change is coming...

WisdomTeeth wrote:From my admittedly limited exposure to North Texas soccer so far I would say there are so very, very few girls coaches that ~
1). have a pedigree of developing skillful players at very early ages
2). build winning teams
3). show genuine interest and concern for the kids
4). TEACH those teams to play great soccer
5). can still win while doing all the above.
Find the above and treat him or her like gold!

I would tend to agree.  

Most coaches tend to fall in 1 of 2 general categories:
. Team wins at all cost. Kids are disposable tools to that end.  Mainly focus on intensity and direct play.
. Paycheck coaches.  Just want to keep the team together and get paid.  Some winning is usually required, main practice focus is on scrimmaging vs instruction.

Very few focus on teaching the game to the individual players and helping them to understand how to develop and maximize their particular strengths and abilities across time.

Over the years we have learned to avoid coaches, particularly below U16, who are not teachers of the game but focus primarily on being 'in game' coaches.  

A couple tip offs are:
. how often they speak to the team as a whole vs speaking to individual players and instructing them
. most practice time is spent on conditioning & scrimmages at the expense of teaching, particularly at the younger ages
. little stopping of practice to re-enforce or correct technique or tactic, do they ever stop and ask players 'why did you do that?'
. reliance on the phrase 'unlucky' as a primary teaching tool.

C'mon, nobody that actually says unlucky gets paid to coach.....

OK, to play Devil's Advocate...is it the coach's fault when he develops players who end up being a pretty good team only to have parents then complain because they don't win enough or believe their DD should be D1 instead of D2?

What about if the same group of players all develop well but a few can't keep up? Should the coach keep those girls, replace them with mediocre players, or try and replace them with quality players who can make an impact? If it's the latter is the coach now "stacking" the team to win?

Do you not think the girls themselves want to win? Maybe they are developing, maybe the team does play the right way but sometimes they just want to win or beat a certain team? I know my DD has a list of teams she want's to beat.

It's very easy to point fingers but sometimes we should remember that these coaches do need that paycheck and many just give parents what they want...wins. It's up to the parents to show patience and allow the coach the freedom to develop the players.

Lefty wrote:

WisdomTeeth wrote:From my admittedly limited exposure to North Texas soccer so far I would say there are so very, very few girls coaches that ~
1). have a pedigree of developing skillful players at very early ages
2). build winning teams
3). show genuine interest and concern for the kids
4). TEACH those teams to play great soccer
5). can still win while doing all the above.
Find the above and treat him or her like gold!

I would tend to agree.  

Most coaches tend to fall in 1 of 2 general categories:
. Team wins at all cost. Kids are disposable tools to that end.  Mainly focus on intensity and direct play.
. Paycheck coaches.  Just want to keep the team together and get paid.  Some winning is usually required, main practice focus is on scrimmaging vs instruction.

Very few focus on teaching the game to the individual players and helping them to understand how to develop and maximize their particular strengths and abilities across time.

Over the years we have learned to avoid coaches, particularly below U16, who are not teachers of the game but focus primarily on being 'in game' coaches.  

A couple tip offs are:
. how often they speak to the team as a whole vs speaking to individual players and instructing them
. most practice time is spent on conditioning & scrimmages at the expense of teaching, particularly at the younger ages
. little stopping of practice to re-enforce or correct technique or tactic, do they ever stop and ask players 'why did you do that?'
. reliance on the phrase 'unlucky' as a primary teaching tool.

So pulling a player or two to the sideline during a GAME to teach would be a great sign that the coach is putting development first, correct?

If a coach says very little during a game, maybe just maybe he's giving the girls a test, or maybe she's quietly taking notes as some do so that they know how better to instruct during practice time.

I don't mind a coach who raises his/her voice during games to reinforce instruction, but then neither do I mind a coach being silent during games. Of course, if they are constantly barking instructions and directing flow of play from every aspect...I think that's a bit much. The kids need to play and experience making mistakes or finding success.

Now scrimmages are a different story.

db10 wrote:

Lefty wrote:

WisdomTeeth wrote:From my admittedly limited exposure to North Texas soccer so far I would say there are so very, very few girls coaches that ~
1). have a pedigree of developing skillful players at very early ages
2). build winning teams
3). show genuine interest and concern for the kids
4). TEACH those teams to play great soccer
5). can still win while doing all the above.
Find the above and treat him or her like gold!

I would tend to agree.  

Most coaches tend to fall in 1 of 2 general categories:
. Team wins at all cost. Kids are disposable tools to that end.  Mainly focus on intensity and direct play.
. Paycheck coaches.  Just want to keep the team together and get paid.  Some winning is usually required, main practice focus is on scrimmaging vs instruction.

Very few focus on teaching the game to the individual players and helping them to understand how to develop and maximize their particular strengths and abilities across time.

Over the years we have learned to avoid coaches, particularly below U16, who are not teachers of the game but focus primarily on being 'in game' coaches.  

A couple tip offs are:
. how often they speak to the team as a whole vs speaking to individual players and instructing them
. most practice time is spent on conditioning & scrimmages at the expense of teaching, particularly at the younger ages
. little stopping of practice to re-enforce or correct technique or tactic, do they ever stop and ask players 'why did you do that?'
. reliance on the phrase 'unlucky' as a primary teaching tool.

So pulling a player or two to the sideline during a GAME to teach would be a great sign that the coach is putting development first, correct?

As with most things it depends on the situation and if they are really teaching at that moment, or if they are just going overboard on 'in-game coaching'.

I'm a parent of a really good 2000 player.
I Was told that if you are lucky enough to find a brilliant coach, stay with that coach.
I Won't say names but we had one of the best coaches in the business. He wasn't a school teacher looking to supplement his income, like most are. A class A license coach that taught all of his girls plus older former players that still used his teachings when they moved on to,"Better ", teams. Wins and losses do not matter. It's how the girls play.
Sadly, our team failed to requalify. We split up. Some quit playing. Most joined a fellow D2 squad. My daughter, thanks to her desire to play at a higher level and as a result of his tutelage, was fortunate to join an ECNL club in north Texas.
An assistant coach asked me," What was she doing hiding in a D 3 team?". The Answer was," She wasn't hiding, she was learning."
Now she is ready. Now she is an impact player for a highly regarded ECNL team.
My advice to you is to pay attention to the coach. Evaluate. Trust your judgement.

Vikarius_lee wrote:   I'm a parent of a really good 2000 player.
I Was told that if you are lucky enough to find a brilliant coach, stay with that coach.
I Won't say names but we had one of the best coaches in the business. He wasn't a school teacher looking to supplement his income, like most are. A class A license coach that taught all of his girls plus older former players that still used his teachings when they moved on to,"Better ", teams. Wins and losses do not matter. It's how the girls play.
  Sadly, our team failed to requalify. We split up.  Some quit playing. Most joined a fellow D2 squad. My daughter, thanks to her desire to play at a higher level and as a result of his tutelage, was fortunate to join an ECNL club in north Texas.
 An assistant coach asked me," What was she doing hiding in a D 3 team?". The Answer was," She wasn't hiding, she was learning."
 Now she is ready. Now she is an impact player for a highly regarded ECNL team.
 My advice to you is to pay attention to the coach. Evaluate. Trust your judgement.

Best damn post!

Thank you very much, ATP.
You are very kind.

Vikarius_lee wrote:  Thank you very much, ATP.
You are very kind.

I agree with atp, a very nice reminder in patience, which is hard sometimes especially with the younger ones. I'm curious as to who this coach is? Is it taboo to call out coaches names on here? Always nice to be recognized in a positive light and since I've been on here, which hasn't been long, have only seen coaches called out in a mostly negative/mocking way. Anyways, good luck to your daughter in the future and sounds like you got it right.