Why some clubs seem to do better and win more?

Paul Spacey said:
So many reasons and things that go into it.

Bottom line; if you recruit the best players, you will win most of your games. That's not always how it works at pro level (take Real Madrid's 'Galacticos' policy for example) but at youth level, generally the teams with the best individuals will win most of the games. You don't even need a team full of great individuals; often you just need a handful and I see this all the time when watching the more successful teams. They have solid players throughout but usually 3 or 4 really exceptional players who dictate the game and therefore heavily influence the result. The younger the team, the more easily an individual player can influence the game; once players reach High School age, a 'superstar' has less of an influence on the game than the amazing kid playing against 8 year olds who can't even get near him/her.

A team with solid players and a few very good individuals will usually win regardless of the coach (sometimes I'll hear coaches of these teams talking s**t on the sideline and some clearly don't have a great grasp of the game but that doesn't matter, they don't need to 'coach' too much). A team with average/decent players can over-perform if they are coached very well, even though their player pool may not that great. This is why coaching is so important during practice as 'coaching' to influence the outcome of any game is extremely limited/difficult once the game actually starts. Pep Guardiola talked eloquently about this during his time at Bayern Munich and played down his influence on players during the important decision making moments in games (a reporter asked what influence he had on a brilliant goal Bayern scored and he basically said "none, it was nothing to do with me.")

Let me take this chance to do a bit of self-promotion for my club. We have a player pool which is decent but nothing special (we get most of our players from AYSO but don't have the pick of the best ones like United often do) yet we've managed to have 3 solid 'results' seasons so far (although results are certainly not our focus). Win percentages of 64%, 58% and 60% for the past 3 years (which puts us among the top clubs in CSL for win percentages I believe). Yes, we started in bronze but now have half of our teams in silver elite and the other half in silver. More info via this link if you're interested in reading about why a focus on development will always bring about good results in the end. https://www.fcengland.com/news_article/show/970401.

Whenever one of our teams plays against a team who are clearly well coached and who pass and move very well, regardless of whether we win or lose (even more so actually when we lose) I always make a point of talking to the coach (and his/her players) and saying how enjoyable it was to watch them play. I love seeing well-coached teams and would love to find a league/tournament/regular scrimmage (as would many coaches I'm sure) where you could play against these types of teams every week. Coupled with excellent coaching, player development would go through the roof. I think this was the concept or idea behind DA; it just hasn't quite worked out as planned as far as I can gather.



This is spot on. Players, parents (and everyone else) will quickly find out if you are running a below-par program (or a very good one of course).



Again, spot on and everyone knows it happens. It's definitely not what the system was designed for but coaches and clubs will always find ways to 'game' any system.

Teams who can access the best players (via reputation or whatever other means) will always be the ones who consistently win. That's one of the main reasons teams/clubs shouldn't use winning as a barometer for success IMO. That said, 'player development' is difficult to measure objectively and so results are usually the way most people determine which clubs are the 'best'.
Click to expand...

Have played against one of your teams. They are well coached and play the right way, possession and ball movement over kick ball/direct. I'm sure your teams suffer some losses because of that but in the long run and at older ages those losses will turn into wins as the direct play doesn't work as well.

In general though, I think the teams that have DA and to a lesser extent ECNL have the advantage because many parents and players are chasing the UNWNT and full ride college scholarship dream (nothing wrong with that to a degree) and these clubs at the DA/ECNL age level start to get seen by college coaches to a much higher degree than a non DA/ECNL club/team. A huge recruiting advantage for them.
 
timbuck said:
Some clubs are relentless recruiters. Their coaches probably spend more time working on their player database than they do on planning a practice session for each week.
They approach players before and after (sometimes during) games. They know which older players have younger siblings coming up.
They have their ear to the ground on coaches that are moving and hit up players from those teams to see who is interested.
And then you have clubs that bring on new coaches that bring entire teams over.
Click to expand...
Then you have the coaches that are relentless recruiters AND good coaches like Gandalf. Still pretty classless to call players from the opposing team right after a close game however.
 
The competitive teams/coaches IMO make moves both good and bad.......this is still club ball to some of us. I like seeing the earners get their spot and the right to play on a good team. Theres absolutely nothing wrong with being recruited to play on a good team, I can tell you , we are not recruiting the parents , thats for sure......and when a kid gets dropped it shows that club means business, and as a paying customer everyone should appreciate that.
 
timbuck said:
Everyone thinks their kid belongs 1 flight above where they really do.
Click to expand...
True. That's why the smart parents let the coaches/clubs make that decision, there is no benefit for a team to keep playing their same age or flight if they are dominating the league with 9-0 scores. A handful of teams do it and it works out for the club, parents but most importantly the kids.
 
TangoCity said:
Have played against one of your teams. They are well coached and play the right way, possession and ball movement over kick ball/direct. I'm sure your teams suffer some losses because of that but in the long run and at older ages those losses will turn into wins as the direct play doesn't work as well.

In general though, I think the teams that have DA and to a lesser extent ECNL have the advantage because many parents and players are chasing the UNWNT and full ride college scholarship dream (nothing wrong with that to a degree) and these clubs at the DA/ECNL age level start to get seen by college coaches to a much higher degree than a non DA/ECNL club/team. A huge recruiting advantage for them.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I appreciate that. It’s something opponents regularly notice and that’s a pat on the back for the kids more than anything.

You’re spot on. Clubs with DA and ECNL will always have the pick of the top players; that’s understandable.
 
How about a combine/US Soccer test type of system to get to Flight 1?
You have to do x amount of technical drills in x amount of time to qualify to even move up. Or something like that. Obviously you will still have to be able to play the game but the big fast kid will even have to learn and will eliminate some of the F2/3 kids that think they can play F1.

Then whether you make it or not will be up to the player/club.

This way you'll see more kids practicing technique and coaches teaching it in practice.
 
OCsoccerdad7777 said:
This way you'll see more kids practicing technique and coaches teaching it in practice.
Click to expand...

US Soccer right now is the opposite. They don't think coaches should be teaching technique in practice, and are discouraging it in the licensing training. Instead they believe kids should pick up skills by actually playing the game in realistic conditions (e.g. scrimmages). It would require a change in the thinking of US Soccer.

Extras and United do this to some extent (as does the UK), but at least in the case of AYSO those tests aren't always a good indication of how a player will perform in the game and a lot of coaches tend to disregard them anyways for other concerns (positional, speed, politics, etc.)
 
Grace T. said:
US Soccer right now is the opposite. They don't think coaches should be teaching technique in practice, and are discouraging it in the licensing training. Instead they believe kids should pick up skills by actually playing the game in realistic conditions (e.g. scrimmages). It would require a change in the thinking of US Soccer.
Click to expand...

Where you getting this information from? Did you attended US Soccer coaching clinic and that's what they told you there?
I know I did recently, and nothing remotely close to what you are saying is happening.
 
Eagle33 said:
Where you getting this information from? Did you attended US Soccer coaching clinic and that's what they told you there?
I know I did recently, and nothing remotely close to what you are saying is happening.
Click to expand...

I've posted my anecdote before. Went out for my E License. Put together level 2 exercise on playing from the wings. I put together a crossing exercise for 9 year olds with a keeper, a working winger who crosses, a receiver and a defender. I was told I used too few people and it wasn't realistic enough. Instead I should set up a more scrimmage like situation which was game realistic. I asked what if the 9 year old doesn't know how to properly cross the ball. I was told he needs to learn that in a game situation. I said well not all 9 year olds pick things up through osmosis. He said that's what private trainers are for. That was consistent with the information I got and with the 9 new aside course I took, not to mention some stuff with the US Youth Soccer Council.

I admit it was 2 years ago though. If they've backed away from that, great.
 
Eagle33 said:
Where you getting this information from? Did you attended US Soccer coaching clinic and that's what they told you there?
I know I did recently, and nothing remotely close to what you are saying is happening.
Click to expand...
GraceT is exactly right. For fun and amusement, I recently took all 4 of the new "Grassroots" courses, which have superceded the E License. They all promote a "play, teach, play" system.

The coach picks a topic based on one of the four phases of the game (attack, defend, transition to attack, transition to defense). Then picks four or five words. Then you just have the kids play. While they are playing, you introduce the concepts to be taught by using the words, along with "guided questions" such as, "can you pass the ball now?," or "can you dribble to space?"

Then you explain the concepts you were trying to get them to learn on their own, and do a drill of some sort for about 10 minutes.

Then you go back to playing exactly like before. Then, Voila - your practice is over.

About 20% of a practice is actual training. The rest is letting kids play. The idea is that they will learn the game better by playing.

As an occasional practice plan, it's got its good points. But if that is what you do all the time - or even most of the time - then you can be certain that the kids you train will never get very good. Nobody at USSF will admit it, but rote technical skills have to be taught and practiced endlessly. Few kids pick up those skills without somebody showing them how to do it and making sure they practice.
 
Grace T. said:
US Soccer right now is the opposite. They don't think coaches should be teaching technique in practice, and are discouraging it in the licensing training. Instead they believe kids should pick up skills by actually playing the game in realistic conditions (e.g. scrimmages). It would require a change in the thinking of US Soccer.

Extras and United do this to some extent (as does the UK), but at least in the case of AYSO those tests aren't always a good indication of how a player will perform in the game and a lot of coaches tend to disregard them anyways for other concerns (positional, speed, politics, etc.)
Click to expand...

Not saying the kids should not be taught how to play. But for F1 at a minimum, need to have good ball skills to qualify. After that, IQ, game play, hustle, whatever the coach is looking for can determine if they actually make the team.
This way, just having size and/or speed doesn't automatically make you a F1 player.
Sad to hear of your experience.

"E" license to me would be more for teaching maybe F3 type players (not to say if you have an E license, you can't coach or not qualified to coach higher ups. Just on E definition). More emphasis on ball control, technical skills. Of course teaching the game too but more emphasis on the latter.
 
OCsoccerdad7777 said:
Not saying the kids should not be taught how to play. But for F1 at a minimum, need to have good ball skills to qualify. After that, IQ, game play, hustle, whatever the coach is looking for can determine if they actually make the team.
This way, just having size and/or speed doesn't automatically make you a F1 player.
Sad to hear of your experience.

"E" license to me would be more for teaching maybe F3 type players (not to say if you have an E license, you can't coach or not qualified to coach higher ups. Just on E definition). More emphasis on ball control, technical skills. Of course teaching the game too but more emphasis on the latter.
Click to expand...

I've heard plenty of coaches say "Give me a big kid or a fast kid and I can teach them how to play soccer." And they'll overlook the smaller kid with the silky touch and the pinpoint passing to try and get Mongo on the team.
 
timbuck said:
I've heard plenty of coaches say "Give me a big kid or a fast kid and I can teach them how to play soccer." And they'll overlook the smaller kid with the silky touch and the pinpoint passing to try and get Mongo on the team.
Click to expand...

Totally true. But that's where if there was some Cal South rule or requirement to get a skills test (recorded) before being even considered F1, then Mongo will be denied and coach can't do anything about it.

Then it is up to the F2 or F3 coach, whomever he goes to to develop the technical skills before being moved up. Not to mention that if Mongo really wants it, then will work on it him/her self at home. Currently Mongo just sits at home playing Fortnite because he/she scores 2 goals a game and is the golden child.

Results will be that everyone in F1 will be way more skilled from defenders to strikers and kids that come up from F2 will have some basic skills to start with.
I know it's a pipe dream lol.
 
timbuck said:
I've heard plenty of coaches say "Give me a big kid or a fast kid and I can teach them how to play soccer." And they'll overlook the smaller kid with the silky touch and the pinpoint passing to try and get Mongo on the team.
Click to expand...
You can't teach "fast". Skills are acquired over many years of training and practice where ever that may be. Many of those big kids will frequently switch sports in high school. Too many people stress over their ulittles.
 
Lambchop said:
You can't teach "fast". Skills are acquired over many years of training and practice where ever that may be. Many of those big kids will frequently switch sports in high school. Too many people stress over their ulittles.
Click to expand...

You can teach "faster", but it still might not qualify as "fast".
 
timbuck said:
Clubs that have multiple teams in an age group will often move players from a higher team lower team to appear that they are strong across the board.
You’ll see a b or c team with 12 players on the official roster. But 15 or 16 will show up for each game.
The club pass system was designed to let clubs move players around so that it is best for the players development. Very few clubs use it that way.
Click to expand...
We play for a club that has multiple teams in age groups and I can tell you they definitely don’t move kids from the higher team to the lower team to be strong across the board (although this would help my team at State Cup)!
 
timbuck said:
I've heard plenty of coaches say "Give me a big kid or a fast kid and I can teach them how to play soccer." And they'll overlook the smaller kid with the silky touch and the pinpoint passing to try and get Mongo on the team.
Click to expand...

Every single time!! It's embarrassing really..
 
Ultimately, there are far too many flight 1 teams. If that is the top level, it should be elite and difficult to get into. Separate leagues by each county, then have 10 teams in flight 1, 20 teams in flight 2 (two brackets), 30 teams in flight 3 (three brackets) etc. If there are 10 teams in flight 1, that's 100 spots for a 7v7 team. In the whole of Orange County, that would be very difficult to get into (which it should be). Far too many kids playing flight 1 who shouldn't be. For the older age groups, with all the add on's above flight 1, its not prestigious anymore anyway.
 
ItsCalledSoccer said:
Ultimately, there are far too many flight 1 teams. If that is the top level, it should be elite and difficult to get into. Separate leagues by each county, then have 10 teams in flight 1, 20 teams in flight 2 (two brackets), 30 teams in flight 3 (three brackets) etc. If there are 10 teams in flight 1, that's 100 spots for a 7v7 team. In the whole of Orange County, that would be very difficult to get into (which it should be). Far too many kids playing flight 1 who shouldn't be. For the older age groups, with all the add on's above flight 1, its not prestigious anymore anyway.
Click to expand...
My understanding from talking to people who have been involved in club soccer for many years here is that club soccer used to be like this. To make it onto a ‘top’ team (or even to make it onto any club team), you had to be a very good player, otherwise you just played AYSO. Not sure how accurate that is/was?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top