Soccer tournaments and League Play - Learn the game vs. Win today

Soccer tournaments and League Play - Learn the game vs. Win today

***  What is the purpose of soccer tournament?  What about the league play?  ***

...  1) How much is the importance given to winning games and the trophies versus learning the game?  
Best of both would be perfect.  However, I have seen, learning takes a backseat if it is all about winning today.  What is your thoughts and experience?  How do you tell if your coach is all about win today vs. learning the game while trying to win today.  Can you tell the difference if your coach is doing one vs. the other?  Is that, 'that obvious' or very subjective?

...  2) Does the philosophy change between league and tournament? Should it be same or different?

Welcome your opinion.

Don't know if you can draw any grand conclusions from one day but I watched 2 academy-age finals today.

In both, one team was obviously trying to play the ball on the ground, make diagonal runs, etc. while the other was clearly instructed to get it out of the back first time and if you did happen to touch it in the midfield, to then send it over the top and hope.

In both games, the direct style ruled the day as all teams began playing that way. At an age when every air ball is an adventure, at least 1/2 of each game was airborne 50/50's.

Both direct teams won and all the goals scored on both sides were balls over the top run onto by speedy forwards.

One coach reamed out his right back at halftime for taking more than 1 touch before playing the ball. He screamed 'you trap it, then SEND it.' I found this remarkable, since I thought the kid was easily his most technical player and thought she'd done quite well in the first half. Oh well.

I guess development starts again at Tuesday training.

That's a pretty compelling answer. It reminds me of a post-game talk I overheard to an academy girls team a few years ago at a major summer tournament- which included the coach saying, "The important thing is, we will move up in the rankings from this weekend."

A select soccer coach who I highly respect used to tell his teams and the parents "there will be tournaments that we enter to work on our game and others that we enter to win".  He kept his word on that.  Of course, the girls always wanted to win the games.  What kid doesn't?  But he would send out information to the parents prior to the tournaments regarding his overall strategy and learning goals so that everyone was on the same page.  Then he would back those plans up in his actions.  The guy taught me a lot.

There's nothing wrong with winning games.  Many posters on here write as though a player or team cannot develop if they actually win a match.  Winning and improving don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Despite all of that, I would answer your initial question more directly by saying that "the purpose of a soccer tournament" is for the club or organization running it to make money.  It has been discussed time and time again by heads of youth soccer agencies, physicians, and top coaches that tournaments matches generally devolve into survival of the fittest.  There are way too many games in way too short a period to be good for the kids.

As for league games, most coaches play those to win... although it is certainly possible to learn and develop in the process if the coach handles the matches correctly.  Scrimmages are the better avenue for ignoring the "win" factor.

Most on here have probably read the following from US Youth Soccer before, but it's worth reviewing: http://regioniv.usyouthsoccer.org/assets/927/15/Games%20Versus%20Practice.pdf  This utterly puts in perspective just how little time a kid typically spends with the ball in a game.  Particularly astounding is the statement "attending well planned training sessions for SIX MONTHS can produce the same number of ball possessions as SIX YEARS of playing 100 games per season".  Unbelievable.

JustaSport wrote:A select soccer coach who I highly respect used to tell his teams and the parents "there will be tournaments that we enter to work on our game and others that we enter to win".  He kept his word on that.  Of course, the girls always wanted to win the games.  What kid doesn't?  But he would send out information to the parents prior to the tournaments regarding his overall strategy and learning goals so that everyone was on the same page.  Then he would back those plans up in his actions.  The guy taught me a lot.

Waw, you guys were lucky to have that coach.  Communication is critical skill of a teacher, coach, leader ... um for pretty much everyone.  

Setting high expectations for themselves and kids, dealing with consequences is hard.  It takes commitment,  planning, vision and consist execution.  Some of the coaches for sure think, they do not have to explain OR do not know how to explain to kids and parents.  Unfortunately, they are some of the winning coaches too.  Just they can not explain the vision and strategy with your kids in the context.  Some are real gems like the one JustaSport mentions, hope we recognize when we see one.

I have to say I have heard this phrase way too many times already.  And we pay $1K to $3K for this.  

Gunner9 wrote:Don't know if you can draw any grand conclusions from one day but I watched 2 academy-age finals today.
....
'you trap it, then SEND it.'  
....

intrinsic wrote: That's a pretty compelling answer. It reminds me of a post-game talk I overheard to an academy girls team a few years ago at a major summer tournament- which included the coach saying, "The important thing is, we will move up in the rankings from this weekend."

I am not surprised ...  Most important thing ...

I think the view/preference of a coach, in how they treat tournaments/league play, is outweighed by the wants/demands of the team parents. Parents, with a minimal exception, in NTX want wins. Ugly, beautiful, bland, doesn't matter. The equation is win = good, loss = bad. Too much 'bad' and your customer base goes elsewhere.

I don't believe the viewpoint changes through to professional and even national teams. Coaches are deemed 'successful' if they win, regardless of the style. Fans judge them by such. No coach gets to keep his/her job because their team played 'pretty'.

Coaches are largely forced to keep development 95% to the practice field. The paying customers see to that.

If you can name a company or enterprise that sells what they want over what sells best then feel free to share.

Wherever there's a checkbook involved, the check writer largely dictates the product. It's naive and simply untrue to believe otherwise and expect to remain competitive in maintaining and attracting customers.

(That doesn't mean that many of us coaches like it this way. Our hands are tied when the system is a business first and foremost. In reality, if we stepped outside of this model and were able to coach for free, most parents would still choose the destination that guaranteed maximum wins NOW, even if it meant they had to pay for it. That's life and that's sports.

I would like to end though with a random quote: "if winning is so easy, everybody would be doing it.")

Wow - So referencing paying customers, check writers, attracting customers etc.... shows where the mentality and interests are of whatever system you are involved with. That's why I would never have my child involved in an organization that considers it to be a system or a business as previously stated by the post before this one. But hey who cares burn through kids, team churn, win at all costs, who cares if they play long term, its all okay as long as the brand sells right - and we win now.

But these teams arent winning because of coaching. They are

This is why some specific coaches and specific organizations are not respected and are laughed at(literally) past the u12 to u13 range. When those paying customers, or check writers start to see their "product" - otherwise known as kids - are getting beat because they cant rely on the kick and run style of play or that one kid that was so dominating before.

But I do love the quote "if winning is so easy, everybody would be doing it" - That is so true

freakingenius wrote:Wow - So referencing paying customers, check writers, attracting customers etc.... shows where the mentality and interests are  of whatever system you are involved with. That's why I would never have my child involved in an organization that considers it to be a system or a business as previously stated by the post before this one. But hey who cares burn through kids, team churn, win at all costs, who cares if they play long term, its all okay as long as the brand sells right - and we win now.

But these teams arent winning because of coaching. They are

This is why some specific coaches and specific organizations are not respected and are laughed at(literally) past the u12 to u13 range. When those paying customers, or check writers start to see their "product"  - otherwise known as kids - are getting beat because they cant rely on the kick and run style of play or that one kid that was so dominating before.
But I do love the quote "if winning is so easy, everybody would be doing it" - That is so true

Sorry, this is bogus freakinggenius. What wolf has provided you here is a heaping serving of honesty from inside the business.

If you're naive enough to believe it's any different at your club, you need to change your username.

It's a business each and every place the model is pay to play. The few that aren't "pay to play" are businesses too, but they don't have to cater to parents as the paying customer.

4-3-3 wrote:

freakingenius wrote:Wow - So referencing paying customers, check writers, attracting customers etc.... shows where the mentality and interests are  of whatever system you are involved with. That's why I would never have my child involved in an organization that considers it to be a system or a business as previously stated by the post before this one. But hey who cares burn through kids, team churn, win at all costs, who cares if they play long term, its all okay as long as the brand sells right - and we win now.

But these teams arent winning because of coaching. They are

This is why some specific coaches and specific organizations are not respected and are laughed at(literally) past the u12 to u13 range. When those paying customers, or check writers start to see their "product"  - otherwise known as kids - are getting beat because they cant rely on the kick and run style of play or that one kid that was so dominating before.
But I do love the quote "if winning is so easy, everybody would be doing it" - That is so true

Sorry, this is bogus freakinggenius. What wolf has provided you here is a heaping serving of honesty from inside the business.

If you're naive enough to believe it's any different at your club, you need to change your username.

It's a business each and every place the model is pay to play. The few that aren't "pay to play" are businesses too, but they don't have to cater to parents as the paying customer.

Where is the Like button?  

freakingenius wrote:Wow - So referencing paying customers, check writers, attracting customers etc.... shows where the mentality and interests are  of whatever system you are involved with. That's why I would never have my child involved in an organization that considers it to be a system or a business as previously stated by the post before this one. But hey who cares burn through kids, team churn, win at all costs, who cares if they play long term, its all okay as long as the brand sells right - and we win now.

But these teams arent winning because of coaching. They are

This is why some specific coaches and specific organizations are not respected and are laughed at(literally) past the u12 to u13 range. When those paying customers, or check writers start to see their "product"  - otherwise known as kids - are getting beat because they cant rely on the kick and run style of play or that one kid that was so dominating before.

But I do love the quote "if winning is so easy, everybody would be doing it" - That is so true

Interesting.  Since your child will "never be involved in an organization that considers it to be a system or a business", which organizations in the area do you consider to be acceptable?  In other words, in which organizations WOULD you let your child be involved?

Would not go to LP. Just dont think organization concerns itself in regards to the kids.

Although LW coaches his teams to a higher standard - but it prob makes it easier when you have the best kids. And he has no pressure on him like other coaches in LP do to WIN WIN WIN.

And I do know that organizations have to make money. That's a given. But when it is at the expense of the kids. No way.

All I am saying is when it comes time to really play the game and it matters certain players are not going to be able to keep up because they dont know how or when to zone up or man on D, or use center channels, or how to clear space, or mixed passing, pressing techniques, or how to gauge and adjust tactics and formations based on opponents play, blah blah blah

But hey at least they won when they were 6 to 12 yrs old. And most importantly the brand made money.

I have never coached so I dont see the "inside of the business" like some of you guys. So with that said you have me beat on what it looks like from "inside of the business"

But I do catch on quick. And my perspective is from outside looking in with my daughters best interests in mind. Not whether she plays for best team or they win every game. But it is frustrating sometimes when we lose after dominating possession and just fail to put it in the back of the net. But after all I have read and learned even the greats like Ferguson, Mourinho, etc... say that anyone can learn to be a striker and scoere goals. Just not my kids team apparently HAHAHAAHA.

Anyways enough of my BS soap boxing.

freakingenius wrote:Would not go to LP. Just dont think organization concerns itself in regards to the kids.

Although LW coaches his teams to a higher standard - but it prob makes it easier when you have the best kids. And he has no pressure on him like other coaches in LP do to WIN WIN WIN.


All I am saying is when it comes time to really play the game and it matters certain players are not going to be able to keep up because they dont know how or when to zone up or man on D, or use center channels, or how to clear space, or mixed passing, pressing techniques, or how to gauge and adjust tactics and formations based on opponents play, blah blah blah

But hey at least they won when they were 6 to 12 yrs old. And most importantly the brand made money.

 
So...an LP bias.. OK...
 
And why do 'the best kids' go to LW? uhhh... vs anyone else?  (Maybe better coaching???)
 
You stated: they dont know how or when to zone up or man on D, or use center channels, or how to clear space, or mixed passing, pressing techniques, or how to gauge and adjust tactics and formations based on opponents play
 
My kid is with LP... is U7(so still 6)... so all the other clubs are teaching the above but my coach just looking for wins with skills and passing?  Should a 6 year old get her brain all full of pressing techniques center channels and how to gauge and adjust tactics...or should she learn how to handle the ball, trap and pass?
 
Guess your 6 year old is much more advanced...must play for Kicks, and my dd is stuck learning ball skills, spacing and passing...there goes ECNL down the drain!

Yeah an LP bias. And yes LW does coach well. I stated that. But most dont in the LP org.

And if your kid has touch issues then yeah you need to focus on that first. My kid didnt.

And my statements werent wrapped around your kids understanding or lack of understanding of the game while they are 6 yrs old. I dont know you or your kid. But I am sure if you explained more to them on tactics and such at the same time they were learning touch and ball control etc.. it would all come together sooner for them.

And my kid isnt 6. She is 9. And believe me she doesnt play for kicks. Either way they are kids and playing for kicks or fun is what they want and need. Or they will burnout quick.

Now on the other hand what do the parents want? Win, kid on best team, massage their ego those kind of things.

Most of these girls could care less about the win. They want to have fun. Go sleep over at someones house.

Are the kids the ones that are logged into this msg board checking their FBR rankings or concerned with there ECNL or D1 possibilities. No the parents are.

But this is real early in our kids lives as far as soccer is concerned. If they stay with it that is almost 11 more years for a 6 year old before they graduate.

Talk about skewing off topic here. Left field.

Actually kids care more about winning than you realize, yes things can be easily smoothed over with a sleep over with a friend but after a while kids get tired of losing, just as the parents do. Many a times have I had kids tell me they are tired of losing and tired of caring while little Suzie over there doesn't seem to care.

The bottom line is NTX youth soccer is about money and winning, if you want to develop your childs skills you better get it done on your own time. Look at the way the system is set up, the coaches are paid per player they have on the team, so their goal is to keep as many kids as they possibly can without rocking the boat and pissing off parents due to lack of playing time. So once they clear that hurdle they have to find a way to keep the players on the team so they will work on skills during practices and once the game starts they will generally keep the best players on the field and do whatever they can to keep the games close and win. Development and soccer IQ is great but each game, each league, and each tournament is a showcase and the coach/club is desperately wanting to keep winning so the players will stick around and the parents will keep paying. So if development suffers and style of play suffers that's something that ALL clubs are willing to live with. There is really no opportunity to simply allow teams and players to develop because the pressure to win is ever present.

I've long been in favor of doing away with the Academy system the way it's set up right now. I would much prefer to have a system where the leagues were on Saturday and then on Sundays you would drop you kid off at an assigned time for the age group and there would be club training and scrimmages. In the club environment there's would be one style of play being taught, from the youngest to the oldest and on Sunday's you would have all the time in the world in a pressure free environment to develop the kids soccer IQ without the fear of winning at all cost. On Sunday's if you play it back to the keeper (as more teams should) and either the defender shoots it past the keeper or the keeper miss handles it and it goes in, there's no harm, no foul to any teams rankings or anything like that. It's a mistake made in a scrimmage but the theory is still being taught and practiced. I'd also prefer to see NTX get away from feeling the need to have 8 & 9 year olds play 11v11. Keep the games and fields smaller for longer and the bigger soccer will look better because of it. 11 v 11 at a young age does nothing but reward the teams with the faster athletes and bigger legs.

Quite honestly there's not a club out there that I truly believe cares first about the development of the soccer players. Yes there are some coaches out there that do but unless they are running their own program there's not really too much they can do, they have to play the NTX game in order to survive.

GrandTXSoccer wrote:Actually kids care more about winning than you realize, yes things can be easily smoothed over with a sleep over with a friend but after a while kids get tired of losing, just as the parents do. Many a times have I had kids tell me they are tired of losing and tired of caring while little Suzie over there doesn't seem to care.

The bottom line is NTX youth soccer is about money and winning, if you want to develop your childs skills you better get it done on your own time. Look at the way the system is set up, the coaches are paid per player they have on the team, so their goal is to keep as many kids as they possibly can without rocking the boat and pissing off parents due to lack of playing time. So once they clear that hurdle they have to find a way to keep the players on the team so they will work on skills during practices and once the game starts they will generally keep the best players on the field and do whatever they can to keep the games close and win. Development and soccer IQ is great but each game, each league, and each tournament is a showcase and the coach/club is desperately wanting to keep winning so the players will stick around and the parents will keep paying. So if development suffers and style of play suffers that's something that ALL clubs are willing to live with. There is really no opportunity to simply allow teams and players to develop because the pressure to win is ever present.

I've long been in favor of doing away with the Academy system the way it's set up right now. I would much prefer to have a system where the leagues were on Saturday and then on Sundays you would drop you kid off at an assigned time for the age group and there would be club training and scrimmages. In the club environment there's would be one style of play being taught, from the youngest to the oldest and on Sunday's you would have all the time in the world in a pressure free environment to develop the kids soccer IQ without the fear of winning at all cost. On Sunday's if you play it back to the keeper (as more teams should) and either the defender shoots it past the keeper or the keeper miss handles it and it goes in, there's no harm, no foul to any teams rankings or anything like that. It's a mistake made in a scrimmage but the theory is still being taught and practiced. I'd also prefer to see NTX get away from feeling the need to have 8 & 9 year olds play 11v11. Keep the games and fields smaller for longer and the bigger soccer will look better because of it. 11 v 11 at a young age does nothing but reward the teams with the faster athletes and bigger legs.

Quite honestly there's not a club out there that I truly believe cares first about the development of the soccer players. Yes there are some coaches out there that do but unless they are running their own program there's not really too much they can do, they have to play the NTX game in order to survive.

Great post! We all have our favorite coaches but lets not be naive here, it's a business for every club otherwise they wouldn't survive!

Well put GrandTX

   

I do have a little naivety after all.

Thanks.

GrandTXSoccer wrote:... if you play it back to the keeper (as more teams should) and either the defender shoots it past the keeper or the keeper miss handles it and it goes in, there's no harm, no foul to any teams rankings or anything like that. It's a mistake made in a scrimmage but the theory is still being taught and practiced. I'd also prefer to see NTX get away from feeling the need to have 8 & 9 year olds play 11v11. Keep the games and fields smaller for longer and the bigger soccer will look better because of it. 11 v 11 at a young age does nothing but reward the teams with the faster athletes and bigger legs.

AMEN Brother or Sister! I'll lite one up for that...

I'll keep my opinion short and sweet.  Anytime the team is instructed and taught to boot the ball out of the back field is a dead giveaway. IMO,  the game of soccer is a strategic one and a game of utilizing every player on the field, not just the back and the top of the field.  NTX  is notorious for this.

GrandTXSoccer wrote:Actually kids care more about winning than you realize, yes things can be easily smoothed over with a sleep over with a friend but after a while kids get tired of losing, just as the parents do. Many a times have I had kids tell me they are tired of losing and tired of caring while little Suzie over there doesn't seem to care.

The bottom line is NTX youth soccer is about money and winning, if you want to develop your childs skills you better get it done on your own time. Look at the way the system is set up, the coaches are paid per player they have on the team, so their goal is to keep as many kids as they possibly can without rocking the boat and pissing off parents due to lack of playing time. So once they clear that hurdle they have to find a way to keep the players on the team so they will work on skills during practices and once the game starts they will generally keep the best players on the field and do whatever they can to keep the games close and win. Development and soccer IQ is great but each game, each league, and each tournament is a showcase and the coach/club is desperately wanting to keep winning so the players will stick around and the parents will keep paying. So if development suffers and style of play suffers that's something that ALL clubs are willing to live with. There is really no opportunity to simply allow teams and players to develop because the pressure to win is ever present.

I've long been in favor of doing away with the Academy system the way it's set up right now. I would much prefer to have a system where the leagues were on Saturday and then on Sundays you would drop you kid off at an assigned time for the age group and there would be club training and scrimmages. In the club environment there's would be one style of play being taught, from the youngest to the oldest and on Sunday's you would have all the time in the world in a pressure free environment to develop the kids soccer IQ without the fear of winning at all cost. On Sunday's if you play it back to the keeper (as more teams should) and either the defender shoots it past the keeper or the keeper miss handles it and it goes in, there's no harm, no foul to any teams rankings or anything like that. It's a mistake made in a scrimmage but the theory is still being taught and practiced. I'd also prefer to see NTX get away from feeling the need to have 8 & 9 year olds play 11v11. Keep the games and fields smaller for longer and the bigger soccer will look better because of it. 11 v 11 at a young age does nothing but reward the teams with the faster athletes and bigger legs.

Quite honestly there's not a club out there that I truly believe cares first about the development of the soccer players. Yes there are some coaches out there that do but unless they are running their own program there's not really too much they can do, they have to play the NTX game in order to survive.

+1   

LOTS of things to address here, so bear with me if I am all over the place. I hope it will come across right.

Firstly, young kids have almost no understanding of tactics. If you watch a rec 5v5 game, when a kid gets the ball, it's more like 9v1. It takes an extraordinary amount of concentration for a young kid to even dribble the ball, let alone do anything tactical. They are mostly oblivious to their own teammates. Think of a scale from 1-100. Young kids are about 95% motor skills focused vs 5% tactics. As they get older the scale slides the other direction until they are just about 12yo. This is the "golden age of learning". Up to this age, motor neurons are growing at an exponential rate, but after the age of 12, they slow dramatically. An example of this would be that if I tried explaining an offside trap to you, you would understand it right away, whereas if I tried explaining it to a 6-12yo, they would not get it, recognize it or do it. Yet, if I tried to show you how to do a move you have never seen before, I can guarantee you that a young kid would get it way before you do.

Secondly, I'd like to add to the discussion of Soccer as a business and the "win now" kickball mentality. As I have stated in another post, generally kickball plus strength/speed/size equals wins. When the kids that were not early bloomers and had to work very hard on their first touch and other skills start to catch up around 14, then they will be picked over the girls who were successful as younger kids and relied on their athleticism to win games but never worked on their touch. Why should they, since coaches lavish praise on them and they think they don't need to improve. Clubs know this and will exploit these kids while waiting for everyone to equal out in physical maturity. Then they will dump the former girls that got them early successes for the kids with the good touch. To the clubs, it just works itself out.

Just my take on a few things.

Coach&Ref wrote: When the kids that were not early bloomers and had to work very hard on their first touch and other skills start to catch up around 14, then they will be picked over the girls who were successful as younger kids and relied on their athleticism to win games but never worked on their touch.

Am I the only one out here who keeps hearing the "mantra" above, but not seeing it???

Granted, I haven't been on the scene as long as many of the "pundits" around here, but my observation is that the overwhelming majority of starting players on top teams at the later ages were, top players at the earlier ages, mainly because they are pure and simple better athletes - quicker, faster, more agile, and most importantly, more coordinated.

To me, I'd say the "late-bloomers" who don't emerge until 14+ are far more the exception than the rule, like <10% of the players on top teams.

Maybe I just put a big 'ol target on my back, but I'm just not seeing what everyone is preaching...

bwgophers wrote:

Coach&Ref wrote: When the kids that were not early bloomers and had to work very hard on their first touch and other skills start to catch up around 14, then they will be picked over the girls who were successful as younger kids and relied on their athleticism to win games but never worked on their touch.

Am I the only one out here who keeps hearing the "mantra" above, but not seeing it???

Granted, I haven't been on the scene as long as many of the "pundits" around here, but my observation is that the overwhelming majority of starting players on top teams at the later ages were, top players at the earlier ages, mainly because they are pure and simple better athletes - quicker, faster, more agile, and most importantly, more coordinated.

To me, I'd say the "late-bloomers" who don't emerge until 14+ are far more the exception than the rule, like <10% of the players on top teams.

Maybe I just put a big 'ol target on my back, but I'm just not seeing what everyone is preaching...

Nah Gophers. It's just what you are seeing and your opinion. Nothing wrong with that. It is just a discussion after all.

My opinion just comes from the many girls I have both coached and observed. Even though I am NOT one of the "win now" coaches who have had super athletes on my teams, I cannot avoid this issue with these players. No mater what the amount of cajoling could get those girls to train on their own. I would give them homework that might take them 15mins per day, but they would go home, watch TV, etc.

It's unrealistic to think that a girl will improve from two 1.5hr practices per week with one game on the weekend. 90% of the necessary work a kid can do, can be done at home.

My observations are simply that those girls who worked hard to compete at younger ages, will replace the early successful athletes who don't think they need to work on their own.

Coach&Ref wrote:

bwgophers wrote:

Coach&Ref wrote: When the kids that were not early bloomers and had to work very hard on their first touch and other skills start to catch up around 14, then they will be picked over the girls who were successful as younger kids and relied on their athleticism to win games but never worked on their touch.

Am I the only one out here who keeps hearing the "mantra" above, but not seeing it???

Granted, I haven't been on the scene as long as many of the "pundits" around here, but my observation is that the overwhelming majority of starting players on top teams at the later ages were, top players at the earlier ages, mainly because they are pure and simple better athletes - quicker, faster, more agile, and most importantly, more coordinated.

To me, I'd say the "late-bloomers" who don't emerge until 14+ are far more the exception than the rule, like <10% of the players on top teams.

Maybe I just put a big 'ol target on my back, but I'm just not seeing what everyone is preaching...

Nah Gophers. It's just what you are seeing and your opinion. Nothing wrong with that. It is just a discussion after all.

My opinion just comes from the many girls I have both coached and observed. Even though I am NOT one of the "win now" coaches who have had super athletes on my teams, I cannot avoid this issue with these players. No mater what the amount of cajoling could get those girls to train on their own. I would give them homework that might take them 15mins per day, but they would go home, watch TV, etc.

It's unrealistic to think that a girl will improve from two 1.5hr practices per week with one game on the weekend. 90% of the necessary work a kid can do, can be done at home.

My observations are simply that those girls who worked hard to compete at younger ages, will replace the early successful athletes who don't think they need to work on their own.

Could it also be that with the relatively recent advent of academy soccer at the younger ages, that the increased "intensity" of coaching and competition at the younger ages weeds out the players that are skating by on athleticism only at a younger age, so that even by the time they are 10-11, the better athletes that are also willing to work hard at developing skill have risen to the top and stay there?

Maybe this is a bit a of a paradigm shift from even 5-10 years ago?