# Coaching Education -  OMG



## timbuck (Aug 16, 2018)

https://www.socceramerica.com/publications/article/79201/nico-romeijn-and-ryan-mooney-on-us-soccer-coachi.html

Wow -  These guys are in charge of the USSF licensing programs.
Head in the sand much?
A few nuggets for you:
*"SOCCER AMERICA: If we accept the idea that licenses make coaches better and the courses will make us a better soccer country – the fact is they’re not easy to get. For example, the cost. The cost of getting U.S. Soccer’s higher-level licenses is about five times the cost of a German DFB license. Why are they so expensive?*

*NICO ROMEIJN:* We recently did research on the cost of our licenses. The last thing I will say is that we are cheap, but we’re also not the most expensive courses when you’re looking at Europe. So, for example, when you’re looking at France, that’s much more expensive than over here......"

WTF?  Well, we are cheaper than France.  So we have that going for us.

They also talk about how hard it is to get a B or an A license.  And that this is sort of done on purpose - Because not everyone deserves to get this license.

Ok -  so maybe not everyone deserves an "A" license-  but wouldn't we be better off if more coaches were able to obtain this amazing knowledge that an "A" license will bring to them?


----------



## Grace T. (Aug 16, 2018)

Wow.  I'm just dumbfounded.  And I thought my opinion of US Soccer couldn't get any lower. 

The reason for the cost?...well, blame Fifa...but the English are able to put together a tiered system at much lower costs despite Fifa.

They don't think they should teach "style of play" until the A & B licenses?  Well, no wonder then so many coaches have implemented the "winning" strategy of kick it long to Billy and recruiting a team of big strong Billys close to the age line.

The reason for no longer giving credit for NSCAA courses?  They have a different philosophy.  You mean they actually teach coaches about things like tactics, how to teach, injury prevention, skills and style of play?  You mean they don't spend so much time trying to indoctrinate coaches into drinking the koolaid and memorizing the US Soccer catchphrases, pyramids, and philosophies....and well, they focus on actually teaching the guys how to coach and developing an actual curriculum?

Seriously, we talk a lot about here about things that can't be easily fixed and how it ruins our chances for a good USMNT...college recruitment, pay to play, the MLS compensation structure....one real easy fix...you can take it today...fire these bozos, burn it down, rebuild the curriculum from scratch with input from the NSCAA.


----------



## OBkicks (Aug 16, 2018)

I call BS!

“If one of your kids is attending a school, and a teacher tells you, “I was a really good student, and therefore I’m now a good teacher.” I think a lot of us will question that, because being a good student doesn’t mean you’ll be a good teacher. That’s the same way of looking at coaching. If you were a good player, or played the game a lot, doesn’t mean you’re a good coach.“

Then why does the USSF not accept high level NSCAA (now United Soccer Coaches) licenses/diplomas or other foreign licenses (other then UEFA) as equivalents to bypass lower license levels???  INSTEAD, if you played in the German league on the 3rd for a couple of seasons, or at some “professional” level you can fast track immediately to your “B” license. 

Horrible hypocrisy. It’s a boys club. They don’t use NSCAA any longer because it’s a money grab. Coaches were preferring the NSCAA courses and USSF courses and instructors were getting bad reps as being forceful, arrogant and overly opinionated. It was  a long time “my way or the highway” system. Now it’s meant to mirror the UEFA model and be more “player centered”. Sounds good but no reason to shut out the awesome work done by the NSCAA and then hypocritically allow former pros to bypass the system. It’s a blatant contradiction. USSF clearly says “if you were a pro player, we will give you a pass”

No different then the quote about a good student being a good teacher. Figure it out, Nico. Can’t have it both ways.


----------



## OBkicks (Aug 16, 2018)

I call BS!

“If one of your kids is attending a school, and a teacher tells you, “I was a really good student, and therefore I’m now a good teacher.” I think a lot of us will question that, because being a good student doesn’t mean you’ll be a good teacher. That’s the same way of looking at coaching. If you were a good player, or played the game a lot, doesn’t mean you’re a good coach.“

Then why does the USSF no longer accept high level NSCAA (now United Soccer Coaches) licenses/diplomas or other foreign licenses (other then UEFA) as equivalents to bypass lower USSF license levels???  INSTEAD, if you played in the German league on the 3rd team for a couple of seasons, or at some “professional” level you can fast track immediately to your “B” license. 

Horrible hypocrisy. It’s a boys club. They don’t use NSCAA any longer because it’s a money grab. Coaches were preferring the NSCAA courses over the USSF courses and instructors were getting bad reps as being forceful, arrogant and overly opinionated. It was  a long time “my way or the highway” system. Now USSF licensing is meant to mirror the UEFA model and be more “player centered”. Sounds good but no reason to shut out the awesome work done by the NSCAA and then hypocritically allow former pros to bypass the system. It’s a blatant contradiction. USSF clearly says “if you were a pro player, we will give you a pass”

No different then the quote about a good student being a good teacher. Figure it out, Nico. Can’t have it both ways.


----------



## watfly (Aug 16, 2018)

timbuck said:


> https://www.socceramerica.com/publications/article/79201/nico-romeijn-and-ryan-mooney-on-us-soccer-coachi.html
> 
> Wow -  These guys are in charge of the USSF licensing programs.
> Head in the sand much?
> ...


The responses in that article are embarrassing, total lack of accountability and self awareness.


----------



## timbuck (Aug 16, 2018)

All of the soccerati on Twitter are going nuts about this.
Grant Wahl
Hercules Gomez
Wynalda
John Pranjic
Tom  Byer

This might be the article that actually brings about some real change.  This proves that everything we think (bad) about US Soccer is actually true.


----------



## ajaffe (Aug 16, 2018)

timbuck said:


> All of the soccerati on Twitter are going nuts about this.
> Grant Wahl
> Hercules Gomez
> Wynalda
> ...


Your inclusion of Grant Wahl with the rest of those names freaked me out given his loyalty to SUM. I did a quick twitter search for his account and didn’t see anything from him. What did he say?


----------



## timbuck (Aug 16, 2018)

ajaffe said:


> Your inclusion of Grant Wahl with the rest of those names freaked me out given his loyalty to SUM. I did a quick twitter search for his account and didn’t see anything from him. What did he say?


You might be right.  He’s one of the more active people I follow and I just lumped him in with the rest.  My bad.


----------



## ajaffe (Aug 16, 2018)

timbuck said:


> You might be right.  He’s one of the more active people I follow and I just lumped him in with the rest.  My bad.


It’s all good! I was actually hoping he said something to show that he was going to be a bit more critical and in depth with his reporting ha ha.


----------



## timbuck (Aug 16, 2018)

ajaffe said:


> It’s all good! I was actually hoping he said something to show that he was going to be a bit more critical and in depth with his reporting ha ha.


Better chance of Alexi lalas saying something meaningful.  Ever.


----------



## Soccercritique (Aug 18, 2018)

Grace T. said:


> Wow.  I'm just dumbfounded.  And I thought my opinion of US Soccer couldn't get any lower.
> 
> The reason for the cost?...well, blame Fifa...but the English are able to put together a tiered system at much lower costs despite Fifa.
> 
> ...


The reason and ONLY reasons they won't or can't tear the current system down is because of two things: 

1) the old guard-those who are at the helm of US soccer, continue to think like people from traditional US soccer.  They can talk about technical, tactical development but the bottom line is that in this country, at the grass root levels, the majority of clubs focus on winning over development.  How else are you going to get kids to come to your club unless you're winning (or that's the thought and buy in from many parents/players)?  They're trying "new" and "innovative" things like bio-banding (which in theory sounds good, but a joke when you really look at it), which you gotta give them credit for thinking outside the box.  

2) If you have a person with an "A" license (and we all know a few) that doesn't always equate to good training sessions, development, relationship building, it just means that a person has gone through the rigors of completing his/her requirements for the license.  And as a DOC, how can you ensure that all the coaches are trying to implement the same things across the board?  It seems like a daunting task.  

3) there is too much money at stake here.  I read an article that US soccer is a billion dollar a year business and that figure blew me away.  That's why we see a lot of DOC's living large is because of the pay to play system.  How on earth would we be able to bring a system like that down?   The surplus that US soccer has (over 100 million) COULD change that, but again, it would have to have buy in and make it financially rewarding for coaches to move to a united curriculum/system.  If US soccer was smart, they could select few DA (boys and girls) teams in select markets and make it accessible for ALL kids.  My whole impression of the DA platform is developing kids for national team play.  That's a completely different approach than other leagues.


----------



## espola (Aug 18, 2018)

Soccercritique said:


> The reason and ONLY reasons they won't or can't tear the current system down is because of two things:
> 
> 1) the old guard-those who are at the helm of US soccer, continue to think like people from traditional US soccer.  They can talk about technical, tactical development but the bottom line is that in this country, at the grass root levels, the majority of clubs focus on winning over development.  How else are you going to get kids to come to your club unless you're winning (or that's the thought and buy in from many parents/players)?  They're trying "new" and "innovative" things like bio-banding (which in theory sounds good, but a joke when you really look at it), which you gotta give them credit for thinking outside the box.
> 
> ...


When DA started up (2007-8) it was pitched as establishing a nationally-consistent player development model aiming at bringing US Soccer MNT to compete well with the best teams in the world.  What did they do?  The teams around here recruited the best local 15-18-year olds they could find, players nearing the ends of their youth soccer careers who had already been "developed" by the hodgepodge system in place (and am I rash to assume that that is what happened all over the country?).  They could have started with teams of 10-year-olds who hadn't been entrenched in any bad habits, eager to learn from the best coaches.  Those 10-year-olds, whatever way that turned out, would all be USMNT age by now.


----------



## focomoso (Aug 20, 2018)

espola said:


> They could have started with teams of 10-year-olds who hadn't been entrenched in any bad habits, eager to learn from the best coaches.  Those 10-year-olds, whatever way that turned out, would all be USMNT age by now.


That's happening now with the expansion of the younger age groups. Many 10 and 11-year-olds joining the DA system these days. The U12 age group fields two 9v9 teams and has up to 24 players, so that's 250 kids each year in LA alone. We'll see in a few years if it actually pays off...


----------



## Not_that_Serious (Aug 22, 2018)

_*When you’re looking at the B, A and Pro licenses, actually we are also looking at a coaching pyramid SCAM. We like to compare that with a player pyramid SCAM. *_

Fixed.

Also saying. "Yes, but we arent as expensive as X" ... is straight salesman talk.


----------



## *GOBEARGO* (Aug 24, 2018)

Not_that_Serious said:


> _*When you’re looking at the B, A and Pro licenses, actually we are also looking at a coaching pyramid SCAM. We like to compare that with a player pyramid SCAM. *_
> 
> Fixed.
> 
> Also saying. "Yes, but we arent as expensive as X" ... is straight salesman talk.


A good salesman never sells on price...duh


----------



## Grace T. (Aug 24, 2018)

I'm becoming more convinced that one of the fixes we desperately need is continuing education requirements for coaches.  I was always skeptical about it because I don't think continuing education teaches much to lawyers/accountants/doctors...I've always viewed it as make work or excuses to attend fancy conferences. But as I get older I'm thinking those professions just don't have a good setup for continuing education (emphasizing quantity over quality).  Refs have minimum requirements and field evaluations, so why not coaches?  The entry level requirements could be lowered (so that US Soccer can indoctrinate coaches on specific philosophy) but then continuing education in specific topics would take place later (everything from teaching the offside trap, team management, goalkeepers).  

Went to 3 tournaments in August (both as a parent and AR).  Had lot's of downtime too to observe the various games since I'm so down on the totem pole I don't get very many, don't want to run myself ragged in the heat, and don't need the money as much as others.  What discouraged me most was the '08s (though I saw a lot of it at all age groups boys or girl, rich or poor, young or older, gold or bronze).   A year after the build out line is removed and pretty much all of the teams I saw are back to their old habits...lot's of punting, lots of big legged goalkicks, lots of running game.  A friend and I made a bet last year over whether coaches would return to their old habits (I sadly won that bet, he concedes).  Only saw one silver team really teach a possession game (they sadly lost to a United team I think 12-1 or something ridiculous like that with a few very fast kids that can pound it into goal from the half).  To be fair, the majority of the teams seem to be teaching a combination of a running game and connecting game, but are just bypassing the defensive half.  But the only lesson the coaches seem to have taken from the build out line is that the high press works (which only encourages more booting in response).  I'm also not getting why coaches aren't using the offside to counteract the long punt...maybe refs aren't calling it, but I think it might be a coaching education thing....I kept looking to raise my flag in those situations but almost always there was a defender to put them back onside.


----------



## Messi>CR7 (Aug 27, 2018)

Grace T. said:


> I'm becoming more convinced that one of the fixes we desperately need is continuing education requirements for coaches.  I was always skeptical about it because I don't think continuing education teaches much to lawyers/accountants/doctors...I've always viewed it as make work or excuses to attend fancy conferences. But as I get older I'm thinking those professions just don't have a good setup for continuing education (emphasizing quantity over quality).  Refs have minimum requirements and field evaluations, so why not coaches?  The entry level requirements could be lowered (so that US Soccer can indoctrinate coaches on specific philosophy) but then continuing education in specific topics would take place later (everything from teaching the offside trap, team management, goalkeepers).
> 
> Went to 3 tournaments in August (both as a parent and AR).  Had lot's of downtime too to observe the various games since I'm so down on the totem pole I don't get very many, don't want to run myself ragged in the heat, and don't need the money as much as others.  What discouraged me most was the '08s (though I saw a lot of it at all age groups boys or girl, rich or poor, young or older, gold or bronze).   A year after the build out line is removed and pretty much all of the teams I saw are back to their old habits...lot's of punting, lots of big legged goalkicks, lots of running game.  A friend and I made a bet last year over whether coaches would return to their old habits (I sadly won that bet, he concedes).  Only saw one silver team really teach a possession game (they sadly lost to a United team I think 12-1 or something ridiculous like that with a few very fast kids that can pound it into goal from the half).  To be fair, the majority of the teams seem to be teaching a combination of a running game and connecting game, but are just bypassing the defensive half.  But the only lesson the coaches seem to have taken from the build out line is that the high press works (which only encourages more booting in response).  I'm also not getting why coaches aren't using the offside to counteract the long punt...maybe refs aren't calling it, but I think it might be a coaching education thing....I kept looking to raise my flag in those situations but almost always there was a defender to put them back onside.


What I have seen is that many U-little teams do practice building out from the back, and do so in matches against lesser opponents.  But in matches against equal or better opponents, players simply don't have the vision and first touch skill to do this consistently and successfully.  If I were the coach and I knew 80% of the time ball will not cleanly move past the halfway line or even my own 1/3, then building out from the back might not be the optimal strategy.

I play video like this  



  to my DD to show her what good passing looks like, and what possession soccer means (i.e. possess to score).  She admitted that her team never completed 44 consecutive passes, but she is sure they have done 14 in a row against tough competitions..............but I don't remember seeing it 

FWIW, we watched an NCAA match last night for about 10 minutes, but didn't see either team complete 14 consecutive passes either.


----------



## Grace T. (Aug 27, 2018)

Messi>CR7 said:


> What I have seen is that many U-little teams do practice building out from the back, and do so in matches against lesser opponents.  But in matches against equal or better opponents, players simply don't have the vision and first touch skill to do this consistently and successfully.  If I were the coach and I knew 80% of the time ball will not cleanly move past the halfway line or even my own 1/3, then building out from the back might not be the optimal strategy.


Yes, I'm sure this is part of it but I'm seeing even older silver and gold level high school teams doing it...DA and near DA might be different (haven't seen enough of those games to tell).  But if you are right that leaves two options: 1) let's not worry about it and just accept the kids are going to long ball it by default once the build out line is removed (in fact, maybe even remove the buildout line because the goalkeepers need to learn to punt and from the look of some of the '08 teams I saw many of them can't even do that properly)...the English don't seem to worry to much about it for example, and we saw their long ball style of play at the WC, 2) accept it's a problem and impose some version of the build out line into high school.  But I'm pretty convinced the half measure of the build out lines for the youngest hasn't accomplished what they intended.


----------



## timbuck (Aug 27, 2018)

Saw an 04 team this weekend where the coach said “don’t ever play the ball backwards.  Always go forward”. 
That was their style and it worked well for them.  Press hard and get it back into the attacking third within 2 touches.


----------



## mirage (Aug 27, 2018)

Messi>CR7 said:


> ......But in matches against equal or better opponents, players simply don't have the vision and first touch skill to do this consistently and successfully.  If I were the coach and I knew 80% of the time ball will not cleanly move past the halfway line or even my own 1/3, then building out from the back might not be the optimal strategy.........


This is precisely the reason why standings are not kept for DA for U14 and below.  The DA coaches will tell you that when players are learning how to play possession style game, the typical strong flight 1/Premier teams will press, and jump hard while out muscling the DA players trying to hold and possess the ball.  The result is that at younger ages, the traditionally built, over the top direct attack teams will beat possession style team almost every time (unless the possession team has superior ball skills and can play calm - which is not typical at below U14).

The silver lining is that by the time U16 rolls around, those players are far superior in moving the ball around and the physical differences are essentially gone.  Skills and tactics now paying off.

Of course most of this is ruined and all for not, once they are recruited to college ball.  Just a faster, stronger version of high school soccer......


----------

