Are we winning at all costs?
I firmly believe that player development is being sacrificed for the big W!
And it is no more apparent than at the premier / elite level.
Case in point, I witnessed a 'warm up' at the Challenge State Cup this past fall that forced me to stick around and watch the game. Expecting a dynamic display I was bitterly disappointed and the experience left me totally dismayed.
The trophies and titles have got to us.
The result ... we are doing a disservice to these kids that want to play at the next level.
Comments welcome.
Just to clarify any half decent coach can coach to win -- or maybe we should call it 'not to lose'.
Once again, where is the player development in all of this?
I totally agree. I am watching games where the strategy is "play the long ball and have forwards try to pick balls from the air or run them into the goal". Passing in the mid-field is NOT allowed for fear of losing the ball. This cannot be good for development. Where is the pressure coming from? Is it from parents who will only stick with a winning club or is it from Club Management?
SL.
I couldn't agree more with the fact that there are plenty of coaches and parents that are win at all costs. However looney I am not sure I fully agree with your statement, there are alot of coaches experimenting with a higher tempo of play. At our level we are being encourage to coach a style of play based on the type of kids we have. Currently I have a group of kids who are very athletic so we play very fast, it's not a win at all cost mentality it's trying to keep your kids interested in the game while still trying to stress fundamentals. When you play this style you spend alot of time teaching passing techniques than anything else.
The USSF DA has very clear expectations regarding training and style of game play. Both are evaluated regularly. A team that trains and/or plays in the hit and chase style will be severely criticized, and eventually sanctioned. Developing skillful players is the reason the DA exists. I wish the game and training evaluations were for public consumption (they aren't) because you would be amazed at the depth and breadth of the analysis provided by the evaluators (USSF staff - including nat'l team and college coaches). If you don't do it right you get hammered!
Win at all costs? Sure..Who wants to lose? But I think coaches work with what they have to get that win. Not all players have the same ability or are fundamentally sound in their game..It's not just here..World cup games were played with over the top balls for ninety minutes this summer..As far as development of kids..It's alot better than it was six years ago and I believe the results will come..Change takes time..
Quote:
I totally agree. I am watching games where the strategy is "play the long ball and have forwards try to pick balls from the air or run them into the goal". Passing in the mid-field is NOT allowed for fear of losing the ball. This cannot be good for development. Where is the pressure coming from? Is it from parents who will only stick with a winning club or is it from Club Management?
SL.
Looney, if you have a kid who is involved in a training atmosphere as you've described my recommendation is to run like the wind if you expect him or her to develop into a top level player.
The game is ALL about possession, defending and finishing. That requires individual technical ability, vision, anticipation, athleticism, movement after passing the ball and above all desire to out work your opponent mentally and physically.
Any program playing the long ball 90% of the time and bypassing the midfield is making the game about as boring as one can imagine. Such a style requires no creativity on or off of the ball. Sure, you'll lose the ball more in the midfield, but that's why you play with four defenders and one of many effective midfield formations to recover quickly to guard against the counter attack when the midfield isn't bypassed..
Find a club/coach that'll emphasize simple touches and movement and you'll see the development of a faster pace than you can imagine. Players who understand how to let the ball do the work by keeping the game simple are the ones I personally enjoy watching. Anything else, slows the game down and generates countless turnovers.
Pretty certain what you've describing is actually taught by few these days, because the coaches/trainers we've had over the years each emphasize what I've outlined. Ultimately, it's up to the player to decide to play simple, with vision and anticipation, but someone has to teach them how to do it.
And to the point of winning at all cost with the strategy you've described, I personally see no developmental benefit in being on such a team. Do your homework by watching teams play before you go to tryouts. If the style isn't what will develop your kid, then go elsewhere.
Put the time into locating the right training environment and I think you'll be very pleased with the outcomes on a the personal and team levels.
Quote:
Win at all costs? Sure..Who wants to lose? But I think coaches work with what they have to get that win. Not all players have the same ability or are fundamentally sound in their game..It's not just here..World cup games were played with over the top balls for ninety minutes this summer..As far as development of kids..It's alot better than it was six years ago and I believe the results will come..Change takes time..
From my experience, the coaches that are "playing with what they have" chose those players over others. I've said it on other posts, the coaches in my sons age group admitted he had more skill but was "smaller and not as fast". Didn't matter that he was one of the best 3 or 4 players on the field. These coaches either want to win at all cost or think they can make these other kids into players. For the past 5-6 years I have not seen this happen. Funny thing is, when my son and the other small kid that was dropped were in the middle of the action and getting the ball a lot, the team played better. And as for the comment on World Cup teams, Spain won playing ticky-tack soccer.
I understand what your saying..Who takes pks in girls games? Nine out of ten times it's the bigger stronger girl..It does not mean she makes the goal..Coaches just feel they have a better chance..I have talked to coaches that have cut players that were better than ones they chose.
I wanted to understand why they might do this..One reply that I got was the player did not fit the scheme that the coach wanted to run..I guess they have to coach them so they get to pick them..We don't have that problem on the girls side..Not to many to choose from
Here is a slow lob for all of you ...
Anson Dorrance ruined soccer in the USA!
Once upon a time the USA were all-dominant ... when the rest of the world didnt even play soccer.
Now we can't even qualify for the U17 World Cup!! (Even though we probably have more female players than the rest of the world combined).
Reccos,
Not disagreeing necessarily, but please explain. I tend to believe it was April Heinrichs that ruined the women's team. She didn't know what she was doing. In between, there was Tony Dicicco, who I actually met here in Greenville at a camp while he was still just the GK coach. He had a phenomenal winning %. Team went downhill, and fast, after that.
Did the team go downhill? Or did the rest of the world catch up (and surpass us)?
The problem our National teams have right now is the lack of talented players. Think Marta!
Why? Bigger, stronger, faster, is apparently better!
AD started that trend and now almost every youth & college coach follows blindly ... sad!
Nobody will admit it though! Why? Trophies! Isn't that how we measure player development?
Let's face it, the USA enjoyed an enormous decade-plus advantage in women's soccer largely because other countries simply didn't embrace the women's game. That has certainly changed (i.e. Germany, Brazil, Norway, Sweden, China, etc.) and the other countries have caught up with the U.S.
As for the "downhill" blame, I too think Heinrichs was a poor hire. Tony DiCicco was competent and did fine. Anson Dorrance was the pioneer that was able to enjoy the riches before it got more competitive, eerily similar to his time at UNC. However, he still gets to pull in the pick of the litter in the college game due to the outstanding reputation and focus placed on Tar Heels women's soccer.
Several years ago my daughter was on a CESA Premier team. After we had paid our fees and purchased uniforms the coach held a parent meeting and basically said he would let everyone have some playing time the first half of the season, but after that he would play who he wanted to. He was true to his word - about half way through the season my kid got zero playing time at many, many of the games. As with all premier teams we were driving our daughter out of state, paying for hotels and meals so she could sit on the bench. It was definitely a “win at all cost” mentality and the coach was not interested in developing her as a player. I learned some things from the experience that I hope to pass on: 1. There is not much time between a player being selected for a premier team and accepting the spot, but ask the coach questions anyway. Find out what his policy is on playing time if your child is not a starter (and yes your kid might not start on premier team no matter how skilled you think they are). Try to figure out if your kid is going to like playing for him. 2. Being on a premier team is not the only way to get to play soccer in college. 3. There is a lot more scholarship money for academics than athletics. 4. Playing soccer is supposed to be fun.
Needless to say, it was a miserable season. I was proud of my daughter for her efforts in continuing to train hard, recognizing it was a temporary situation and she could change teams next season, and for finishing.
Two coaches who come to mind that are all about player development are Alan Riches of Lexington County Soccer Club and Tomasz Kluszczynski of South Carolina United. Both great coaches who have the ability to develop players and have successful teams.
I do understand that coaches need to experiment but when you have kids that are playing between u13-u16 and they still can't pass the ball with predictability or receive the ball with confidence then something has gone horribly wrong along the way. In fact at this point it has to be like the last possible time when it can be fixed. The emphasis then should completely shift to fundamentals and basics of passing and receiving even though it may sacrifice some wins. If the kids are fast, then let them learn how to run with the ball and finish with a pass as opposed to just looping the ball over defenders. They will improve their ball handling skills and also improve their passing accuracy since it is over a shorter distance. The long ball is a low yield play that sacrifices development of other much needed skills.
SL.
Very nicely put Manchester. We will definitely evaluate all our options if style doesn't change.
A very good point Clark.
Many a coach succumb to bigger/taller/faster is always better philosophy. On one of our former teams, I saw firsthand how hopelessly wrong this approach can be. Two forwards were added to the team after tryouts. One was a speed demon but he could never settle the ball to finish, he could never pass the ball accurately when he needed help and just kept losing the ball -- coach tried every drill on earth and the player could not figure it out. Other forward was built like a running back, very well developed musclature he could run through any tacke but he just didn't have a good touch either and the results were the same. I know there are probably other cases where the results are different but I really wish coaches could look harder at tryouts for the subtle indicators like first touch, balance, vision, accurate passing etc ..
On our current team, we do have two smaller players: a defender and mid-fielder and they are two of the most reliable, smart and hardworking players on this team.
SL...