Playing for results and standings vs. teaching the game

Our game this weekend the goal was a result of the defender trying to play her way out of the back. Had she just kicked it forward or out of bounds there wouldn't have been a goal. For development you want her to beat the forward and play the ball from the back. From a winning perspective you want her to kick the ball out of your defensive end.

Psst...hey, defender's parents from "that" team, and I KNOW you are reading this....maybe it's time to find a new team, LOL !!!! I'm VERY sure there are many teams who would LOVE to have your dd. I mean, seriously, go99, you had to point out the one and only goal against your team from this past weekend? I do understand and appreciate your point about development but do you realize that you also just basically said that your defender sucked and that they were the only reason you had one goal (score was 7 to 1) scored against your team? I am thinking/hoping that you did not really think about that defender's parents reading your post and were honestly thinking about how that player tried to play out of the back and how that was cool for her development but......perhaps a "that was really cool" post is in order?

10sDad wrote: ,,,

Take a hard look at the rosters of the prestigious clubs right now. Write them down. Then, when the kids are 15/16/17, compare the rosters. You will be amazed at how few players (if any) are still there. Truth is, players get "developed" by other coaches, then migrate (get recruited) to the prestigious clubs at those ages. Paying big bucks to wear a jersey at this age is actually backward.....

My dd's top level U-18 team has 7 of the original 16 still on the team. Truth is, you really are just grasping at straws.

Xara wrote:

totalsoccer wrote:I don’t know maybe not keeping standings and decreasing the emphasis on league play and increasing emphasis on tournament and small sided might relieve some of the pressure of just gaining a result. What do you guys think?

Aren't you an academy coach, TS? Based on posts I've seen from you in the "Teams/Players Looking" section, I gather that you are an Andromeda academy coach. Nothing too wrong with Andromeda (except the price!), by the way; just another club trying to lure good players and paying parents its way so that grown men and women like yourself can make money coaching soccer. There's the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

But here's my question to you or any other club coach who wants to chime in: If development is the true goal, why cut a player who puts in the effort? You've done that a time or two, right? So does every other coach from your club including the DOC. Parents talk of development, yet most of them wouldn't recognize it because they've never played at a high level. They know what the coach tells them, what they read on this forum (God, help them), and how many step-over moves their precious Mia's do in a soccer game. But an academy or select coach, on the other hand, extolling longterm development, demonizing tactical training, but always keeping an eye out for better players who can replace his bottom third... It's hypocritical.

Clearly, a coach like yourself cuts players and recruits "better" replacements to WIN games. We are a society that likes to win. Players, parents, and coaches all strive to win. Yet winning is treated like an evil act on this forum by - wait for it - parents and coaches of losing teams. That's how they explain losses. "Our team doesn't win; our players are developed!" If a player comes along who can get more wins, the coach's little "development" project is looking for another team. Convenient.

I am guilty,but really looking for guidance to a better way a better system.

[quote="Shelby427"]

intrinsic wrote:In the "skills first" model, as it could be called, you do play games (usually not 11 v 11, but that's another discussion) to have a chance to use the skills you are learning. But in that model, you don't spend much time in practice on tactics to try to win the games so you can have a top 10 academy team in at attempt to get to D1 so that you have the easiest road to college recruiting.

I'm not advocating one extreme or the other...

You assume top academy teams win because of tactics and that would be a joke. The top academy teams have the top skilled players period. They also apply SOME tactics to win.

I don't advocate a coach spending an hour of practice on tactics... don't get me wrong. But tactics like how you line up, give and go, marking up on defenders, passing into space.. these are fundamental tactics that SOME players at the younger ages are READY to learn and use. How to manage a free kick, a corner kick... nothing wrong with learning how to do this before you have a driver's license.

Some people always want to find something wrong with "the system"... I have been around the youth game in north texas for over a decade and beleive me... the best U8s-U10s blow away kids 10 years ago at their same age.... Not even close. (More so on the girls side than boys IMO)

So to recap.. I agree their should be a stronger emphasis on skills than tactics BY FAR... I just disagree with the ZERO TACTICS until menopause theory.

Kids want to play SOCCER... not do skill camps 24/7... If you want more kids to fall out of the system then by all means... don't let them play it.[/quotec]

All great points, i believe we take the rankings and standings away and create a system where each week is new and fresh then you might see a change in how coaches coach and teams play. just my opinion.

Uncle Numanga wrote:

10sDad wrote: ,,,

Take a hard look at the rosters of the prestigious clubs right now. Write them down. Then, when the kids are 15/16/17, compare the rosters. You will be amazed at how few players (if any) are still there. Truth is, players get "developed" by other coaches, then migrate (get recruited) to the prestigious clubs at those ages. Paying big bucks to wear a jersey at this age is actually backward.....

My dd's top level U-18 team has 7 of the original 16 still on the team. Truth is, you really are just grasping at straws.

That is usually true for the top 3.

What is also interesting is where are the other 9 now. If your team holds true to others, most if not all of them are no longer a part of the game. Some to other sports, but many took the long hard fall when their 1 dimensional play was no longer enough.

IKnowMyABCs wrote:

Our game this weekend the goal was a result of the defender trying to play her way out of the back. Had she just kicked it forward or out of bounds there wouldn't have been a goal. For development you want her to beat the forward and play the ball from the back. From a winning perspective you want her to kick the ball out of your defensive end.

Psst...hey, defender's parents from "that" team, and I KNOW you are reading this....maybe it's time to find a new team, LOL !!!! I'm VERY sure there are many teams who would LOVE to have your dd. I mean, seriously, go99, you had to point out the one and only goal against your team from this past weekend? I do understand and appreciate your point about development but do you realize that you also just basically said that your defender sucked and that they were the only reason you had one goal (score was 7 to 1) scored against your team? I am thinking/hoping that you did not really think about that defender's parents reading your post and were honestly thinking about how that player tried to play out of the back and how that was cool for her development but......perhaps a "that was really cool" post is in order?

Nice edit! You must work at fox news. Can't tell if you are just putting that out there for controversy sake or if you really are that dense, but I will type it slow so you can get it. The girl is a fantastic player at multiple positions but if she never loses the ball trying to get herself out of trouble then she shouldn't be playing youth soccer because the national team needs her. Sure the score which I didn't post meant that it had no bearing on the game, but put in in the perspective of the threads question. A 0 to 0 game and a kid does that and your team lost, and parents like you are going crazy about how bad the kid sucks. So from a NTX tactical position you just teach her to boot it. I would rather see her try to get herself out. Use her brain and skill not only in a game we win but even in one we lose and thats development vs winning.

This topic is probably not for you. I am sure there is something a little less taxing. Maybe a scores or ranking thread . OH and yes I am!

I don't know any of the coaches/players in this thread, and I didn't take go99's description as critical of the player at all. It actually was complimentary, because it meant the player was trying to play the game in a more complex, thoughtful manner, and it also suggested that the team is coached by somebody who is concerned with long-term, and not just short-term. Nothing critical in his post.

The girl is a fantastic player at multiple positions

There you go, thanks!

totalsoccer wrote:

Xara wrote:

totalsoccer wrote:I don’t know maybe not keeping standings and decreasing the emphasis on league play and increasing emphasis on tournament and small sided might relieve some of the pressure of just gaining a result. What do you guys think?

Aren't you an academy coach, TS? Based on posts I've seen from you in the "Teams/Players Looking" section, I gather that you are an Andromeda academy coach. Nothing too wrong with Andromeda (except the price!), by the way; just another club trying to lure good players and paying parents its way so that grown men and women like yourself can make money coaching soccer. There's the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

But here's my question to you or any other club coach who wants to chime in: If development is the true goal, why cut a player who puts in the effort? You've done that a time or two, right? So does every other coach from your club including the DOC. Parents talk of development, yet most of them wouldn't recognize it because they've never played at a high level. They know what the coach tells them, what they read on this forum (God, help them), and how many step-over moves their precious Mia's do in a soccer game. But an academy or select coach, on the other hand, extolling longterm development, demonizing tactical training, but always keeping an eye out for better players who can replace his bottom third... It's hypocritical.

Clearly, a coach like yourself cuts players and recruits "better" replacements to WIN games. We are a society that likes to win. Players, parents, and coaches all strive to win. Yet winning is treated like an evil act on this forum by - wait for it - parents and coaches of losing teams. That's how they explain losses. "Our team doesn't win; our players are developed!" If a player comes along who can get more wins, the coach's little "development" project is looking for another team. Convenient.

I am guilty,but really looking for guidance to a better way a better system.

Excellent response. Seriously.

Can't imagine removing rankings and standings will have much impact unless something replaces them. American culture is infused with.competition. SDL tried to go without standings and parents kept track anyway.

We'd need some way to publicly measure the things we say we want coaches focusing on...other than winning.

totalsoccer wrote:I am guilty,but really looking for guidance to a better way a better system.

So a coach wants to develop players and win games? I think the answer to that riddle is pretty obvious. To do that a coach needs to retain their players. The longer the coach retains their players, the more likely they are to win games. As comfort levels go up, the coach will be more comfortable allowing players to experiment and develop because mistakes (large or small) will be reduced.

Will there always be some attrition for a team? Of course there will be. Families will move. Injuries happen. Parents get divorced. Gymnastics will become a higher priority for one girl and soccer needs to stop. Things will change.

But if a Coach wants a great team and develop great players… that coach should have a target retention rate for players in the 80%-100% range. Stop looking to replace the bottom 3rd of your roster every season. Instead, strengthen those girls until they’re your top 3rd.

Show me a team that keeps all their players over several years and doesn’t get better during that time?

Now the execution of this idea is the trick. How does a coach keep the players around when all of us parents are so quick to jump ship? That, to me, is on the coach. Does the coach innovate? Does he try new things that even make him uncomfortable? Does he experiment with all aspects of his coaching to keep things fresh? Does the coach communicate clearly and often? Does he treat everyone fairly? Does the coach keep costs down to make the team accessible for everyone? Is the team moving forward always or are things getting stagnant?

I don’t think a kid needs to change teams just for the sake of changing teams. (That’s like getting a divorce just for the sake of getting a divorce.) But the coach needs to retain players by pushing themselves and the players through innovation. Families don’t want to see you still running the same drills they saw you run two or three years ago.

Competitive games are an important part of the development process in my opinion. But keep these thoughts in mind:

-A player on a team that constantly blows other teams out...gets bored/overconfident/etc. and doesn't strive for improvement in practice. They get complacent.

-A player on a team that gets constantly blown out...gets frustrated/disillusioned/etc. and wonders why practice if its all futile? Often they quit the sport entirely, even though they might have had potential.

In my opinion, a perfect academy situation is where your coach works on development, and finds the appropriate league to play in. It should be a league where your team wins about 60% of the time when playing all players. Enough wins to see success, and enough losses to inspire improvement. Coach should focus on the games lost and set individual and team goals to improve enough to beat "team X".

I see a lot of the "top" teams already coaching the following at U-7:
-flopping
-running 10-15 yards down the line on a throw
-physical defensive play (playing the player before the ball)
-keepers delaying restart in close games
-intentionally fouling
-marking and double-teaming impact players instead of playing positions

This stuff should all come later. For academy, it should be focused on challenging competition that gives the players an opportunity to try out what they have learned in practice. Try to win every game, but do it in a manner consistent with fair play. Do you move your best back to cover their best forward? yes. But don't move your best athlete (i.e. your forward) to the back to cover her...get it?

Also, a follow up on my previous post: If you are on a team that happens to be part of a "prestigous" club, and you are happy with the development your dd is getting - great! If you signed up for that club because of the name, or if your dd is not getting at least 75% playing time...get out, or your dd is going backward fast. Trophies mean nothing to the player that only saw 10 minutes in garbage time.

Xara wrote:

totalsoccer wrote:

Xara wrote:

totalsoccer wrote:I don’t know maybe not keeping standings and decreasing the emphasis on league play and increasing emphasis on tournament and small sided might relieve some of the pressure of just gaining a result. What do you guys think?

Aren't you an academy coach, TS? Based on posts I've seen from you in the "Teams/Players Looking" section, I gather that you are an Andromeda academy coach. Nothing too wrong with Andromeda (except the price!), by the way; just another club trying to lure good players and paying parents its way so that grown men and women like yourself can make money coaching soccer. There's the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

But here's my question to you or any other club coach who wants to chime in: If development is the true goal, why cut a player who puts in the effort? You've done that a time or two, right? So does every other coach from your club including the DOC. Parents talk of development, yet most of them wouldn't recognize it because they've never played at a high level. They know what the coach tells them, what they read on this forum (God, help them), and how many step-over moves their precious Mia's do in a soccer game. But an academy or select coach, on the other hand, extolling longterm development, demonizing tactical training, but always keeping an eye out for better players who can replace his bottom third... It's hypocritical.

Clearly, a coach like yourself cuts players and recruits "better" replacements to WIN games. We are a society that likes to win. Players, parents, and coaches all strive to win. Yet winning is treated like an evil act on this forum by - wait for it - parents and coaches of losing teams. That's how they explain losses. "Our team doesn't win; our players are developed!" If a player comes along who can get more wins, the coach's little "development" project is looking for another team. Convenient.

I am guilty,but really looking for guidance to a better way a better system.

Excellent response. Seriously.

I appreciate all the insight given by all those who have posted! Xara, I am not here to air out my dirty laundry and to be judged by you. The system as we know it does not work! Just as parents feel the need to move clubs and teams for the winning. The system as we have it encourages parents, coaches, clubs and referees to thinks and act like we do! I am on both sides of the fence as a coach and a parent that just feels something is just not right and the system we are using is broken.

I think coaches are trying to both win and develop better players, because they have to. If a team doesn't win, then the better players will find a team that does. If a coach isn't developing the players individually and as a team, then those that are paying attention will notice and if it continues, eventually leave. Player development is not solely the coaches responsibility. The players have that responsibility as well. I don't see or hear our coach telling our players the wrong thing to do. The players have been instructed correctly, sometimes they just don't execute correctly. The problem arises after many failures to execute. Example. If a player has been told for 2 years, "do not cross the ball in front of your own goal" and that player does it repeatedly, it is not the coach's fault. It is the players fault. That player is not listening and learning, in other words not developing. I agree that retention is important but the other side of the coin is, this is competition I think you must compete to be on the team. Part of competing is developing. You must compete to earn playing time. Playing time is not a given. You must obviously compete in the games. If no one on your team is developing, look at the coach. In my experience, it's usually a few individuals. In select soccer you only have a spot on a team for 1 year. If you want a spot on a team next year, then work hard and continue to develop this year. If everyone's spot is always garaunteed, then it's not competition, it's a social club.

Here is a thought it seems that a lot of changes continue to occur at the ages of 11-14 years of age. Why not reduce the pressure to win at all cost by eliminating QT tournaments and state tournaments at this U-little age to allow the individual teams to continue to choose the league and level of competition they wish to play. Reducing the importance of league standings and encouraging more participation in futsal, 3v3 tournaments to develop players while still allowing for teams to play the elite 11v11 tournaments to satisfy the winning bug.

Gumby wrote:I think coaches are trying to both win and develop better players, because they have to. If a team doesn't win, then the better players will find a team that does. If a coach isn't developing the players individually and as a team, then those that are paying attention will notice and if it continues, eventually leave. Player development is not solely the coaches responsibility. The players have that responsibility as well. I don't see or hear our coach telling our players the wrong thing to do. The players have been instructed correctly, sometimes they just don't execute correctly. The problem arises after many failures to execute. Example. If a player has been told for 2 years, "do not cross the ball in front of your own goal" and that player does it repeatedly, it is not the coach's fault. It is the players fault. That player is not listening and learning, in other words not developing. I agree that retention is important but the other side of the coin is, this is competition I think you must compete to be on the team. Part of competing is developing. You must compete to earn playing time. Playing time is not a given. You must obviously compete in the games. If no one on your team is developing, look at the coach. In my experience, it's usually a few individuals. In select soccer you only have a spot on a team for 1 year. If you want a spot on a team next year, then work hard and continue to develop this year. If everyone's spot is always garaunteed, then it's not competition, it's a social club.

If a player has made the same mistake for 2 years, and the coach has repeated told them to stop, is it the player's fault? Yes. But after the 3rd or 4th repetition, shouldn't the coach have looked for a new way to explain the problem? We all learn things differently. Teachers (and coaches) often need to adapt the way they teach for the audience. They need to be innovators in those situations. If your solution isn't hitting home, find a new solution.

Why shouldn't these teams be social clubs? The funny thing about social clubs... people enjoy them.

A coach should make soccer into a social experience. They should make it fun. They should facilitate the girls becoming best friends. If the girls are friends they will look forward to practices and games. If they like their teammates they will work hard for one another. If they work hard for one another, they will work hard for you as their coach because you're the leader.

If you want to be elite then retain the players and make it very difficult for someone else to get in the door. I rather have 14 best friends playing for me than 18 randoms. Not only is it more fun for the 14 but it's more fun for me too.

totalsoccer wrote:Here is a thought it seems that a lot of changes continue to occur at the ages of 11-14 years of age. Why not reduce the pressure to win at all cost by eliminating QT tournaments and state tournaments at this U-little age to allow the individual teams to continue to choose the league and level of competition they wish to play. Reducing the importance of league standings and encouraging more participation in futsal, 3v3 tournaments to develop players while still allowing for teams to play the elite 11v11 tournaments to satisfy the winning bug.

I think that would send us backwards. Clubs would create a bubble. They'd charge even more $$ for the "elite" teams, but then decline to play anyone other than other teams charging the same or similar prices. Regardless the actual quality of that competition, they'd consider themselves "elite" mainly because of the club name and coaches salary. You'd jettison even more talent from participating in mainstream soccer than you do now, and the best talent wouldn't get access to the best competition or the best coaching at early ages.

What we have now isn't all that broken for the younger ages - especially for girls. It is largely a meritocracy, and it's based on free market principles for both coaches and players. Its foundation is competition.

You can call your team premier elite platinum plutonium Jr. Nationals all you want, but when a dedicated dad coach gets a team together and runs circles around you, technically and athletically, your marketing muscle is checked by reality. Trying to push the ECNL concept further and further into younger ages removes this reality check, and benefits nothing other than a small handful of wallets.

The only improvement I could see would involve getting a major benefactor willing to throw money at girl's soccer with no expectation of return. Then you could pay the best coaches, hand pick the best girls, and the best players pay nothing. The coaches could then be paid and measured based on concrete incentives for player development, not ONLY their W-L record. When they do compete, they would likely blow the doors off all comers, not just against a self-created micro bubble of upper middle class kids with parents willing to pay to play.

The barca usa boys in california are doing this and doing it with the level of technical excellence you'd expect from a truly "elite" program. I doubt it happens for girls in the foreseeable future, so what we have now is good as it gets if we can manage not to break it.

bigtex75081 wrote:

Gumby wrote:I think coaches are trying to both win and develop better players, because they have to. If a team doesn't win, then the better players will find a team that does. If a coach isn't developing the players individually and as a team, then those that are paying attention will notice and if it continues, eventually leave. Player development is not solely the coaches responsibility. The players have that responsibility as well. I don't see or hear our coach telling our players the wrong thing to do. The players have been instructed correctly, sometimes they just don't execute correctly. The problem arises after many failures to execute. Example. If a player has been told for 2 years, "do not cross the ball in front of your own goal" and that player does it repeatedly, it is not the coach's fault. It is the players fault. That player is not listening and learning, in other words not developing. I agree that retention is important but the other side of the coin is, this is competition I think you must compete to be on the team. Part of competing is developing. You must compete to earn playing time. Playing time is not a given. You must obviously compete in the games. If no one on your team is developing, look at the coach. In my experience, it's usually a few individuals. In select soccer you only have a spot on a team for 1 year. If you want a spot on a team next year, then work hard and continue to develop this year. If everyone's spot is always garaunteed, then it's not competition, it's a social club.

If a player has made the same mistake for 2 years, and the coach has repeated told them to stop, is it the player's fault? Yes. But after the 3rd or 4th repetition, shouldn't the coach have looked for a new way to explain the problem? We all learn things differently. Teachers (and coaches) often need to adapt the way they teach for the audience. They need to be innovators in those situations. If your solution isn't hitting home, find a new solution.

Why shouldn't these teams be social clubs? The funny thing about social clubs... people enjoy them.

A coach should make soccer into a social experience. They should make it fun. They should facilitate the girls becoming best friends. If the girls are friends they will look forward to practices and games. If they like their teammates they will work hard for one another. If they work hard for one another, they will work hard for you as their coach because you're the leader.

If you want to be elite then retain the players and make it very difficult for someone else to get in the door. I rather have 14 best friends playing for me than 18 randoms. Not only is it more fun for the 14 but it's more fun for me too.

I have a news flash for everyone on this board.

If your DD doesn’t look forward to practice… If she isn’t excited about the upcoming game… If she doesn’t want to invite the girls from her soccer team to her birthday party… If she isn’t smiling and laughing during soccer practice… If she doesn’t smile when she sees her coach… If she doesn’t seem disappointed when a practice gets cancelled… THEN YOUR COACH IS DOING IT WRONG!!!

There are piles of books available to coaches about ways to make soccer drills more fun. If your coach is too lazy or narrow-minded to pick up one of these books and read it, then fire them. If your DD’s coach only knows one way to explain something, if they only know one way to coach, then fire them.

4-4-2-Diamond wrote:

totalsoccer wrote:Here is a thought it seems that a lot of changes continue to occur at the ages of 11-14 years of age. Why not reduce the pressure to win at all cost by eliminating QT tournaments and state tournaments at this U-little age to allow the individual teams to continue to choose the league and level of competition they wish to play. Reducing the importance of league standings and encouraging more participation in futsal, 3v3 tournaments to develop players while still allowing for teams to play the elite 11v11 tournaments to satisfy the winning bug.

I think that would send us backwards. Clubs would create a bubble. They'd charge even more $$ for the "elite" teams, but then decline to play anyone other than other teams charging the same or similar prices. Regardless the actual quality of that competition, they'd consider themselves "elite" mainly because of the club name and coaches salary. You'd jettison even more talent from participating in mainstream soccer than you do now, and the best talent wouldn't get access to the best competition or the best coaching at early ages.

What we have now isn't all that broken for the younger ages - especially for girls. It is largely a meritocracy, and it's based on free market principles for both coaches and players. Its foundation is competition.

You can call your team premier elite platinum plutonium Jr. Nationals all you want, but when a dedicated dad coach gets a team together and runs circles around you, technically and athletically, your marketing muscle is checked by reality. Trying to push the ECNL concept further and further into younger ages removes this reality check, and benefits nothing other than a small handful of wallets.

The only improvement I could see would involve getting a major benefactor willing to throw money at girl's soccer with no expectation of return. Then you could pay the best coaches, hand pick the best girls, and the best players pay nothing. The coaches could then be paid and measured based on concrete incentives for player development, not ONLY their W-L record. When they do compete, they would likely blow the doors off all comers, not just against a self-created micro bubble of upper middle class kids with parents willing to pay to play.

The barca usa boys in california are doing this and doing it with the level of technical excellence you'd expect from a truly "elite" program. I doubt it happens for girls in the foreseeable future, so what we have now is good as it gets if we can manage not to break it.

Okay, now that’s good insight!

I agree, that is good insight.

Bigtex, sometimes the instructions are clear, they just aren't followed. It's the same as, sometimes my kids don't make their beds, even though they know it's required. Opinions and styles vary on how to build a team. If your way works for you, more power to you.

Gumby wrote:I agree, that is good insight.

Bigtex, sometimes the instructions are clear, they just aren't followed. It's the same as, sometimes my kids don't make their beds, even though they know it's required. Opinions and styles vary on how to build a team. If your way works for you, more power to you.

Did you mean to say "build a player" instead of "build a team"? Oh no, I might be sending us back to the beginning of the discussion. Never mind...

Either word will work in that sentence.

totalsoccer wrote:

Xara wrote:

totalsoccer wrote:

Xara wrote:

totalsoccer wrote:I don’t know maybe not keeping standings and decreasing the emphasis on league play and increasing emphasis on tournament and small sided might relieve some of the pressure of just gaining a result. What do you guys think?

Aren't you an academy coach, TS? Based on posts I've seen from you in the "Teams/Players Looking" section, I gather that you are an Andromeda academy coach. Nothing too wrong with Andromeda (except the price!), by the way; just another club trying to lure good players and paying parents its way so that grown men and women like yourself can make money coaching soccer. There's the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

But here's my question to you or any other club coach who wants to chime in: If development is the true goal, why cut a player who puts in the effort? You've done that a time or two, right? So does every other coach from your club including the DOC. Parents talk of development, yet most of them wouldn't recognize it because they've never played at a high level. They know what the coach tells them, what they read on this forum (God, help them), and how many step-over moves their precious Mia's do in a soccer game. But an academy or select coach, on the other hand, extolling longterm development, demonizing tactical training, but always keeping an eye out for better players who can replace his bottom third... It's hypocritical.

Clearly, a coach like yourself cuts players and recruits "better" replacements to WIN games. We are a society that likes to win. Players, parents, and coaches all strive to win. Yet winning is treated like an evil act on this forum by - wait for it - parents and coaches of losing teams. That's how they explain losses. "Our team doesn't win; our players are developed!" If a player comes along who can get more wins, the coach's little "development" project is looking for another team. Convenient.

I am guilty,but really looking for guidance to a better way a better system.

Excellent response. Seriously.

I appreciate all the insight given by all those who have posted! Xara, I am not here to air out my dirty laundry and to be judged by you. The system as we know it does not work! Just as parents feel the need to move clubs and teams for the winning. The system as we have it encourages parents, coaches, clubs and referees to thinks and act like we do! I am on both sides of the fence as a coach and a parent that just feels something is just not right and the system we are using is broken.

I complimented your intent and the honesty of your response. But if it makes you feel better, I can retract it.

Xara wrote:

intrinsic wrote:We actually agree on a lot, but even more than skill, most top academy teams owe a lot of their winning ways to speed, size, strength, and aggressiveness (overall athleticism).

That is an accurate point. But here's going to be the shocker for a lot of these parents who simply believe that if their modestly athletic daughter will just stay the course, she'll somehow break out in high school. That is sometimes not the case. An average soccer player (even rec level) with exceptional speed / athleticism / aggressiveness will often have more impact on the soccer field in high school games than their select counterparts. Will such players be better than top D1 select players? No. Might they contribute more than some D2/D3/Plano players. It does happen. Learning good skills at a young age is no substitute for pure, unadulterated physical ability. Many a skilled soccer player is eventually limited by lousy genes from their parents.

Oh my god... thank you!! This is sports....it is for the athletically inclined. They have places for really short slow people. It's not between the painted lines though. NTX soccer is the only sports haven that I know of that playing the game, winning and athleticism is frowned upon. You certainly can't get by on athleticism alone (in any sport) but it's darn hard to get by without it either (in every sport).

Wait! You mean athletic talent and technical ability are not mutually exclusive??

Xara wrote:

totalsoccer wrote:

Xara wrote:

totalsoccer wrote:

Xara wrote:

totalsoccer wrote:I don’t know maybe not keeping standings and decreasing the emphasis on league play and increasing emphasis on tournament and small sided might relieve some of the pressure of just gaining a result. What do you guys think?

Aren't you an academy coach, TS? Based on posts I've seen from you in the "Teams/Players Looking" section, I gather that you are an Andromeda academy coach. Nothing too wrong with Andromeda (except the price!), by the way; just another club trying to lure good players and paying parents its way so that grown men and women like yourself can make money coaching soccer. There's the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

But here's my question to you or any other club coach who wants to chime in: If development is the true goal, why cut a player who puts in the effort? You've done that a time or two, right? So does every other coach from your club including the DOC. Parents talk of development, yet most of them wouldn't recognize it because they've never played at a high level. They know what the coach tells them, what they read on this forum (God, help them), and how many step-over moves their precious Mia's do in a soccer game. But an academy or select coach, on the other hand, extolling longterm development, demonizing tactical training, but always keeping an eye out for better players who can replace his bottom third... It's hypocritical.

Clearly, a coach like yourself cuts players and recruits "better" replacements to WIN games. We are a society that likes to win. Players, parents, and coaches all strive to win. Yet winning is treated like an evil act on this forum by - wait for it - parents and coaches of losing teams. That's how they explain losses. "Our team doesn't win; our players are developed!" If a player comes along who can get more wins, the coach's little "development" project is looking for another team. Convenient.

I am guilty,but really looking for guidance to a better way a better system.

Excellent response. Seriously.

I appreciate all the insight given by all those who have posted! Xara, I am not here to air out my dirty laundry and to be judged by you. The system as we know it does not work! Just as parents feel the need to move clubs and teams for the winning. The system as we have it encourages parents, coaches, clubs and referees to thinks and act like we do! I am on both sides of the fence as a coach and a parent that just feels something is just not right and the system we are using is broken.

I complimented your intent and the honesty of your response. But if it makes you feel better, I can retract it.

Sorry misinterpreted your statement!