Playing for results and standings vs. teaching the game

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.

outonthelimb wrote:

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.

Be those physical or mental in nature

Old Timer wrote:

outonthelimb wrote:

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).

No doubt that athleticism, skill and soccer IQ are required to hang at the top level. Coaches just seem to hang on to the athletes lacking the skill and soccer IQ longer than players who are not as athletic. In either case the end result is the same if you don't have all 3.

Gunner9 wrote:Wait! You mean athletic talent and technical ability are not mutually exclusive??

IKnowMyABCs wrote:Depends on the age. But top level academy teams (top 10 ish) definitely must also teach tactics in order to win. As in, if the field is going to be big we must condition and do switching, long passing, put top players on defense, etc. Whatever percentage of time is spent on these things necessarily takes at least some time away from individual skills training (foot skills, receiving, trapping, etc). Also, a team more focused on the win pretty much has to put kids into certain positions and leave them there. The top level of competition often demands this in order to be competitive. In addition, most top level player's parents feel the need to seek additional skills training besides regular practices. Also, if a coach can keep his team in the "limelight" with wins, he/she can also draw already skilled players from other club teams, requiring less skills training. It is what it is, I guess. If your kid is a top player on a top team and you don't mind doing additional skills work, then it works for you. And it is nice for kids to get to play with other top players. Now, if your kid is just a decent player on a top team but is not developing enough skills and/or not being allowed to make mistakes or try a new position because of the fear of losing then maybe you might make the choice to find (I'm talking academy here) a team where they can get more skills and have opportunities to try new things even though the team overall w/l record is not as good. Just depends on the kids and parents I'd say.

outonthelimb wrote:

Old Timer wrote:

outonthelimb wrote:

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).

No doubt that athleticism, skill and soccer IQ are required to hang at the top level. Coaches just seem to hang on to the athletes lacking the skill and soccer IQ longer than players who are not as athletic. In either case the end result is the same if you don't have all 3.

It makes sense for coaches who all believe they can make an impact on a player to hold onto the more athletic ones longer. You can teach skill and even increase soccer IQ overtime but all the coaching, money, canoodling etc in the world won't make DD grow, have fast twitch fibers or over come her lack of athletic genes. Thus coaches drool over the older, big/small, fast, instinctive coachable ones and try to teach them the game. You can't coach size/speed...doesn't matter the sport.

Old Timer wrote:

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.

totalsoccer wrote:

outonthelimb wrote:

Old Timer wrote:

outonthelimb wrote:

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).

No doubt that athleticism, skill and soccer IQ are required to hang at the top level. Coaches just seem to hang on to the athletes lacking the skill and soccer IQ longer than players who are not as athletic. In either case the end result is the same if you don't have all 3.

It makes sense for coaches who all believe they can make an impact on a player to hold onto the more athletic ones longer. You can teach skill and even increase soccer IQ overtime but all the coaching, money, canoodling etc in the world won't make DD grow, have fast twitch fibers or over come her lack of athletic genes. Thus coaches drool over the older, big/small, fast, instinctive coachable ones and try to teach them the game. You can't coach size/speed...doesn't matter the sport.

"You can't coach size/speed...doesn't matter the sport” I do not necessarily think this statement is true.

Size can be developed at a certain age in the weight room and at the dinner table.

Speed can be increased through skill development, tactical awareness, and increased ability to process the game.

Is it easier to coach an athlete that might already have all the intangibles’ of speed and size? "yes"

Could not agree more: my DD started less than 2 years ago doing multiple sports through out the year (track, swimming, BB, and core training... last season she exploded: 19 goals in LH +3 tournaments) she is having a blast with her teammates doing this extra sports which are basically short seasonal rec programs!

Gumby wrote:If the score is tied at the end of a game, they call it a draw and it's not winning or losing. See, it's more complicated than you thought. This is a joke. This joke is intended to make you laugh.