters to "send it long" and other comments that would fit in perfectly for the Butterflies in U8 rec. The only saving grace to this game is that the team that actually played soccer won.

Appreciate you reply and I agree with your point as well. The reason I said that "Without watching these teams, I can’t really say which one describes your particular cases. I do have my suspicions though, but I’m not going to go there" speaks exactly to what you're saying. My suspicion is that what's happening is exactly what you're describing, which is a lack of quality development and overreliance on boot ball to a couple of forwards. The parents are likely evaluating this as success because they are winning, when in fact it's not in the best long term interest of any of the kids, including the two super forwards. I just simply wasn't going to automatically assume it because I wanted to illustrate a point. But yes, odds are, you're are right, it's a bad case of boot ball.

[Unregistered]

Tell me which one looks more like the majority of the teams in OPL and which doesn't? This really isn't that hard...

http://blog.3four3.com/2013/09/16/so...3+%283four3%29

That's a great video that illustrates the point perfectly. And the parents' and coaches' comments that can be overheard throughout the video are priceless. The younger team that was working the ball around beautifully in the first half of the video was very well put together and if they weren't U11, they certainly weren't much older than that. The older kick and chase teams in the second half looked at least 4 or 5 years older and looked horrible, incapable of anything, including dribbling and effective one v one. This is what years and years of boot ball creates, and unfortunately, OPL tends to the secondary example overwhelmingly. Thanks for sharing.

[Unregistered]

That's a great video that illustrates the point perfectly. And the parents' and coaches' comments that can be overheard throughout the video are priceless. The younger team that was working the ball around beautifully in the first half of the video was very well put together and if they weren't U11, they certainly weren't much older than that. The older kick and chase teams in the second half looked at least 4 or 5 years older and looked horrible, incapable of anything, including dribbling and effective one v one. This is what years and years of boot ball creates, and unfortunately, OPL tends to the secondary example overwhelmingly. Thanks for sharing.

You bet! The sad part about it is that these coaches wouldn't work in our soccer environment. They demand certain principals and I can guarantee wouldn't bow to the parental masses if they weren't supplying their daughter with through-balls. Unfortunately this video shows exactly the problem with "boot ball", "sending it", "stretch them", etc. The best part about viewing this video is that you don't need 1.21 gigawatts and a Delorean to see the future of the players who aren't being taught how to actually play soccer.

[Unregistered]

Tell me which one looks more like the majority of the teams in OPL and which doesn't? This really isn't that hard...

http://blog.3four3.com/2013/09/16/so...3+%283four3%29

No doubt the one was very possession oriented and the other was not. However, you fail to recognize the difference in skill level of the players on the various teams. I hate bootball as much as the next person and I have never had a coach that advocated or taught bootball. However, if you have a highly skilled and athletic team vs. one that has weaker athletes and doesn't have good skills, guess what happens?

Therefore, I ask all the parents who love possession soccer, "how skilled is your kid?" Can they receive a ball cleanly? Can they pass cleanly? Can they take a ball down out of the air, drop it to their feet and then play the ball? Can they pass accurately and with appropriate weight on the ball? Do they play with their head up? You should be honest in your assessment. The reason your team may not play possession soccer as well as you wish they played could be because of your kid and the other kids on the team who don't have appropriate level skills.

[Unregistered]

aqfsen

That's a great video that illustrates the point perfectly. And the parents' and coaches' comments that can be overheard throughout the video are priceless. The younger team that was working the ball around beautifully in the first half of the video was very well put together and if they weren't U11, they certainly weren't much older than that. The older kick and chase teams in the second half looked at least 4 or 5 years older and looked horrible, incapable of anything, including dribbling and effective one v one. This is what years and years of boot ball creates, and unfortunately, OPL tends to the secondary example overwhelmingly. Thanks for sharing.

I didn't see any team score in the 5 minutes I watched. I would say it looks like most of the OPL teams when they play out of the OPL. Until they start awarding points for time of possession the GOAL is still to put the ball in the GOAL.