SC Soccer Forums SCSoccer.com Forums Club Soccer & ODP Development Versus Winning/Losing

>>[Cola Fan] Big Daddy, maybe people really don't care about wins and losses in club soccer and focus more on the develoopment of players at this time of year.<<

This is an excellent discussion point on something that I'm confused about; thanks for raising it!

For years and years now I've heard and read about the "conundrum" of development versus winning and losing. Basically, the theory is that some coaches/clubs sacrifice the development of players in exchange for too great a focus on winning. Now, admittedly, when I've spent some time trying to understand this position there's a tendency to be talking U12 or younger -- but I keep perceiving undertones of this message in terms of older players as well.

If I'm being deeply cynical, it appears to me that the term "development" is being used as yet another excuse for running away from any form of accountability in terms of measurable results. If I'm being hopelessly naive, it appears to me that there are a cadre of professionals who are willing to ignore society's fixation on winning in order to do the right thing for kids.

I'll admit to a bias toward the "cynical" position based on what I've seen in the last decade or so of my kids playing soccer. The best development seems to me to come from (a) kids training with the most ambitious and most talented kids, (b) kids training a lot, (c) kids training with good coaches/trainers, and (d) kids having success on the field and being proud of their personal and team results.

So here's the question: how does consistently losing help the development of youth soccer players?

Chico -- My first inclination was to reply to this post in private, but I decided against that to simply "throw it out there." Anyone that knows me, knows that I am intensely competitive and hate to lose. However, after 18 years of coaching and being on "every side of it" I think I have a pretty good handle on objectivity when it comes to youth soccer.

For one, for too long youth soccer has been an 'activity' to paricipate in for youth ages 4-12, but when kids get into middle school they give it up for other sports/pursuits. I don't have a problem with this generally until I hear the "red flag" words of "it was no longer fun"; "the coaches cared more about winning than the players"; etc.

This simply barks that the nature of youth soccer was no longer compatible with the 80% of kids that play the sport -- not to go to college on scholarship or to make ODP teams, etc. Simply to play a game that until their middle school ages that they had enjoyed.

I am all for the best teams and hope that South Carolina will be able to field the top teams in the country, but I also want the average player to be able to enjoy the game and fill some just in the sheer commitment and competition that the sport requires. This is the future of U.S. soccer -- the average player that simply enjoys their youth experience and hopefully will one day opt to take little "Johnny or Sally" to a pro soccer game or such. This is when our country will really embrace soccer as a true mainstream sport.

As evidence, I was eating breakfast at a local West Columbia establishment Saturday morning and one of my former players' (1995) grandfather was calling his eldest granddaughter on the cell phone and asked "Are the young'uns playing soccer today, with all that rain last night?" ... She obviously replied "Yes" and he stated, "OK, well I guess I'll go out there and sit and watch them." His following five minutes of conversation with his breakfast-mate was of the Midlands high school football games and "which teams will make it through the playoffs" ... In short, the converstaion returned to high school football -- not the future of HS soccer and this is a man that had been to more than 100 games of his grandsons games just a decade ago.

I could ramble on, but it did help to provide some perspective on prep soccer to the absolute general public.

I know that I did not answer the "how does consistently losing help the development of youth soccer players?" question, but certainly I think that club/classic/academy level soccer is much better than what is offered at the recreational level in general and provides youth with an enhanced version of athletic participation.

I do believe that Academy aged teams (U9-U12) should not place much of an emphasis on winning/losing and should rather concentrate on the "whole soccer" experience for kids. No U10 player should be "pegged" as the goalkeeper due to being the biggest, or least-mobile child. Instead, this player should be exposed to as many positions as possible without worrying about the end result of the match.

You all may have seen a recent article in the NSCAA Soccer Journal entitled European Views on Youth Soccer. It is a very interesting interview with Chelsea's youth director,
Real Madrid's youth director, the German national youth director, and France's youth director. The interviews provide insights into very different approaches to youth soccer. England is club oriented, Germany as well, but a little more of a "federal system"; Spain basically does not have a youth system, and the French have a very developed system.

Note France has a youth director -- not the coach of the French u17 team or some such thing. France has a top to bottom youth system which is integrated into their public school system. Teachers organize small sided games at recess. Things become more competitive around age 13. It's interesting because they are not trying to spot the next Henry at age 10.

I also recall an interview with several US national team players, in which they were asked what needs to be done to "save" US soccer in the wake of our "disaster" at the World Cup (not really a disaster - but that's a different topic). Every one of them said there should be less emphasis on winning and more on technical skills.

Chico is right that you most often hear the development over winning argument made at the u9-u12 level. It's not a cop out. I saw a u9 player repeatedly kick the ball out of bounds when pressured on defense this past weekend. Smart defensive play? maybe for a 17 yr old. Helping his team win? probably. Helping his development? no. He's not precocious field tactician; he's getting advice from old dad on the sidelines.

I have seen younger kids pigeonholed as defenders at a very young age. Nothing wrong with playing defense, but let's face it; it's an acquired taste. Other u9-u12 "winning" practices we've all probably seen include benching weaker players, and fielding "A" and "B" teams in the same league. If a club with two teams in the same age group and league has one team that wins everything season after season, and another that can't win a game, something is probably wrong.

I like the classic and "pre-classic" programs, because they offer better instruction and a more competitive environment than the rec leagues. But I can't help but wonder if there is a better way to do it. Our system heaps a great deal of pressure on children, costs too much, and is far too parent driven. The constant competition in leagues and tournaments can definitely have a distorting effect on coaching decisions (my own included) and player education.

I have seen youth teams do all the right things in practice and training. Possession, control, composure. Then they get into a tight match and the coach plays for a result. Everything goes out the window. They don't play to feet, they play over the top of the midfield, instead of through it as they were taught in practice. Game gets physical and strength and speed become much more important than skill.

The game deteriorates....but somebody gets a result. Is this wrong? Is the coach failing to "practice what you preach"?

This is a real conundrum. Why? Because competition, as I have argued somewhere in here before, is potentially either very positive or horribly corrupting. It isn't a pristine thing as we often think. Ideally—and what is ideal?—we shoud not have to see "development" and "winning/losing" as an either/or—since either/or thinking is almost always flawed.

I would argue that NO child really can develop properly if she/he is always in a losing situation; there is value in "playing to win." But I would also argue that it IS possible to lose on the scorboard and still ACHIEVE and EXCEL; both of which must never be overshadowed (for children) by W/Ls.

As a coach, parent, and teacher, what I see lacking (and I am NOT saying this is something lacking now but found in the "good ol' days") is that those who develop, excel, and WIN are the players who have that extra something the other players never have (or develop?). That extra something is a type of commitment, dedication, and passion that I argue with myself may be more genetic/organic than "coachable."

Anyone can learn skills and tactics; not everyone has athleticism and speed (etc). Now, how do we foster PASSION? Conundrum. . .

p&y,

In my above scenario, excluding state cup, tournament play or a game that means relegation/promotion, do you accept a regular season loss in order to "play the right way"? Or do you always evaluate the situation and do what it takes to win?

Doing what it takes to win IS the right way (excluding dirty play, etc). In PL play this season, I watched a WEAK team win against a much better squad by bunkering. The depleted team took one shot, and made it. I did not see them play in any way that was not "playing the right way"; they possessed, marked hard, communicated.

For two seasons, I have watched one of the best coaches anywhere. He plays each match customized to the opposing team. To me, that is the ultimate "right way." Does that make sense?

It really depends on what you're trying to accomplish. If you want to field a winning team, a whole lot of strategic decisions would be logical. I've seen it done, and it is neat to see a "weak" team outwit a strong one. It can be a positive experience for the team. But if the principal goal is to develop the most kids to their potential (instead of winning the most games) then taking a few losses because you rotate your players into different positions, or give everyone playing time, may be well worth the price. I have seen coaches tell parents at the outset of the season that they fully expect that they may lose some games that could be won, because they will emphasize developing players over the win. I think that is a perfectly appropriate attitude in the u9-u12 divisions. On more competitive challenge or tournament teams it probably is not.

>>[gamecock44] After being away for a while it seems nothing has changed. Chico has way to much time on his hands and is developing stats that mean nothing.

Whenever the leagues in Italy England or anywhere else start using winning% as a marker for how good a team is or even a club then is charts will be meaningful. Until then remember youth soccer is about development.<<

This is actually the type of thing I was thinking about when I created this thread. I was talking to some people a few weeks ago and they talked about winning, losing, and development -- but they did it as a way to convince themselves that as long as you used the term "development" you could ignore everything else.

Unfortunately [actually, fortunately], the world is a much richer place than that. Certainly, there are cases in which development has a higher priority than winning -- just as there are cases in which winning has a higher priority than development.

However, it's got to be -- well, stupid -- of people to try to use the term "development" to avoid holding accountable the club offering their children services.

Intellectual honesty is a tough thing. It's okay to say "I don't care about a club's winning and losing record, I just want my kid to be with his friends" -- that's an extremely defensible position. It's okay to say "I care more about coach-to-player ratio than I do about the quality of the other players with whom my child trains" -- while I may or may not agree, it's a defensible position.

But to attempt to deny reality by trying to justify poor performance and results by using a buzzword -- well, it's not just stupid, it's sad. Because in the end, while it may take a long time, reality eventually always wins in the end.