Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 42 of 42
  1. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Niagara Falls
    Posts
    2,623
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oldtimer View Post
    One year that I coached, I was one of only two with an OSA license (which isn't worth much, really). One "coach" had never played and didn't know the rules of the game. Others had a rudimentary understanding. It's sad how bad it is. I coached my younger son's team.
    It's funny my father had never coached soccer before I think he only did it because the league had more kids the coaches summer of '86. My father had coached football, and played various sports all the way through, and worked with kids a lot. And this is where i have a lot of respect for my father... he took the time to learn the rules of the game, took the time to learn the drills, and took the time to learns the tactics. And that I think was the most important things... because some of the kids were not great, heck I wasn't great.

    I remember coming in for dinner the week before soccer started and he was reading the rules and books on tactics, and he had gotten tapes from the library. He didn't to the bare minimum he took it seriously. That change, in mentality at the coach level, plus teaching the kids to actually play with the goal of winning without scorn for losing if you try is the important part.

    It's not about win win win, or not keeping score and working just on skills. it's about building heart from a young age, while teach skills, and putting a hunger to win without shame for losing. You might lose every game but if you go out every game looking for a win, and every player on the pitch is doing the same, the skill level that will develop will be astounding.

  2. #32
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    110 with the 75MB
    Posts
    6,580
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There is another element to this. Most of the coaches that I've coached with and/or against over the years are primarily hockey coaches. The focus there, especially in the rep levels, is on bigger players, mostly on the assumption that you can't teach "big" but that you can teach skill. That has been transposed onto a lot of the soccer community.

    My assistant coach last night started in on me about moving players into different positions. He wasn't looking at the skills the kids had. As he is telling me to move one player because he felt she didn't look comfortable on the wings, telling me to move her into the middle because she doesn't look like she wants to use her left foot, she strikes a ball with her left from the wing and it sailed into the top corner. She had two more chances like that in the second half. The point here is that a lot of coaches see what they want to see, as opposed to seeing the underlying skill sets, strengths and weaknesses and trying to develop them. IMO it is the most serious issue in youth soccer today.

  3. #33
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Not a member, so it doesn't matter
    Posts
    2,899
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TOBOR THE GREAT ! View Post
    ... other than that his point about teaching skills first at Youth level, disregarding results, is spot on.
    Fully agree, but...

    How do you get the kids and their parents to buy into that? The parents pay the reg. fees and don't feel as though they're getting their money's worth if little Jimmy's team doesn't win. Little Jimmy gets frustrated and doesn't want to play any more if his team doesn't win.

    I've always believed that soccer is a mirror of a country's people. For any change to occur in Canadian soccer, we need a generation of kids raised by a generation of parents who aren't short-sighted, who don't believe they're the greatest thing since sliced bread, and actually have coping mechanisms for failure.

  4. #34
    Registered
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    low earth orbit
    Posts
    5,517
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    ^ I'm not sure about that. You've got mums and dads shouting 'KICk IT !' from the sidelines, sure, but the purpose of coaching (in my mind, and as mentioned by someone else upthread) is teaching / nurturing. That means developing skills. Results may come, and as a coach I may have to balance the desires of the players and/or parents (to win) against my own agenda (educate / develop).

    I've had parents come up and thank me for giving all players equal time, and at all positions (you pay, you play). They've tended to look down at teams (coaches) who go out to win by giving better players more time.

    Also, there are some players at this age who do listen and want to learn. My own daughter has amazed me this year with how much she's picked up over the course of a couple of seasons. I'm not saying that's down to me, but it could be explained by some acquired skills giving her the confidence to try new things. Which in turn would increase her level of ability as well as give her greater confidence and enjoyment from the game - making her an overall better player.
    Last edited by TOBOR !; 07-06-2011 at 12:23 PM.
    a ha ha heh he hoo.. ha

  5. #35
    RPB Member
    Moderator

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    On the Interwebs
    Posts
    18,703
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    The worst thing as a coach is when you get some parents who treat a game as if it's Roma vs. Lazio. They are in there with their strategies "to win" and after the coach to "play the best players." Give me a break. Sure the kids want to win too, but mostly they want to have fun. That's no different than hockey, I suppose.

    How are the poorer players supposed to improve if they don't get time with the ball?

    As a coach, I looked more at heart attitude. If a kid wanted to learn, that was what counts, not whether their parents thought they were the next Pele. You can always teach skills. Some kids will never get it, but you'd be surprised at how some seemingly duds turned into decent players after some coaching.
    Last edited by Oldtimer; 07-06-2011 at 12:29 PM.

  6. #36
    Registered
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,555
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chevy View Post
    A recent friendly between my son's club against the Power Soccer Academy, who do not play competitive games at the U10 level, reinforced Carts' points above.
    I think a lot of that depends on the kids themselves though. My son plays U7 at NT soccer and although they don't officially keep score, every single kids on the field knew the score.

    But I tell you something - what de Vos says in the article is right - the more successful teams were dumping and chasing.

  7. #37
    Awaiting Confirmation
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    476
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koryo View Post
    ...I've always believed that soccer is a mirror of a country's people. For any change to occur in Canadian soccer, we need a generation of kids raised by a generation of parents who aren't short-sighted, who don't believe they're the greatest thing since sliced bread, and actually have coping mechanisms for failure.
    Maybe worth bearing in mind that only a tiny fraction of kids make it to the pro level so one size doesn't have to fit all. One guy from the dozens of kids I knew from playing down the local park in bounce games back in Scotland made it to the SPL (albeit briefly) and even at about 8 years old you could see the difference in how he played compared to everybody else a mile off. His father had played in the old first division in the 60s so a lot of it probably isn't even about coaching as to who has the edge athletically and in finding basic ball skills easy. Think it's OK to let the majority have their fun as long as there are elite teams around to spot the kids like that who have potential and give them the extra training that focuses on development over winning youth tournaments.

  8. #38
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    F5
    Posts
    15,304
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CSO_BBTB View Post
    Maybe worth bearing in mind that only a tiny fraction of kids make it to the pro level so one size doesn't have to fit all. One guy from the dozens of kids I knew from playing down the local park in bounce games back in Scotland made it to the SPL (albeit briefly) and even at about 8 years old you could see the difference in how he played compared to everybody else a mile off. His father had played in the old first division in the 60s so a lot of it probably isn't even about coaching as to who has the edge athletically and in finding basic ball skills easy. Think it's OK to let the majority have their fun as long as there are elite teams around to spot the kids like that who have potential and give them the extra training that focuses on development over winning youth tournaments.
    Yep, very true.

    At the same time I wish parents could take off the blinders a bit and think about why they brought their kids to organized sports. We can all recognize the difference between competition and recreation. But even at the non-competitive level certain things should be expected.

    Guess what I'm trying to say is (and not trying to counter your point but rather add to it and express my own frustrations): To play any sport you need to spend some time developing basic skills (competitive or not). Some parents don't seem to recognize that having their kids run around in circles and ignore all instructions will not give them even the basic skills they need to play the game.

    If that's all they want, well for starters the kids are not actually playing the sport and second the parents should probably consider some other form of activity or venue for their children to play (YMCA drop-in perhaps).

  9. #39
    Registered
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    2,897
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Everything de Vos said was written about the England team after their failure in SA 2010.

    It's not a problem unique to Canada. England gets by because it's population size and the dominance of soccer as the national game means enough really good players are produced to cover up the cracks. But they will never compete with the likes of Spain and Germany until they shift the focus at a grass roots level.

    Canada is in the same boat it seems, but even worse off given it's smaller population and the lower emphasis on soccer being played here by kids (note: not no emphasis, but clearly not as high as in England).
    We are the Angry Mob, we read the papers every day
    We like who we like, we hate who we hate
    But we're also easily swayed



  10. #40
    Registered
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    6,451
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chevy View Post
    A recent friendly between my son's club against the Power Soccer Academy, who do not play competitive games at the U10 level, reinforced Carts' points above.

    The skill levels of the teams were very similar, but the Academy kids didn't seem to really care that they were getting whipped. A few nice passes here and there seemed to satisfy them, and there wasn't any real desire to compete.

    I don't think the focus should be on the scoreboard but at U10 I think it's acceptable to teach them that winning is preferred, and it sure as hell beats losing. Either way they are gonna need to learn that, whether its soccer or school, work, etc....
    I'm sorry Chevy, I usually agree with you but as a former Rep Coach, Club Board Director and now a parent of a kid in a Private Academy, I have to call this view out.

    Not knowing the specifics of the Club team, I can say the Power kids' are most likely not coached to play a system but rather to allow creativity into their games. Does the coach of the club rep team have players playing different positions every game? How about every half? Do some kids sit on the bench when the result is in question?

    At the end of the day, the Power Kids are getting extremely well qualified coaching that will remain consistent through their development, likely 3 training sessions per week from January through November, an emphasis on nutrition and training, and their progress is measured based on individual skill development vs a trophy.

    You also don't know how many true U10s were playing up with the U11 team and unavailable for the game you played. Further, how many kids, boys and girls, were actually U9's getting an opportunity to play with a different team based on progress. It happens all the time in an Academy.

    Developing a "winning system" is what coaches in the Club system tend to do because that is the only measure.

    Don't kid yourself either, the kids know the score and they know if they won or lost. The difference is that the parents don't see the standings (and they are kept), aren't exposed to "Cup competitions" and therefore the amount of sideline "coaching" for the kids and ref abuse is minimal to non-existent. Standings in Euro-leagues for kids aren't often published until after U16.

    Having been in both and deeply committed as a volunteer to the Club system, I can say with 100% certainty that having seen the difference, I would never go back to that environment.

    As an aside, my U10 son is training this week under the direction of the Head Coach of Penn State. When that is over, he goes back to training under the direction of UEFA licensed coaches. They don't play a game for 3 weeks and over those 3 weeks he will have had 11 training sessions, "homework" and expectations to work on his fitness.

    Obviously, good players can develop in a club system but tell me, which route offers the best chance to maximize the player's individual potential?

    A trophy at U9-U10 is not a predictor to where a child will be at 16 or 17.

  11. #41
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    16,746
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    I'm sorry Chevy, I usually agree with you but as a former Rep Coach, Club Board Director and now a parent of a kid in a Private Academy, I have to call this view out.

    Not knowing the specifics of the Club team, I can say the Power kids' are most likely not coached to play a system but rather to allow creativity into their games. Does the coach of the club rep team have players playing different positions every game? How about every half? Do some kids sit on the bench when the result is in question?

    At the end of the day, the Power Kids are getting extremely well qualified coaching that will remain consistent through their development, likely 3 training sessions per week from January through November, an emphasis on nutrition and training, and their progress is measured based on individual skill development vs a trophy.

    You also don't know how many true U10s were playing up with the U11 team and unavailable for the game you played. Further, how many kids, boys and girls, were actually U9's getting an opportunity to play with a different team based on progress. It happens all the time in an Academy.

    Developing a "winning system" is what coaches in the Club system tend to do because that is the only measure.

    Don't kid yourself either, the kids know the score and they know if they won or lost. The difference is that the parents don't see the standings (and they are kept), aren't exposed to "Cup competitions" and therefore the amount of sideline "coaching" for the kids and ref abuse is minimal to non-existent. Standings in Euro-leagues for kids aren't often published until after U16.

    Having been in both and deeply committed as a volunteer to the Club system, I can say with 100% certainty that having seen the difference, I would never go back to that environment.

    As an aside, my U10 son is training this week under the direction of the Head Coach of Penn State. When that is over, he goes back to training under the direction of UEFA licensed coaches. They don't play a game for 3 weeks and over those 3 weeks he will have had 11 training sessions, "homework" and expectations to work on his fitness.

    Obviously, good players can develop in a club system but tell me, which route offers the best chance to maximize the player's individual potential?

    A trophy at U9-U10 is not a predictor to where a child will be at 16 or 17.
    Coaching that focuses on competitiveness over technique will never compete with five-year-old street urchins who grow up with a football glued to their toes 18 hours per day. That's why focussed programs like the one you're outlining can work -- they take kids away from a uniform cookie-cutter approach.

    The fundamental move away from competition at the grassroots organizational level isn't based the assumption that structure is bad; it's based on the assumption that technique is thefirst aspect kids require to be successful.

    People forget that, past about the age of eight, many of the kids who are successful in Brazil and Argentina are in very regimented programs as well. It's the formative years before that, when kids here are being poorly directed by local enthusiasts, that is the problem.

    It's the same for bball for ghetto kids in the U.S. That passion is evident from the earliest age precisely because it ISN'T structured, because it's something they can just pick up with their friends in the neighbourhood, instead of having parents and usually ill-trained well-wishers breathing down their neck. That's why they learn to love doing it for hours and hours, and fall into Gladwell's Outliers category of performance: they love what they do because they own the decision, entirely.

    It's just human nature.

    Meanwhile, structured pre-teen programs seem more inclined to teach team uniformity, and the concept that embarrassing one of your friends by schooling him on the dribble is some kind of social sin, instead of a learning experience.

    If you want to do your pre-teens a favour, give them a soccer ball, a pump for when it goes flat, and leave them to do their thing. Keep them the hell away from club teams until they're about 15, and instead give them lots of exposure to creative soccer heroes and foreign games.

  12. #42
    Registered
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    6,451
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jloome View Post

    The fundamental move away from competition at the grassroots organizational level isn't based the assumption that structure is bad; it's based on the assumption that technique is thefirst aspect kids require to be successful.
    This is exactly the concept that stayed with me as we made the decision to move away from the Club environment.

    The Academy had the philosophy that under 16, we'll teach them the technical skills they need to be able to play the game. After 16, we'll teach them how to win.

    If you listen to the words of any scout, they will highlight again and again that technical skill is one of the key things they look for.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •