Club Selection
- Thread starter Supermodel56
- Start date
S
Sped
Guest
softwaretest
SILVER ELITE
This is my favorite so you can be on one of these "top teams" who go play the highest level for two months and sandbag the rest of the year? The coach controls the vast majority of what games your team plays throughout the year regardless of which league they are in for 10 weeks.
90% of the decision should be focused on which coach because they absolutely have the biggest impact.
NoGoal
DA
U12 and under....is the player happy and having fun!
NoGoal
DA
You'll be surprise, a lot of times we parents get caught up with winning, our kids playing for a top team, or out kid needs to play with better players. That we didn't realize we took the fun out of the equation. I know I made this mistake from U10-U12 with my DD.
Every coach will have their own priority and so will every parent. I like my friend's quote "Every parent is looking for the Unicorn coach, unfortunately they don't exist". These are just a few things I keep reminding myself that my mentor has passed on to me when it comes to coaching young players. Maybe it's something that can help parents use to observe their DD versus just dropping them off to practice or carry conversations with the other parents. Are the coaches doing these things?
MORE GAMES AND LESS ANALYTICAL EXERCISES
Children should be exposed to more game plays (global method) and less practice with the analytical method. The practice should happen in the game.
LET THE KIDS PLAY
We should give children the opportunity to explore and to discover through “playing”, to infect them with the creativity shown by their teammates and opponents and without having the coach interceding frequently.
PLAY IN ALL POSITIONS AND IN REDUCED SPACES
Young players up to 13 years “should have the opportunity to play in different positions in order to discover the roles and functions which these positions characterize”.
YOU MUST ENJOY THE GAME TO BE CREATIVE
When the children play, they should have fun and be keen on the game. If the young player does not identify himself with the proposed game that the coach has designed, the creative capability will remain asleep.
LET THE PLAYERS CREATE GAMES AND RULES
Frequent rule changes, introduced by surprise during the practice of the game, force the players who want to win to adapt to the rule changes, using their creativity.
DARE TO TAKE RISKS AND TO IMPROVISE
The young players, especially those of 7 to 12 years, should not be pressured by their coach to quickly pass the ball in order to allow a better team-play and winning. They should frequently have the opportunity to “be in love with the ball”, to dare to improvise their play and take risks, without fearing the possible consequences of having committed a mistake or to have lost the possession of the ball.
TRAIN THE RIGHT HEMISPHERE OF THE BRAIN
Instead of the coach being the main character in the teaching and learning process, he should often transfer responsibility to his young pupils and ask them, through systematic questioning, to solve most of the situations that he presents. A true master in teaching never gives the answers to the problems, but helps his pupils to find and discover them on their own, guiding them to correct results.
CREATIVE COACHES = CREATIVE PLAYERS
Any flash of creative behavior in a player should be recognized by the coach who should do everything to encourage his players to be different and to look out for original solutions to the problems inherent in the game.
THE ENVIRONMENT AS AN ENEMY OF CREATIVITY
The environment of the young player is an enemy of his creativity. Nowadays most of our young talent grows in an atmosphere which is noticeably hostile towards creativity. Their familiar and scholastic surroundings, especially between the ages of 7 and 14 years, are characterized generally by a “intentional direction” of learning (with strict norms), which is limiting personal initiative, independence, originality and the value of trying to do things in different ways. Basically: “instead of presenting fishes to the children, the students, or the players, the parents, teachers and coaches should teach them how to fish.”
Supermodel56
SILVER ELITE
Thanks everyone for the feedback - there was so much it's taken a while for me to digest and process... hopefully this response makes sense.
Sounds about right - having a good coach is #1 - Deadpool & MAP summarized the qualities well, which I believe we will have next year - he comes very highly recommended from a development standpoint, I'd say #2 is teammate level of play. (Let's just agree that your DD has to want to be there and is having fun or it's a no go)
The problem is this - #1 & #2 can sometimes be in conflict with each other. Here's what I mean, while the best coaches don't care as much about winning as much as development - parents of top players generally want to join clubs that have the best players and the first thing they check is league and tournament records. In fact, this past year, in spite of certain areas of growth needed for each player, overall, we had a pretty damn good core team - but we took several totally unnecessary losses mostly because of player rotations/positions and doing his best to give even playing time. TBH - as a parent this was extremely frustrating at times even though deep down you know it's the right thing to do but it's your kid on the bench at the time as you see a game slip away. We also had very few blowouts for that exact reason and our games were always played really close - another sign of a good coach - but prospective parents will never see that.
I'm beginning to realize it really does hurt the team in some ways if they're not winning because many parents of top players will simply overlook the team just because of their record - or even leave because, well, it's better but not worth the drive. Then you end up with a solid core 5-6 who are top tier and the rest who simply may not be ready to play at that level - further exacerbating the problem. Then the question becomes, do you go play for a second tier team and let your player be the "star" and get 100% playing time or stick with it? I guess that's my concern - for us, it's like the coaching is there, the club has been phenomenal, we get the opportunity to play against the top teams - frankly, all those boxes are checked - but ideally we'd like to pick up 2-3 players that can play at that high level so all the girls can be on the same page - I'm not sure whether or not it's going to be possible with our record and the tryout schedule, but I guess anything can happen. (personal rant)
Anyhow, it just goes to show how tough of a position it is to be a coach of a truly competitive team - there's always that conflict and even the best coaches make mistakes. Especially creative coaches who are willing to try new things - it's inevitable some things won't work. As a parent, you've got to hope that people can see through the records and see that these are a few years of investment in their DD/DS's lives and love for the sport.
Sounds about right - having a good coach is #1 - Deadpool & MAP summarized the qualities well, which I believe we will have next year - he comes very highly recommended from a development standpoint, I'd say #2 is teammate level of play. (Let's just agree that your DD has to want to be there and is having fun or it's a no go)
The problem is this - #1 & #2 can sometimes be in conflict with each other. Here's what I mean, while the best coaches don't care as much about winning as much as development - parents of top players generally want to join clubs that have the best players and the first thing they check is league and tournament records. In fact, this past year, in spite of certain areas of growth needed for each player, overall, we had a pretty damn good core team - but we took several totally unnecessary losses mostly because of player rotations/positions and doing his best to give even playing time. TBH - as a parent this was extremely frustrating at times even though deep down you know it's the right thing to do but it's your kid on the bench at the time as you see a game slip away. We also had very few blowouts for that exact reason and our games were always played really close - another sign of a good coach - but prospective parents will never see that.
I'm beginning to realize it really does hurt the team in some ways if they're not winning because many parents of top players will simply overlook the team just because of their record - or even leave because, well, it's better but not worth the drive. Then you end up with a solid core 5-6 who are top tier and the rest who simply may not be ready to play at that level - further exacerbating the problem. Then the question becomes, do you go play for a second tier team and let your player be the "star" and get 100% playing time or stick with it? I guess that's my concern - for us, it's like the coaching is there, the club has been phenomenal, we get the opportunity to play against the top teams - frankly, all those boxes are checked - but ideally we'd like to pick up 2-3 players that can play at that high level so all the girls can be on the same page - I'm not sure whether or not it's going to be possible with our record and the tryout schedule, but I guess anything can happen. (personal rant)
Anyhow, it just goes to show how tough of a position it is to be a coach of a truly competitive team - there's always that conflict and even the best coaches make mistakes. Especially creative coaches who are willing to try new things - it's inevitable some things won't work. As a parent, you've got to hope that people can see through the records and see that these are a few years of investment in their DD/DS's lives and love for the sport.
S
Sped
Guest
bruinblue14
SILVER
Wholeheartedly agree. We have been through this exact scenario.
Supermodel56
SILVER ELITE
I certainly appreciate that - I've heard so many stories about kids who've been pushed through by their parents only to resent them and quit the game once they hit puberty. For us though, the reason #15 is lower on the list, is because while it's important, at this age, our DD really doesn't know what she should do, in fact, right now WE don't even know what the "right" answer is when it comes to deciding on clubs.
But the thing is, what if your DD wants to stay on a team where you know she isn't going to develop or you see the coach neglecting her but she doesn't see it? Or where her teammates are poor influences? Or you're on a team that travels to SD/OC every other weekend but she's just there because her best friend is on it and doesn't really care about soccer? This is where #15 goes out the window and why it's #15 on the list. Don't get me wrong, we certainly have discussions with our DD on how she feels and she's made the "right" choices so far - but I see it as our role to help her make an informed decision and figure how among 1-14 how to prioritize...
Supermodel56
SILVER ELITE
How did it turn out and any learnings you can share?
bruinblue14
SILVER
Choosing the development coach was the right thing for our dd but we know it's not right for everyone. Having been to tryouts lately, i can see the difference in how she has learned to play and her technique. However, the coach did his job so well that she has now outgrown her team. As much as we would like to stay, the time has come for her to move up to a more competitive team per his suggestion (also a sign of a good coach).
Our current coach encounters exactly what you mentioned--the scores don't show a "strong" team or coach so outsiders are reluctant to take the gamble and recruiting top players is a challenge. Some players have left because the parents are unhappy with the losing. Some of the players that tend to gravitate toward the team either need a lot of work or lack the sort of innate aggressiveness or commitment you tend to see in top players. That's been a struggle for us.... players with good skill but that lack the drive or motivation or just straight up lack the grit and fight.
We don't regret it at all though. Before our dd started working with her current coach, she really wasn't all that good. Recently, i've heard people say really great things about my kid and as much as i'd like to think it is pure talent, it's not. It's a combination of a tiny amount of athleticism, her being coachable, her willingness to work hard, and working with the right development-oriented coach the last few years.
I guess the question that needs to be asked is, what does your kid need in order to grow and reach whatever it is they're reaching for? In our experience, i wouldn't bank on those 2-3 players.
I've been seeing this, too. The way I see it is that there are two ways to get talent. You can either grow it or you can recruit it. Some places can do both, some can do one, and some can do neither.
The "neither" clubs can't afford to have losing seasons in the interest of development, and as a result cut developmental corners a bit at the younger age group in order to get some wins, but then they suffer at the older age groups with poor retention and almost exclusively lower tier older teams. No matter how much they win at 8 years old, youngers from those teams will still eventually leave for better teams once they start losing games for lack of development of individual ball skills or will leave for teams where the coach isn't constantly directing them or berating them for mistakes on the field. These teams also have no depth because their second string players haven't seen time in a live game for two years. When their starters leave, these teams tank.
A club that mostly grows its own talent needs to be fairly large with a strong youth base to pull from even when they lose top players. That way they can pull from the "B" or "C" team for players when they have attrition. If the "grower" clubs can hold teams together and not lose the talent they developed they can sometimes have those surprisingly good teams that make deep runs. In addition, if you assume the most talented kid will leave for a DA team in any event, the time spent giving the backup forward playing time or rotating positions will eventually pay off. It may not pay off as having the best team in So Cal, but at least the team won't tank to bronze or flight three level when one person leaves.
Clubs that are historically successful (SD Surf or Blues, for example) will always be able to recruit talented players. Think of premier league teams like Man U or Chelsea. They can have one or two garbage years but people will still line up. Just the way it is.
I am sure that many will disagree, but winning is over-rated - at the younger ages. Winning is often more about parent's egos than the kids. You have to be competitive; no one wants to get their teeth kicked in every game. But simply rating a team or a season based on the win and losses is a little silly. How did the team play as a group? Do they understand soccer? Did the kids grow? Did the coach allow the kids to make mistakes? Is the team just playing kickball?
I was disappointed for our team this year when they lost. Primarily because almost every game was winnable, but that is sports. If the team isn't losing some games along the way then they probably aren't playing a tough enough of a schedule.
I was disappointed for our team this year when they lost. Primarily because almost every game was winnable, but that is sports. If the team isn't losing some games along the way then they probably aren't playing a tough enough of a schedule.
My son is an 03 keeper is on a weak team that has to borrow players just to play 11 on the field. For keepers there is a good argument that playing on a weak team provides accelerated development because he isn't getting 10 shots per game but 30. During league, we played multiple games where the other keeper just stood on his 18 and watched shot after shot at my son. So, did he grow? Absolutely, grew a lot. But, it came at a cost. I notice that he adjusts his game because his defensive line is weak. When he guests for more competitive teams or plays up on the 02' team he plays differently because he now trusts his defenders.
His coach is a development coach ... won't ever win State Cup, but as I write this, the boy is practicing in the rain with the other keepers because his coach is about development. While he has offers to move to more competitive teams, I'm not-so-eager to move him as long as the boy continues his accelerated development.
Daniel Miller
SILVER ELITE
Every one of these discussion breaks down to a question of “winning vs. developing.” It is assumed as a matter of faith that those goals are mutually exclusive. But that assumption is bass-ackwards. From everything I have ever seen, winning and development strongly correlate at all ages.
Again and again we hear that winning teams at the early ages are taking shortcuts which will impair in the long run, whereas losing teams are “developing” now (though there is no agreed-upon meaning of that term), and are truly building for the future; they will dazzle the early bloomers in years to come. We hear this from many coaches and DOCs, and it is repeated by parents and posters like nuggets from the Good Book. It is a lie propagated by coaches who cannot win games, and DOCs who cannot create competitive programs.
In the end, those who claim that winning and development do not associate are merely repeating the wisdom of an anonymous authority. Which of these people give concrete examples from their own experience? Examples are almost never provided, and when they are, the examples are so barren of context that they cannot be evaluated.
When you are looking for a team for your kid, you should naturally look for a coach who will help him or her to "develop," however it is that you define the term. One indicator of a coach who "develops" players, among many, is whether that coach's teams can win games.
Again and again we hear that winning teams at the early ages are taking shortcuts which will impair in the long run, whereas losing teams are “developing” now (though there is no agreed-upon meaning of that term), and are truly building for the future; they will dazzle the early bloomers in years to come. We hear this from many coaches and DOCs, and it is repeated by parents and posters like nuggets from the Good Book. It is a lie propagated by coaches who cannot win games, and DOCs who cannot create competitive programs.
In the end, those who claim that winning and development do not associate are merely repeating the wisdom of an anonymous authority. Which of these people give concrete examples from their own experience? Examples are almost never provided, and when they are, the examples are so barren of context that they cannot be evaluated.
When you are looking for a team for your kid, you should naturally look for a coach who will help him or her to "develop," however it is that you define the term. One indicator of a coach who "develops" players, among many, is whether that coach's teams can win games.
MakeAPlay
DA
Winning and developing aren't mutually exclusive but they aren't intimately tied together either. My player played on a winning high school team but they would lose to a top level U15 team. Why is that the case if winning was such a good indicator of development. My judgement on whether a coach is developing my player has little to do with the team and everything to do with my player's individual improvement.
My player for most of her career played on a team that won plenty of games but never finished higher than 4th place once they were in the "top league." They weren't a top 10 team nationally and never made it out of group play in the champions league but still developed her as a player. That wasn't because they were winning games (honestly they lost plenty of games that they easily could have won had that been the point). I can even think of a couple of showcase games where she didn't play a minute (one of them was Surf Cup) or played a different position. I can also think of games where she played a different position because they needed to win to make it to the next round and they played direct kickball to win.
The bottom line is winning is winning, developing players is developing players and they are two completely different things that might go together and then again they might not.
BarcaLover
SILVER
I'll give you an example of a team that didn't win a lot early on, but became a dominant team later because they were being "developed" at the younger ages.
The De Anza Force G98 team is coached by a guy that truly believes in possession soccer, building out of the back, development etc. When he started with that team at U10, they got their brains beat in 0-8, 0-7, 1-9 all the time because they never played kickball and tried to build out of the back everytime they had the ball.
The girls obviously weren't skilled enough at that age and could not play fast enough to consistently build out and win games, but they were committed to this style of play that "developed" the players.
Fast forward to U14 and they won the ECNL National Playoffs. They "WON" more than any other team in their age group.
So by being patient at the younger ages and being committed to "developing" the players, they ended up winning later on.
Tbe reason why this doesn't happen more often is because most parents aren't willing to stay on a team that doesn't win enough, regardless of whether or not their kid is developing.
It's not that winning isn't important. It is! But it takes time to develop a team to play a "developing style of play" that can also win, and most parents don't have the patience for that.
Just my .02
The De Anza Force G98 team is coached by a guy that truly believes in possession soccer, building out of the back, development etc. When he started with that team at U10, they got their brains beat in 0-8, 0-7, 1-9 all the time because they never played kickball and tried to build out of the back everytime they had the ball.
The girls obviously weren't skilled enough at that age and could not play fast enough to consistently build out and win games, but they were committed to this style of play that "developed" the players.
Fast forward to U14 and they won the ECNL National Playoffs. They "WON" more than any other team in their age group.
So by being patient at the younger ages and being committed to "developing" the players, they ended up winning later on.
Tbe reason why this doesn't happen more often is because most parents aren't willing to stay on a team that doesn't win enough, regardless of whether or not their kid is developing.
It's not that winning isn't important. It is! But it takes time to develop a team to play a "developing style of play" that can also win, and most parents don't have the patience for that.
Just my .02
Daniel Miller
SILVER ELITE
1. Winning High School team would lose to a top-level U15 team: Your assumption is that the high school coach must not be developing players because they would lose to a superb club team. That is not a fair comparison, any more than it would be to claim that the same superb U15 team must not be developing because it cannot beat a mid-table team from the Pac-12. Almost every high school team in America would lose to a superb U15 club team. My guess is that the high school coach is developing his players fine when judged against other high schools.
2. For your daughter to play on a team at that level means that she played on a team that would beat 90% of all teams at her age group. That is a well-developed team, and your daughter must be a well-developed player. The fact that her team does not win most of their games in Flight 1, or Premier League, or the Champions League, or whatever that level is named, does not equate with a "losing" team. In your daughter's case, she plays on a team that would win most all of its games against club teams by an overwhelming margin, which to me correlates with development.
Daniel Miller
SILVER ELITE
In other words, the team started slow and lost a lot of games. But they "developed" and became a "winning" team. As they continued to develop they won more and more games. They must have been promoted repeatedly as they won more games. In other words, their development and their winning correlated.
Now, you don't say, but let's try to put some context into this.
1. How many of the U10 players were still on the U14 ECNL team?
2. How much roster turnover took place over 4 years?
Kudos to your coach for having a system and sticking with it.