Working the ball vs. giving it the big boot

10sDad wrote:Wow...so many things to comment on!!! Which one to pick? Ummm..I think I will go with "score goals" topic and move into ECNL.

Yes...LHGCL got exactly what they wanted for D1. Teams that could win. Nowhere does it say that LH is about development. So, if your team has a couple really fast physical forwards, and you can pack the back and boot it up everytime you can take a swing at it, you will do fine - probably make D1!.
I did see a couple teams that are learning possession style soccer, and at U-11 that's a huge undertaking mentally and physically. These teams would get control in the back, transition into and through the midfield with nice passing, ball control, switch/transition the field, etc. But then, they would either make a minor mistake on a pass, or take too long to make a decision, and would get muscled off the ball/lose a 50/50...which was promptly sent 30+ yards back downfield with no direction or purpose to the cheers of parents saying "nice kick!". Maybe a fast, physical forward got onto it, maybe not....but the process would start all over again. It takes a long time to learn possession soccer, and the advantage at this age goes to the boot-it stlye team...for the next couple years anyway.

Now...that leads into the ECNL discussion. The midfielders and the defenders on the "boot it forward" team that is gaining all this early success, making D1, winning lots of games, etc....won't make ECNL (the forward might). The team's results do not help on individual tryouts. The ECNL player has to be able to play smart, and be possession oriented. Spending the last couple years, and the next few years playing long ball clearances ends up with a player not getting developed in game situations, and creates a non-ECNL player because they don't think.

It's not necessarily the coaches fault. They want to teach proper soccer. But...they also have a reputation that is built on winning. Winning trumps development in NTX soccer...if you don't believe that...well...then you are one of the parents on these teams rosters...
Many times you will see coaches try to teach possession in practice, but when the W-L record is on the line...its pack the back and boot it. They have this vision in their heads that they can teach it only in practice, the girls will get it, and then they can all of a sudden start doing it in games. What happens more often, is they recruit players from the possession style teams to be their center-mids and the like. (entice them with a D1 spot), and send their original players packing. So....the possession style team really doesn't advance up to the top echelons...but the players do one by one...
So where are most of your ECNL players of the future? That remains to be seen...but its more determined by development than by win/loss record at this age.

soccergrinder wrote:Below are my observations after my kids playing soccer in North Texas for the last 10 years.

You are getting your terminology mixed up.

Kickball is what kids do in rec. Kickball just means kicking the ball without ANY specific destination for the ball. Not normally seen in select soccer.

In select you have two distinct styles of play. You have possession soccer and you have longball, also referred to as direct soccer by college coaches.

Choosing between these two usually involves one or two things. It could be the coach, i.e. Texans Hassan & Hudgell play longball. A telltale sign is when the midfielders pass the ball backwards to the defenders and then the defenders launch the ball to the forwards. Where as coaches like Solar's KS play a possession style of play. The team works the ball through their midfielders and try to set up specific opportunities to specific players by working the ball around. Similar to what a basketball team might do. Not that possession doesn't have it's fair share of threw balls as well.

Another reason has to do with player personnel. For example the typical Texan player will either be really big or really fast. They go for the athletic type. This is great for longball. Muscle the other players or beat them up top with speed. These teams are where North Texas gets it's reputation of "North Texas" ball. Or rough play, bang the crap out of the other team type of soccer. Typical Solar teams go for more skilled players. Players that may not be as big or fast but beat you with their technical skills and their creative play and brains. Not to say that Texans don't have some skilled payers and that Solar doesn't have some athletic players because they both do.

If your focus is to win games when they are young then definitively you want to play longball. Young players inevitably will cough up the ball and make a mistake under constant bombardment of longball. However, as the players get older longball is less effective. If you want to develop the players to have a "soccer brain" then possession soccer is the way to go.

However, this is carried over even in college soccer. For example the "Big Ten" is looked at as direct(longball) style of play where as the "Big East" is known as more possession style of teams (in general). You could even see it in the recent college playoffs that came through town. Akron, a possession style team, came to Dallas to play SMU, a direct play team. Akron pretty much sliced and diced SMU up for the first 2/3 of the game and had a 3-0 lead with their possession ball. In the last third of the game SMU's direct style finally paid off and they scored two goals before finally losing 3-2.

Another interesting note is the USSF Development Academy has even started ranking teams by style of play. They rank possession style very high (Solar, FC Dallas got high rankings) and they rank longball very low (Texans garnered a 2 on a 5 scale).

These comments are not meant to be pro or anti any specific club, they are just my observations which I am sure are not biased in any way.  

Borussia wrote:Now for you to print up some t-shirts and get em sold.

The front of the shirt would show the parents preference:

"Direct" , "Tiki-Taka", "My DDs big toe is always bloody after games"

The back:

TXSoccer.net

Hooligan wrote:so to summarize...
---A nice through ball with pace to a forward that nicely times their run, is direct soccer.
---Working the ball from the defense, through the midfield, sometimes passing backward to achieve switches, ultimately resulting in a pass to a forward or attacking mid in the box is possession soccer.
---Kicking the ball upfield as high and as hard as you can, and hoping your big, fast forward can chase it down before the defender can, or arrive before the defender has controlled it to muscle the ball away is bootball NTX girls soccer.
Did I get this right?

rockindaddy wrote:Good teams and players can and will play both styles.
Direct soccer that results easy goals should not be looked at as bad soccer any more than possession soccer that never results in goals should be conceived as good soccer.

haterinho wrote:Agree with this 100pct. There are really good possession teams, and really good direct teams, but the most dangerous teams have the personnel and skill to do both and can switch on demand as needed.

haterinho wrote:

rockindaddy wrote:Good teams and players can and will play both styles.
Direct soccer that results easy goals should not be looked at as bad soccer any more than possession soccer that never results in goals should be conceived as good soccer.

Agree with this 100pct. There are really good possession teams, and really good direct teams, but the most dangerous teams have the personnel and skill to do both and can switch on demand as needed.

I'm with pep, I grew to hate tiki-taka too, and towards the end of their reign when xavi got old and they had no ctr fwd, they played tiki taka and it was crap to watch. I for one am overjoyed the world has moved on from thinking that style is what everyone should be playing.

Love the beautiful game, but tiki taka is not it IMO.

Borussia wrote:

haterinho wrote:

rockindaddy wrote:Good teams and players can and will play both styles.
Direct soccer that results easy goals should not be looked at as bad soccer any more than possession soccer that never results in goals should be conceived as good soccer.

Agree with this 100pct. There are really good possession teams, and really good direct teams, but the most dangerous teams have the personnel and skill to do both and can switch on demand as needed.

I'm with pep, I grew to hate tiki-taka too, and towards the end of their reign when xavi got old and they had no ctr fwd, they played tiki taka and it was crap to watch. I for one am overjoyed the world has moved on from thinking that style is what everyone should be playing.

Love the beautiful game, but tiki taka is not it IMO.

Yes but Pep can't get me not to believe what my own eyes can see. That's exactly what barca did towards end of his term. Xavi must have passed back and forth to busquets 100 times a game. Their reign lasted longer than it should've because the world was memerized and too afraid to press them.  Once people figured out barca backline was soft as a baby's behind and they're so small they have no presence in the air...the mystique was gone and teams stopped sitting deep watching barca play tkiki taka and killing the game with boredom. LoL. And for me pep is the best one of top 3 coaches in the world.

garageoffice wrote:

haterinho wrote:Agree with this 100pct. There are really good possession teams, and really good direct teams, but the most dangerous teams have the personnel and skill to do both and can switch on demand as needed.

This is exactly what I would expect.  A truly good team should develop the skill and soccer IQ to possess the ball consistently combined with the athleticism to compete 50/50 and take advantage of direct opportunities.  Also, I would expect there are plenty of times that one style or the other would be more effective against a given team.