What are the common denominators between the really successful clubs?

Surf Zombie

Surf Zombie

GOLD
Was thinking about this for some reason. What do clubs like Solar, PDA, Top Hat, Michigan WH, Surf, So Cal Blues, etc. have in common? Things I could think of:

1. Large player/population pool to draw from.
2. Top end coaching.
3. Club owner with business/marketing skills.
4. Access to top leagues (ECNL/MLS Next).
5. Financial resources.
6. Facilities?

I think college & YNT placement is a product of being a top club, not a reason for it. Was wondering what the most important factors are?
 
Top clubs tend to always be pressing for the "best of the best"

By best of the best I mean Players, Coaching, Fields and Management.

Over time consistantly delivering on being the best of the best brings results.

It really is that simple.

Unfortunately this type of mentality equals a lot of castaways. This is the part of the equation you dont hear about as much.
 
Carlsbad7 said:
Top clubs tend to always be pressing for the "best of the best"

By best of the best I mean Players, Coaching, Fields and Management.

Over time consistantly delivering on being the best of the best brings results.

It really is that simple.

Unfortunately this type of mentality equals a lot of castaways. This is the part of the equation you dont hear about as much.
Click to expand...
That simple?

So, if you put Baker in charge of Boise Timbers/Thorns he's going to create a dynasty?

Interesting theory.....
 
dad4 said:
That simple?

So, if you put Baker in charge of Boise Timbers/Thorns he's going to create a dynasty?

Interesting theory.....
Click to expand...
Odd jump in logic. You're asking how well a proven successful youth coach would do at a professional level.

My guess is that he'd do well at the professional level. But why? Everything hes been setting up for years is at the youth level. (Players, Coaching, Fields, and Management)
 
Carlsbad7 said:
Odd jump in logic. You're asking how well a proven successful youth coach would do at a professional level.

My guess is that he'd do well at the professional level. But why? Everything hes been setting up for years is at the youth level. (Players, Coaching, Fields, and Management)
Click to expand...
I was thinking of the Boise ECNL team.

The professional Thorns are Portland, right?
 
Yeah Portland. I wasnt reading your comment closely + didnt notice the Boise part.

Portland Thorns FC

All the latest Portland Thorns FC news, photos, highlights, tickets and more
www.timbers.com www.timbers.com

To answer your original question. Yes over time Baker would likely be able to field winning teams in Boise. Winners win for a reason the same as losers lose for a reason.
 
Carlsbad7 said:
Yeah Portland. I wasnt reading your comment closely + didnt notice the Boise part.

Portland Thorns FC

All the latest Portland Thorns FC news, photos, highlights, tickets and more
www.timbers.com www.timbers.com

To answer your original question. Yes over time Baker would likely be able to field winning teams in Boise. Winners win for a reason the same as losers lose for a reason.
Click to expand...
Using that logic how do you explain why so many college football coaches fail when moving to the nfl. Or elite college coaches outside power 5 fail when moving to power 5.
 
Carlsbad7 said:
Yeah Portland. I wasnt reading your comment closely + didnt notice the Boise part.

Portland Thorns FC

All the latest Portland Thorns FC news, photos, highlights, tickets and more
www.timbers.com www.timbers.com

To answer your original question. Yes over time Baker would likely be able to field winning teams in Boise. Winners win for a reason the same as losers lose for a reason.
Click to expand...
I think initially certain clubs had success.

They had good coaches and more importantly good marketing.

So the better/best players migrated to those clubs. They began winning at a higher pace.

They became a known destination. There are certain clubs you hear about all the time coming into soccer. Blues, Surf, Tophat, etc. Parents and kids want to go to these clubs. They get the pick of the litter.

Now do these clubs still have good coaches and facilities? Yes.

Their life however is easier based on their reputation. Top players look first to a few clubs in their area.
 
Carlsbad7 said:
Yeah Portland. I wasnt reading your comment closely + didnt notice the Boise part.

Portland Thorns FC

All the latest Portland Thorns FC news, photos, highlights, tickets and more
www.timbers.com www.timbers.com

To answer your original question. Yes over time Baker would likely be able to field winning teams in Boise. Winners win for a reason the same as losers lose for a reason.
Click to expand...
The style that works in a small market is different from what works in socal.

If you push somone too hard in socal, you can recruit to replace. If you lose a top player in Boise, you can’t just grab someone from Beach or Legends. Piss people off too much, and you’re just stuck with a weaker team.

Push hard, drop people, and recruit works fine in a very large market. You run out of new blood if you try it in a small town.
 
Calikid said:
They recruit the players.
Click to expand...
At the younger ages it’s especially easy: the tall athletic kids near the age line. Their leg span has a tendency to make them better runners; their size better at body checks. A decent coach can teach these players soccer …it’s not rocket science.

At the older ages you can fill in the gaps by recruiting players developed elsewhere (or from lower level teams in your own club) since these players will migrate for higher level opportunities.
 
I'd say its 90% recruiting, marketing and momentum. Coaches are interchangeable between all clubs (look at their coaching history) and despite what they may claim Clubs don't have a standard philosophy or style of play that's implemented across all teams and all ages. You get your coach's style of play. The coaches from the top clubs are no better than the coaches from the middle tier clubs. In fact, I would argue you find more joystick coaches at the top clubs.

The winning clubs don't get there by developing players, they get there by developing teams. They're expected to win at every level so developing players takes too long, its much easier to recruit year after year. Clubs typically prefer the shiny new toy from another club than a player in their system that might be ready to move up to the top team.
 
watfly said:
I'd say its 90% recruiting, marketing and momentum. Coaches are interchangeable between all clubs (look at their coaching history) and despite what they may claim Clubs don't have a standard philosophy or style of play that's implemented across all teams and all ages. You get your coach's style of play. The coaches from the top clubs are no better than the coaches from the middle tier clubs. In fact, I would argue you find more joystick coaches at the top clubs.

The winning clubs don't get there by developing players, they get there by developing teams. They're expected to win at every level so developing players takes too long, its much easier to recruit year after year. Clubs typically prefer the shiny new toy from another club than a player in their system that might be ready to move up to the top team.
Click to expand...
I would just add that despite these factors, I still think the choice of clubs, not just the choice of coaches should be a factor. Clubs do tend to have distinct cultures different from each other. These are driven by Club leadership with a huge influence by parents. Some clubs consider will parent feedback, others will not. Some clubs are well organized administratively, others are not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top