Winning vs/and Development

Does winning consistently against top teams usually indicate the best development of players from U9 up on those teams as compared to other teams? I would say yes.

Don't know if I'd go as low as U9, probably if you are consistently winning against the top team in your age group U13 (maybe U12) and up then at that point I'd say that indicates that you are better developed vs at the younger ages there's a whole lot of great athletes just out running folks to get the win. Really until depth perception starts to develop it's all a crap shoot at keeper at the younger ages so I tend to not start paying much attention to results until the girls have hit the teenage years.

Assuming I understood your question correctly.

That's a question that will be debated forever and everyone will have an opinion. The word development can be twisted every different way.

If you are talking playing soccer which I think you are with the development of player comment. You would need a coach or someone with a vast experience in soccer to answer that question.

Let's just say this. I personally want to develop a great Mom, CEO of a company, moral person that has high integrity. Soccer is just the one of the stages that my DD has chosen to learn all of that from.

Winning is what she is looking for. She loves to win! I am cool just seeing her have fun.

I'd say there is always age-appropriate development going on no matter what the age of the player.

To clarify, does a winning team that beats or plays competitively the top teams consistently indicate that the coach is good at developing soccer players?

Could just mean that he is good at recruiting the fast kids that can get to the ball quicker on a large field. This gap tends to close as the girls gain parity and grow into the field size. At the older ages, I might then tend to agree with you.

With my limit observations (BB U14 and DD U10), those who are the best at U14/15 are still those who were good athletes at U7/8 and dedicated to soccer since then.

Majority of the coaches like those who are big and fast so that they could win games. However another saying or theory is that when kid reaches puberty, the gap will be closed and whoever have the skills will win.

Neither of above are true. The best players are those who were very athletic when they were young, and work hard. In a word, it is nothing but athleticism and dedication.

It is a big risk for a coach to bet on a small kid with skills than a big fast hardworking player. Please don't use Messi for any argument, he is an exception and still a good athlete even if not playing soccer.

Another observation, coach doesn't make much difference regardless of experience or reputation. It is the players that make the best team.

I would say puberty is OFTEN a game changer. My DD was a very good athlete until she started her growth spurt. Now she runs funny and falls a lot because her center of gravity keeps changing, and that's just the growth spurt...not even normal body shape changes yet. I'm hoping she'll get back to being a great athlete after she's through this, but it's such a beat down on her confidence, it's hard to say. Many people tell me not to worry, it's normal, so it must be fairly common.

I think most development happens in practice, so no, winning isn't a clear cut indicator. Don't get it twisted though, I like winning.

I don't think it's hard to evaluate a coach. If you aren't sure if the coach is good, then I guarantee he isn't. You should be absolutely wowed. If you aren't wowed, then you should move on. Don't waste your time and money.

To me, winning is simply a consequence of good development.

Heavily disagree with Power Kick that coaches don't really matter. I have seen coaches show their players what they want them to do only to expect them to learn it on their own. No reinforcement in practice. They just send the fast players down the field after the ball to score. They will win games. In many cases lots of games. That will become much harder down the road.  If they do not develop those basic, individual ball skills as well as those that possession style soccer coaches want they will be behind. Much harder to obtain and perfect those skills later on.
I have seen many players that play great on their own team but suffer once they leave and try to make it on a different team because the coach did not prepare them with the proper skills. Coach is not everything but it is extremely important.  
I want my DD to win as much as any parent but not at the expense of development.

I'll give you guys this. Your DD winning more 1v1 and 50/50 balls, etc. definitely is an indicator of development.

Sho - I would agree with that in most regards. I do think tenacity and physical play also need to be brought into play in that statement. Now someone who does have all the right developmental skills and has that certain dominating, tenacious style as well, they might be the real deal. Hard to find that though. Hard work will usually win out over talent in the long run.

KeeperCommander wrote:Sho - I would agree with that in most regards. I do think tenacity and physical play also need to be brought into play in that statement. Now someone who does have all the right developmental skills and has that certain dominating, tenacious style as well, they might be the real deal. Hard to find that though. Hard work will usually win out over talent in the long run.

I'm going to bow out on the hard work vs God-given talent debate. People always get offended.

http://thecoachingjourney.org/2015/03/16/the-best-athlete-myth-within-soccer-development/

After playing not only soccer, but baseball, football and lacrosse and being on championship teams, the winning teams are ALWAYS better developed then the teams that do not win. What is most important is the coach and the quality of his/her ability to not only develop the player but to develop the player in regards to the team. Without this, not much winning or desire on the athlete to develop will happen. The one key I found in my career in sports and in my kids experiences, is the coach that can develop a player's heart or a team's heart are the winners. To make that player believe they can succeed is the character of a winning team. It does take development and the coach that can do this best develops his/her players best and they tend to win.

When you have the choice at virtually any age group between winning and development, choose development.

Read that sentence over and over.

They are not the same. Particularly at the younger age groups before U12 or so. They are not mutually exclusive but one does not beget the other.

You can win at virtually any sport with the bigger, stronger, faster kid. Give me a big fast forward and a big fast sweeper at U9, U10 or even U11 and you can win games. Give me a 6' girl at U10 basketball and you can win games. Does not meant he/ she is being developed. There are very few that do not get caught on height, speed or power eventually. As was said before, it is their hard work that keeps them ahead.

DD's U10-U13 coach is / was well known and well respected. I was repeatedly told that he did not care about winning U10 games. Meaningless. Develop the player. That is the primary goal. We NEVER played a tournament that we were favored to win. Never. We played up or we played against better competition to develop and get better. I can tell you that there was some frustrating and ugly soccer for a couple of those years. Give without the Go. Go without the Give. Lots of turnovers. And then we would be on our heals as the other teams would attack fast and direct. We would stand at training and watch our girls go through cones after cones after cones while around us other teams in the same age group were scrimmaging, running plays etc.

I can also remember the year that it all turned around. They got it. Development had occurred. They passed and received. They played 360. They were patient.... and they won.

Your DD will not be playing with this team in HS or College. She has to develop and be a solid player on her own. That is your goal. You know how long a U9 game is important?? until U10. You will forget every single U10 game when U11 starts. Qualifying?? meaningless at U12. I agree with Sho'Nuff (the ShoGun of Harlem). Measure you kid in other ways. We drove away from games never talking about a win or loss. It was about winning 1 v 1. Making a great pass. Making the correct decision. The results were less important. If DD made the correct pass, Win. If DD won her 1v1 battles, Win.

At U15, U16, U17, at the higher levels, they are all big, fast and strong. At ECNL, they are all Alpha Females. The proverbial Irresistible Force meets the Immovable Object. The differences are in the decision making under pressure, passing and receiving ability and understanding of the game.

Well said DDdad.

I would go with development any day! I have two DD that play. One plays in select for a couple years now and the other in academy, going select this year. What I have learned is one thing.. Yes, you can be physically strong, taller than average, fast and skilled. My DDs have strengths and weaknesses possibly both areas but heart matters. Depends in the child. The most important thing is to find the coach/team that your child can grow with. if you find the coach that can build on their strengths and weaknesses, you have found the right coach!

KeeperCommander wrote:Well said DDdad.

Agreed.  

Personally, I subscribe to the Ebby Calvin LaLoosh philosophy on winning...

Probably smarter. Skip all this stuff and just spend the soccer money on a quadrophonic Blaupunkt

Borussia wrote:http://thecoachingjourney.org/2015/03/16/the-best-athlete-myth-within-soccer-development/

It's not skills or athleticism...it's both. The author sets up his entire argument as an either/or...and even pulls off verbal gymnastics to imply Ronaldo didn't become athletic until he was already skilled. The curious part is in the comments section the author acknowledges the BOTH by stating Germany ran the 2nd most of any team and won the world cup with great athletes who were also very skilled.

Athleticism with minimal skill gets you halfway there, as does skill with minimal athleticism.

Didn't say I agreed with it.... food for thought.

The Nats team issue is one I do agree with though. We have no hazard, pogba, rodriguez, xavi, iniesta... we do have a bunch of damn good cross country runners. LOL

Borussia wrote:Didn't say I agreed with it.... food for thought.  

The Nats team issue is one I do agree with though.  We have no hazard, pogba, rodriguez, xavi, iniesta... we do have a bunch of damn good cross country runners. LOL

That's right, but why? If they had skills more inline with Europe and S. America, one would think the mileage number would come down.

You can really see the difference in skills/athleticism when a top team plays a team just one tier level down. The lower team might have just as much (or more) athleticism and stay in the game for 30 or 40 minutes, but at some point, the more skilled team who has out possessed the lesser team, looks more athletically dominate because they have more in the tank.

The article was DUMB! Unless I "missed" something, it tried to act as though we claim "Athletic" into who can just run! Like running is all we see as "Athletic". There is so much more to being a "Superior" ATHLETE than just running... And yes, I truly believe that if our "BEST" athletes (male) played soccer from the time they were born, they would be some of the best players in the world.