SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP BFA & MPSC

Clan..Good luck with it and I hope it is a positive experience for your kids...Alot of kids carpool to Daniel Island so finding a ride should be easy sometimes there are three or four cars there and fifteen kids playing

CHT,

I'm guessing that your kid plays for a Bridge team. Did she learn anything from the coaches, playing with and against the top competition in the region? I would say that this would have made her a better player then when she first started with the team.
The fact remains that the Bridge concepts works. You can only hope that they can find some more centralized fields. If there is a good product people would go where it is.
True the low country needs to have unification, but at this time the record is showing that the Bridge is the best option for the elite player in the low country.

It was definitely an eye opening experience for her playing the top teams around the region and it was a plus that she got to play in tournaments that she would not have gotten into if she was not with the club..It's definitely a plus playing and practicing with the strongest players in the area so I would say it was worthwhile and she made the right choice

If the MPSC policy is to not coach from the sidelines during the game, we've not seen it enforced. Not sure when the BFA tryouts are, but MPSC is Mon-Wed of this week for my son's age group. It's always interesting to see who shows up at tryouts - with surprises each year. Regarding the BFA/MPSC issue, for our family it's a personal choice for coaching, overall development, team chemistry and competitiveness, playing time, fun, and practice/game travel logistics. As such, MPSC continues to be a good choice for us.

Good luck to the BFA and MPSC teams today. We'll be rooting for our Lowcountry friends (with more rooting for the MPSC team of course!)

A few years ago, the 92 MPSC Boys team had two coaches who said very little during matches, but I believe that was just their personal style. At the time, I remember being impressed by this. The way I saw it was that these guys had done their job so well during the week that they did not need to yell instructions during games.

I believe that a coach can be successful without saying much during games, but it really depends on the chemistry between that coach and his/her players. For some teams, I think it's necessary for the coach to shout instructions.

Basically, I believe there should be no blanket rule covering this. If you hire a coach, let him/her coach the way they know how.

I know I'd have a next-to-impossible time sitting silent on the sidelines during a match while my team was playing. I've always felt that games are the best form of practice, and adjustments made in a true game situation are often the ones that are the most beneficial in the long run. I also personally feel that if there is a true bond between team and coach (and there should be, I think, for best performance), then hearing that voice out on the field helps to maintain that connection and reinforce the lessons learned during the week. Even if it's just a steady voice of encouragement rather than direct instruction, it can affect the way a team plays. From a player's perspective, I know I've heard criticism from players on several different teams I've coached about other coaches who simply sit on the bench the entire time the team is on the field. One of the most pointed was, "Well, if the coach doesn't care what they're doing on the field, why should they?"

Here's a link to a PDF of one of the MPSC newsletters they send out a few times a year. If you scroll to the second page, it contains an article from the DOC about being "silent" during games.

http://www.mpsoccer.com/images/homepage/MPSC-Fall06.pdf

In response to the MPSC article/newsletter:

"We could all use a little coaching. When you're playing the game, it's hard to think of everything." --Jim Rohn

While I agree that coaches should not be on the sidelines just looking for things to yell at his/her players or chewing on the refs for a "bad" call, I disagree that all coaches should be silent on the sidelines. Silent confidence? No way.

I guess it is different for every team, but I know my team has the privelege of hearing our coach throughout the entire match (and, yes, I did say privelege). It doesn't distract us...it keeps us focused on and reminded of the things we need to accomplish. Our coach is as much as part of the team as we are and we like his encouragement (none of his yelling has ever, in the three seasons I've been coached by him, been negative).

And, my coach can vouch for this, as I go on the field before almost every game, I always say, "Hey, Coach...yell at me out there." I know it keeps me focused.

So, in my team's case, it works for us to have a coach that is going to yell things like "Mark 'em up!" or "Defense, pinch in!" or "Pressure!" throughout the game.


And, yes...my coach would have a next-to-impossible time being silent on the sidelines.

I do agree with the philosophy behind what is said in this article. There's being on your feet, involved in the game, calling encouragement and support, and making obviously NEEDED adjustments, and then there's "micromanaging." Players do need to be given a chance to demonstrate their mastery of what they have learned through their experience without being told exactly what to do with the ball every time they touch it, and the "screaming" coach isn't an image most people want to be associated with. At the same time, our players are still under development, and I think, as Coach Aven also points out, that reinforcement at the right time (and I'll add, in the right manner--encouraging rather than scolding) can be very effective; it allows players to get helpful feedback in the moment, not later when dozens of other things have occurred in the interim that cloud their memory of what they were and should have been doing. A halftime comment of "You remember in the 8th minute, when you cut to the outside and then passed into pressure instead of using your open space?" is likely to just get a blank look, while immediate reinforcement is more likely to register. I also think it's good to reinforce good decisions on the field, even if they don't always achieve the desired results; younger and more inexperienced players, in particular, can sometimes get the idea they're doing the "wrong" thing if it doesn't result in a goal, and a quick pat on the back can enourage them to keep trying until they succeed.

The amount of effective involvement, of course, depends on the developmental stage of the team. Older, more experienced players may appreciate the chance to be more independent and correct their own mistakes as the game progresses, while less confident players may get more easily frustrated without the support of someone to help them make needed adjustments. 45 minutes is a long time for a team to realize something is not working without the person they've come to count on for training to help them "fix it."

Ultimately, I think it's up to the coach to be able to "read" his or her team and adjust coaching tactics accordingly to provide as much or as little instruction as is needed to help the team experience a sense of success. A blanket statement of "coach" or "don't coach" during a match doesn't take into account the thousands of variables that come into play; it's a head coach's job to recognize those variables within his team and act accordingly. One uniform coaching style will not work for every coach, every team, and every player, any more than one uniform teaching style will work for every teacher, every class, and every student. Even so, I still agree with the concept that in any case, the coach should play the role of support, encouragement, and positive adjustment during a match--not that of controller. Reinforce what they do right, help them learn from what they do wrong, but in the end, yes, it is "their" game...it is the players, not the coach, who need to be counted as successful when all is said and done.

Contact your Directors of Coaching at Bridge, CUSC, SSC, Mt Pleasant, and James Island. The club boards do not fully understand what quality soccer should be like. Most of these people, with all good intention, there vision is very short sighted to the term that they serve.
The low country has too much talent to not be fully represented by quality teams at the youth club soccer level. High School leagues are dominated by teams from the low country boys and girls. CESA has set the standard and Columbia has done a great job getting its house in order.
Is it about the soccer or not. The season has not started as yet; don’t let another year pass you by.
I think that the clubs have done a great job developing the young talents, but it requires unity for the kids to fully achieve the successes that they deserve as they get older. By that I mean more exposure to top competitions, higher levels of training, more competitive teams being formed at the local level.

Parents stop giving away more money to organizations that promises high level challenge soccer and don’t deliver. Clubs stop stealing the parent’s money with false promises. It only creates resentment and turns the players and parents to clubs outside of Charleston.
My kids would be too old to play club ball with a truly unified team in Charleston at the rate we are going. One step forward two steps back.