# Guarantee to play 50% and small rosters?



## Deadpoolscores! (Oct 22, 2016)

Ok everyone what are you thoughts on this one...if there was a club out there that would guarantee that your son/daughter will play 50%  and the roster size would be small. Would you join that club? Or wouldn't because of the name of the club? I recently came across this and was surprised about this http://aysounited.org/ It claims that the coaches will be licensed just like any club, will be competing in the same league just like other clubs(league TBD), pay referees just like all the clubs. Would you join or just simply not because of the organization. This is something that just started and is going to grow next year...so what's more important now? What are your thoughts.


----------



## socalkdg (Oct 22, 2016)

I had heard about this.  They hope to draw from surrounding AYSO Extra teams.   The Inland Empire one hopes to have kids from Corona/Norco,  Riverside, Jurupa, Temecula, Moreno Valley, etc.  I've heard that the cost is more than what some of the local AYSO Extra coaches had hoped.  One of the problems for AYSO and Extra is losing Extra complete teams to club as the kids get better.  They are hoping some of the kids will now join this.


----------



## younothat (Oct 22, 2016)

AYSO does a good job at providing  programs & places  for young kids to learn &  play soccer at a very low cost locally.

Not sure for the SC area what "United" does beyond "Challenge"
https://coastsoccer.us/web/coastsoccer/clubs?YEAR=2016&CLUB=940&Send+Form=Go!
349- 327- 108  mostly bronze w/ some silver is a decent showing

50% playing time doesn't seem like a big deal, when your player starts not a real concern. Who are they trying to appeal to? Non-starters?

Is there a need for more bronze or 3rd level competitive clubs by another name?

Maybe there is a niche somewhere so hope this works out;   lower fees or something along those lines?  Coaches get paid less, fields are cheaper or what else gives?


----------



## mommato2girls (Oct 23, 2016)

My only issue with is that you tend to get tears with one or two superstars and the rest of the kids that were perhaps great at the Extra level but get clobbered by clubs. So yes you get 50% playing time, with the one or two great kids doing all the scoring and the rest of the kids just doing a mediocre job and then creating frustration for the team. I'm not sure how a team that has mandatory 50% play for little Suzie that attends half the practices, doesn't really want to be there but her parents love soccer is supposed to compete with a team of fully committed girls who spend their time getting privates and playing futsal. I love the idea of opening up soccer to kids who may not otherwise play but labeling it as a competitive club is misleading to parents and players that otherwise might not know. I love the Extra programs, I think they're great but I hate this push to have everyone play club soccer.


----------



## mirage (Oct 23, 2016)

I would not join the club or the team for my kids.

Makes playing time an entitlement and not earned.

Competition within the team for playing time only makes the players better.

If a player is playing less than 50% time on a team, he/she is on a wrong level team or some other issue.


----------



## timbuck (Oct 23, 2016)

I think there was thread about this already.  
AYSO United will be a nationally branded club within AYSO.  In So Cal, we already have Challenge in LA, Pacific Soccer Club in OC and Matrix in San Diego.  These are all programs that follow AYSO philosophies.
I haven't seen the costs yet for AYSO United and from what I have heard, it won't be coming to OC until at least 2018.  I know the cost for PSC is about $1,000 for the Fall Season,  which includes 3 tournaments, State Cup and uniforms.
If you read my earlier post, you'll know that I am a current AYSO Extra coach of a Gu12 and Gu110 team.  It's been a great program, but my Gu12's have sort of "outgrown" it and we'll be making a move once the fall season ends.  I wish this wasn't the case, but players tend to move on around this age and the competition dwindles a bit.  Not quite sure where we will wind up yet.  Regardless of where we go, I'll likely still coach in some capacity, but I won't get paid.
I am a firm believer that in kids sports, the kids on  the team should be playing in games for development.  Especially if you have a team that requires tryouts.  If a kid isn't good enough to get a decent amount of time on the field, don't pick them for your team (attendance and discipline issues are a different story and there should be no "guarantees" of anything if a kid is an issue).
A roster of 16 on a "B" team, where 4 kids get to play a few minutes a game is crap.
Just for fun I actually applied to be the Western Region DOC for AYSO United.  Not because I'm qualified, but because I believe in the organization and it would be cool to make it a full time career (this corporate America gig is cool, but if someone can pay me enough to teach soccer to kids, then I'd jump in a heartbeat)   
The current Challenge, Matrix and PSC teams will continue to exist in their current form until at least next Fall.
Coaches for these programs will need to have at least the same minimum license that any other Cal South coach will have.  They aren't going to take beginner dad coach with a "big kick" philosophy and give them a coaching shirt.  But, just like most clubs, it will really depend on who the coach is.  
If there's a way to keep talented kids playing soccer with average/above average coaching at a lower cost, then I'm in favor.
With AYSO United coming up and squeezing B and C level teams and Development Academy offering fully funded programs for the uber-talented, I see this as a good thing for Youth Soccer.  
And if you have a Flight 2 2004 team, hit me up for a friendly in November/December.


----------



## zebrafish (Oct 23, 2016)

timbuck said:


> I am a current AYSO Extra coach of a Gu12 and _Gu110_ team.


Recruiting for a GU110 team must be brutal!

Timbuck, spending his nights trolling the nursing homes, looking for that gomer -- er, gamer -- who's got a step on the competition. Hell, can she even take a step? Don't bother yelling, coach. They can't hear you anyway! What has soccer come to? Gives a whole new meaning to end-of-practice gassers.

Go grannies!


----------



## Soccer43 (Oct 23, 2016)

Just because an AYSO coach has a basic entry level license does not mean they are any good.  I know of one region where a couple long time AYSO coaches got the entry level license so they could start AYSO club teams and they are terrible coaches.  They don't have the skills and don't know how to help highly motivated and competitive players get to where they want to go.

Generally the AYSO approach and philosophy of everyone plays and we all support each other doesn't fit in the club scene.  These long timer AYSO coaches are uncomfortable with the competitive nature that is necessary to be successful in club soccer.  I have found that they just don't get that players (yes, even the girls) are highly motivated and very competitive and that type of play is "fun" for them.  They are trying to keep players in AYSO by moving to a club scenario but keeping the same AYSO philosphy.  

The strong players will get frustrated that their team is not more successful, the less skilled players will get discouraged and both types of players will leave the team - strong players to bigger clubs and stronger teams, better coaching and less skilled players back to AYSO.


----------



## timbuck (Oct 23, 2016)

zebrafish said:


> Recruiting for a GU110 team must be brutal!
> 
> Timbuck, spending his nights trolling the nursing homes, looking for that gamer -- not gomer-- who's got a step on the competition. Hell, can she even take a step? Don't bother yelling, coach. They can't hear you anyway! What has soccer come to? Gives a whole new meaning to end-of-practice gassers.
> 
> Go grannies!


Awesome.  Dammit. I actually proofread this a few times before I posted it. Wonder if we can get Depends to sponsor us?


----------



## timbuck (Oct 23, 2016)

Soccer43 said:


> Just because an AYSO coach has a basic entry level license does not mean they are any good.  I know of one region where a couple long time AYSO coaches got the entry level license so they could start AYSO club teams and they are terrible coaches.  They don't have the skills and don't know how to help highly motivated and competitive players get to where they want to go.
> 
> Generally the AYSO approach and philosophy of everyone plays and we all support each other doesn't fit in the club scene.  These long timer AYSO coaches are uncomfortable with the competitive nature that is necessary to be successful in club soccer.  I have found that they just don't get that players (yes, even the girls) are highly motivated and very competitive and that type of play is "fun" for them.  They are trying to keep players in AYSO by moving to a club scenario but keeping the same AYSO philosphy.
> 
> The strong players will get frustrated that their team is not more successful, the less skilled players will get discouraged and both types of players will leave the team - strong players to bigger clubs and stronger teams, better coaching and less skilled players back to AYSO.


Because this doesn't happen at any club, right?
There are horrible coaches at every club around town. And some really good ones too.


----------



## zebrafish (Oct 23, 2016)

Soccer43 said:


> Just because an AYSO coach has a basic entry level license does not mean they are any good.  I know of one region where a couple long time AYSO coaches got the entry level license so they could start AYSO club teams and they are terrible coaches.  They don't have the skills and don't know how to help highly motivated and competitive players get to where they want to go.
> 
> Generally the AYSO approach and philosophy of everyone plays and we all support each other doesn't fit in the club scene.  These long timer AYSO coaches are uncomfortable with the competitive nature that is necessary to be successful in club soccer.  I have found that they just don't get that players (yes, even the girls) are highly motivated and very competitive and that type of play is "fun" for them.  They are trying to keep players in AYSO by moving to a club scenario but keeping the same AYSO philosphy.
> 
> The strong players will get frustrated that their team is not more successful, the less skilled players will get discouraged and both types of players will leave the team - strong players to bigger clubs and stronger teams, better coaching and less skilled players back to AYSO.


There is some truth to all this. However, I've seen horrible coaches in club environments and I've seen fantastic coaches in the Extra program. Passing an "E" license evaluation means very little in and of itself. I hope the AYSO program succeeds, because I think it will put some back pressure on the club system that IMHO favors the balance of the club over the player in so many ways that is not healthy.


----------



## Daniel Miller (Oct 23, 2016)

Depends upon what you want.  I like competitive teams and clubs.  AYSO Challenge averages 1.45 points per game, and Pacific averages 1.35.  Both a just under the average, but definitely respectable.  Both are primarily bronze-level programs, peppered with a few silver teams, and almost no silver elites or above.  So if you are looking at the highest level of play, these programs would not be for you.


----------



## Holliday88 (Oct 23, 2016)

Daniel Miller said:


> Depends upon what you want.  I like competitive teams and clubs.  AYSO Challenge averages 1.45 points per game, and Pacific averages 1.35.  Both a just under the average, but definitely respectable.  Both are primarily bronze-level programs, peppered with a few silver teams, and almost no silver elites or above.  So if you are looking at the highest level of play, these programs would not be for you.


What do you mean by "1.45 points per game", etc?


----------



## jrcaesar (Oct 23, 2016)

Adding to what @Soccer43 is writing, I've seen several regional Extra and All-Star teams move to club in recent years because teams want to stay together, etc. What I've seen is the top players and families actually stay with the coach (who is competitive him/herself) and then new players are recruited to fill out the roster and replace the weaker players after the first year. The "best" players have already left AYSO. Guessing this will happen with @timbuck, and that is ok - girls will be better off in an environment they already thrive in.


----------



## Daniel Miller (Oct 23, 2016)

Holliday88 said:


> What do you mean by "1.45 points per game", etc?


All leagues give 3 points to the winning team and one point per team for a tie.  1.45 points per game means that the teams are winning a little less than half their games, on average.


----------



## Wez (Oct 23, 2016)

Deadpoolscores! said:


> if there was a club out there that would guarantee that your son/daughter will play 50%  and the roster size would be small. Would you join that club?


If you are worried about play time for your kid, is it possible you are playing above your kids skill level?


----------



## timbuck (Oct 23, 2016)

I'm pretty sir that Development Academy also mandates 50% playing time across their 10 month season. 
(Someone fact check me on this. I did a quick search and couldn't find the article I thought I read. )


----------



## Eusebio (Oct 23, 2016)

Wez said:


> If you are worried about play time for your kid, is it possible you are playing above your kids skill level?


After your child has been playing a few years, it gets easier to assess their skill level relative to flights and nearby clubs. But for the first couple of years, it may not necessarily be obvious.  I don't think the average U8 or U9 parent is scouting dozens of U-Little games before picking a club to try out at. Most parents rely on the clubs to accurately place (or refuse) a spot on a team for their child. 

In the past, most competitive/travel team coaches had a single team per age group and only selected players that could meet the level. But now with many clubs their try-out process is just about filling out a quota of roster spots. The try-out process has become so rudimentary (endless big scrimmages) that many players are poorly placed. And often times clubs ask parents to sign contracts and pay huge club fees before even the first practice, so parents have no idea really how their kid measures up to the rest of the team. 

Also to complicate things further, even if you know for sure that your kid is a "Silver" level player, on one Flight 2 team he might be a starter but on another Flight 2 team, he could be a bench warmer. A lot depends on the coach. I remember 5-6 years ago with my son, during the try-out season we tried out at 4 different clubs. Two clubs wanted my son on their bronze teams. One of the bigger clubs wanted my son on their strong Silver team. And another club recommended that my son play in their Rec league and forget competitive. My son had good technique and vision for his age, but he also was very small. Some coaches saw a pip-squeak rec/bronze player, others saw a potential impact playmaker. For a normal parent who may not have much knowledge of soccer, how would they know who's right?

I'm not going to get into the poor talent identification ability of many US youth coaches. That's another topic. But coaches and clubs get it wrong many times. So I definitely think at least in the Silver/Bronze levels, clubs should have a minimum 50% playing time policy for youngers. If a coach feels a player isn't capable of playing at lease half a game, then they shouldn't pick them in the first place period. Having 3-4 ten year-olds sitting on the bench playing less than 40% is just lazy coaching. If parents are paying $1500-2500 in club fees, expensive training kits, and a half-dozen tournaments, then they are entitled to a minimum of development for their child. 

Save the short sub rotations for the Gold levels and olders. And even with guaranteed 50% playing time, the kids can still earn starting spots and 60-100% playing time with good performances and focus in training. Having guaranteed 50% playing time alone doesn't turn soccer into an entitlement program. But it may ease the trend of clubs essentially swindling naive uLittle parents to fund elite programs. If Silver/Bronze teams are going to fund elite teams, then parents should at least get their money's worth. And local Silver/Bronze teams should be jumping at the chance to offer full development of their entire rosters instead of mimicking the big clubs short sub rotations.


----------



## Deadpoolscores! (Oct 24, 2016)

Based off the feedback it seems that there should be clause for the AYSO United...if the players does not commit as much as they should they should play less and not be rewarded that minimum playing time. Also selecting well experience coaches not newbies would help as well. Hopefully whoever are the Director of Coaches for each area does a good job in selecting good coaches...also pricing something I didn't touch base. I agree that is something they should be making more affordable. Great job everyone on feedbacks, so it looks like AYSO United has its work cutout.


----------



## Deadpoolscores! (Oct 24, 2016)

Wez said:


> If you are worried about play time for your kid, is it possible you are playing above your kids skill level?


Personally I am not because there done with soccer but my nieces are presently playing for a Academy team. I just like to read peoples opinion on this subject,  do parents like the idea of 50% guarantee vs. someone that looks for the big club whether their child less then 50% and are in a big club. Also on the AYSO Challenge seems to be volunteered base, so it may make sense why they cant get passed a silver elite level. Would coaches that are getting paid now by AYSO attract good coaches? Would the director know how to select the write coaches only time will tell.


----------



## mahrez (Oct 25, 2016)

Was told united will be holding tryouts in January for clubs in LA and Orange County. coached by professional trainers (not mom & pop coaches).   Not sure what pro trainers means, contacting out to a organization?  Not the British again? Challenger outfit that runs camps for ayso?


----------



## mahrez (Oct 25, 2016)

timbuck said:


> I'm pretty sir that Development Academy also mandates 50% playing time across their 10 month season.
> (Someone fact check me on this. I did a quick search and couldn't find the article I thought I read. )


DA has real mandates on playing time for the younger ages; DA minimum standards of having U-12 50% starts, U-13 players play in 50% of minutes per month and for U-14 to follow the rotation format of having players start in a minimum of 25% of their games per year.   

Does'nt always work out that way when the roster is 18+ so what typically happens as you move up in age is subs get more minutes vs less competitive teams or in showcases to come close to the mins and don't play much if at all vs top comp.


----------



## beastmodesmom (Oct 25, 2016)

My daughter is currently playing on a AYSO Challenge team.  She turned 10 this month.  The coaches are not paid just like regular or Extra AYSO coaches.  They're still competitive, driven and successful coaches.  Fall season cost us $340 plus $40 ref fees.  We are lucky though.  Just have a spectacular group of girls.  Playing time is never an issue.  Our girls come out when a break is needed and everyone gets plenty of time. Our AYSO region did away with the Extra program because it sucked the life out of the core program.  Tournament season was hit or miss with a competitive tournament.  Our girls got tired of winning and not being challenged.  They're still young and the Challenge program fits our team's needs well.  This is an 05 team of 15.  All but two of our girls are 06 birth year.  They are holding down the Bronze North bracket fairly impressively.


----------



## jrcaesar (Oct 25, 2016)

beastmodesmom said:


> Our AYSO region did away with the Extra program because it sucked the life out of the core program.


^^^Yep.^^^

As to other points above, some posters maybe are missing that these new AYSO teams are/will be playing on the Club circuit against your kids' teams. These won't be players who aren't committed and miss practices. Benefit to families is reduced cost and playing time philosophy, although most coaches should be playing all their kids anyway (or why offer the kid a spot?).*
_
* yes, I know why: club profits_


----------



## TangoCity (Oct 25, 2016)

Just curious - why does the Extra program "suck the life" out of the core program but the Challenge program does not?  Both pull from AYSO core.  I'm happy for the AYSO kids who get to play at a higher level in Coast Soccer League but I still don't like the idea of having parent (mostly daddy) coaches.   I wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole.  And I'm not sure how far into higher levels of competitive soccer AYSO should be going considering what its mission and vision statements are.  Many of the AYSO board members that I know, complain that the Challenge program is taking away a lot of the time and resources away from the core program.  Too much focus on empire building and club envy.


----------



## jrcaesar (Oct 25, 2016)

Concur with @TangoCity. To illustrate for others, one reason Extra sucks life is that for every new team of 10 players that are formed, an equal number of future dad/mom AYSO coaches and region volunteers are taken out of the pool as well. I can speak to when my son's team formed where 6 of the previous season's coaches had kids on the new team - region lost 5 U10 coaches in one fell swoop. For a region, in addition to dealing with "empire building" (well put!), they're spending good time and financial/field resources against a program that doesn't pay for itself in terms of volunteer-hours that lift up the overall region.


----------



## beastmodesmom (Oct 25, 2016)

TangoCity said:


> Just curious - why does the Extra program "suck the life" out of the core program but the Challenge program does not?  Both pull from AYSO core.  I'm happy for the AYSO kids who get to play at a higher level in Coast Soccer League but I still don't like the idea of having parent (mostly daddy) coaches.   I wouldn't touch that with a ten foot pole.  And I'm not sure how far into higher levels of competitive soccer AYSO should be going considering what its mission and vision statements are.  Many of the AYSO board members that I know, complain that the Challenge program is taking away a lot of the time and resources away from the core program.  Too much focus on empire building and club envy.


  I was speaking pre-Challenge so excuse my misspoken words.  I completely agree Challenge is the "new Extra".  It also pulls from the core.  Our Extra parents didn't contribute volunteers to the core and it's continuing in Challenge.  I have older children in the core and I'm a Board Member as well so I see it.  As to Daddy coaches.. I guess it's been a huge benefit for us and not a bad thing.  Our girls are 7-1-1 (loss 0-1), playing up an age group and hanging in first place.  Not sure I'd fix what isn't broken.  Looking forward to seeing them play against some silver or higher talent.


----------



## timbuck (Oct 25, 2016)

What if these daddy coached kids that only pay $500 per year beat our team with the ex-D1 Coach that we pay $2,000 per year plus mileage and hotel expenses?  And what if their whole team actually plays significant minutes.  That would be HORRIBLE!!!!
I'm not saying that core programs don't get hurt by Extra/Challenge/PSC/ETC, but when clubs starting fielding multiple team in Flight 3, they've jumped into the rec level players anyway.  Good for AYSO to put up a fight.


----------



## socalkdg (Oct 25, 2016)

beastmodesmom said:


> I was speaking pre-Challenge so excuse my misspoken words.  I completely agree Challenge is the "new Extra".  It also pulls from the core.  Our Extra parents didn't contribute volunteers to the core and it's continuing in Challenge.  I have older children in the core and I'm a Board Member as well so I see it.  As to Daddy coaches.. I guess it's been a huge benefit for us and not a bad thing.  Our girls are 7-1-1 (loss 0-1), playing up an age group and hanging in first place.  Not sure I'd fix what isn't broken.  Looking forward to seeing them play against some silver or higher talent.


Our complete Extra team went club, thus not much different then having a Challenge team, which our coach wanted in the first place but the district said no to at the time.  Keeping kids together, having fun, providing great training, good competition at a price almost any income can afford, can happen a lot of different ways.  Great to have options.   

Now to a more important thing, we play AVFC in our first round game for League Cup, scouting report beastmodesmom?


----------



## beastmodesmom (Oct 25, 2016)

socalkdg said:


> Now to a more important thing, we play AVFC in our first round game for League Cup, scouting report beastmodesmom?


  Well, they're 0-9-0  GS 2 GA 52


----------



## TangoCity (Oct 25, 2016)

timbuck said:


> What if these daddy coached kids that only pay $500 per year beat our team with the ex-D1 Coach that we pay $2,000 per year plus mileage and hotel expenses?  And what if their whole team actually plays significant minutes.  That would be HORRIBLE!!!!
> I'm not saying that core programs don't get hurt by Extra/Challenge/PSC/ETC, but when clubs starting fielding multiple team in Flight 3, they've jumped into the rec level players anyway.  Good for AYSO to put up a fight.


It is not a win/loss thing for me, why I wouldn't let my kid join a club team that had a parent coach.  I'm sure some of them are more competent at coaching than coaches that don't have kids on the team.  I just don't want to risk the whole drama of the coach/kid combination on the team.  I will do my due diligence and look elsewhere and let others take that risk with daddy-ball.


----------



## Soccer43 (Oct 29, 2016)

timbuck said:


> Because this doesn't happen at any club, right?
> There are horrible coaches at every club around town. And some really good ones too.


The point was not whether the coaches are good or bad.  Trust me, we have had all the horrible club coaches that others have had.  My point was the philosophy.  Maybe this isn't the case in other regions but in our AYSO region there was high level of negativity about the concept of competition.  

The administrators pushed the idea of "fun" without understanding that, for competitive players, winning and competing *is fun*.  They were more focused on everyone having no adversity to face instead of really supporting one of the principles of AYSO -"player development".

The board members were negative and derogatory against coaches and girls that wanted to be competitive and yet when playoffs came around they were fanatical about how great one or another team was and how they were "winning" - very hypocritical.  

As a parent with daughters it was disgusting to see the condescending attitude about girls being competitive and being critical of the girl's coaches if they pushed the girls to achieve.  The attitude was very different about the boys.  "Girls are sweet and delicate flowers so never push them or make them feel bad as they can't handle that."

Through adversity comes strength and true self esteem not through cheering that someone just showed up in a jersey that morning.


----------



## zebrafish (Oct 30, 2016)

Soccer43 said:


> The point was not whether the coaches are good or bad.  Trust me, we have had all the horrible club coaches that others have had.  My point was the philosophy.  Maybe this isn't the case in other regions but in our AYSO region there was high level of negativity about the concept of competition.


I think that most AYSO Extra programs don't adhere to this philosophy to that extreme; however, I would say this philosophy is very prevalent in AYSO rec programs.

My kid has played both Extra and club soccer at younger girls' ages. Extra games are competitive-- not any less than club games that I have seen. I can also say that the local Extra league (at least at girls' younger ages) is equivalent to tier 3, and in some cases good teams are tier 2 quality. Extra is less of a slog as there are true seasons off (Extra has a fall and spring season) with a real summer off. As kids get older, Extra teams seem to degrade in the quality of soccer (kids go to club teams, they aren't training as much of the year-- for good or bad, etc.)

The biggest difference I have seen as my kid has played on a club for the past year is a whole lot more a-hole coach behavior-- like, running up scores to 15+ to nothing, etc. Just classless. There are also more intense parents-- like it matters to them more than their kid. That and club soccer has your kid playing for more of the year. But you can get really good quality soccer and coaching in the Extra program. For a kid with a lot of activities or who likes playing other sports, it can be a really good fit.


----------



## mommato2girls (Oct 30, 2016)

I have an Extra player and her coach is great, the team is doing well. But here is the problem. It's not competitive enough for them. Their games are all blowouts and half the team wants to split and go to club and the other half, well the parents don't want the commitment. So unfortunately it's kind of a dead end league. They already play with a year older kids more than half the time so now off to tryouts we will go. I'm bummed bc as others mentioned it's a good fit to allow other sports and activities.


----------



## timbuck (Oct 30, 2016)

mommato2girls said:


> I have an Extra player and her coach is great, the team is doing well. But here is the problem. It's not competitive enough for them. Their games are all blowouts and half the team wants to split and go to club and the other half, well the parents don't want the commitment. So unfortunately it's kind of a dead end league. They already play with a year older kids more than half the time so now off to tryouts we will go. I'm bummed bc as others mentioned it's a good fit to allow other sports and activities.


Why not stick together and move to a club?  There are lots of options.


----------



## mommato2girls (Oct 31, 2016)

timbuck said:


> Why not stick together and move to a club?  There are lots of options.


Not enough girls have the interest or the parents I should say. Plus the birthdays don't align. The team will be split up. What are the options? I'd love to hear them and discuss them with the team.


----------



## Daniel Miller (Oct 31, 2016)

mommato2girls said:


> Not enough girls have the interest or the parents I should say. Plus the birthdays don't align. The team will be split up. What are the options? I'd love to hear them and discuss them with the team.


You have not said what area you live in, so I cannot tell my thoughts about which clubs are the best and worst in those neighborhoods.  If you live in the OC or in LA county, then you should go to the coast league website or the SCDSL website and look at their "club" listings.  Then you need to figure out which clubs are in your driving range.  Then you have to make an honest decision about where your daughter fits in her ability and potential, and consider your goals.  If she shows great potential and you want to see how far she can go, then your best option is to choose a club that develops competitive teams, and avoid clubs that don't.  Figure out which teams fit that profile.  Then, try out for a few teams (2 or 3), and see if your daughter fits in, and if you believe she will progress with the coach.  Take about 4 weeks to do this and don't be in a rush just to join the first team that offers.  

If you want to post your general neighborhood, I'm certain many other posters on this board will offer their thoughts on quality clubs you might consider, and clubs you should avoid.  If you want an idea of which girls' clubs are competitive or not, here is my Coast League list from a few weeks back.  You need to consider the SCDSL clubs, also.  Now, this list has some limitations, so you can't just go by it.  For example, the La Mirada club is ranked number 1, but it's teams are mostly playing in bronze brackets, and it is not considered a "powerhouse" club by any means.  The Fullerton Rangers are down at #15, but that club has been putting out powerful girls teams at the younger ages for the last several years.  Each club has its own reputation.  I strongly suggest you avoid any club near the bottom of the list.  Your chances of having a good experience there are small. 

If you want to send me a message, feel free.

1 …. La Mirada FC…. 6 …. 28-6-2 …. 2.39
2 …. L.A. Galaxy San Diego…. 10 …. 35-7-10 …. 2.21
3 …. Apple Valley SC…. 9 …. 41-15-5 …. 2.11
4 …. NHB…. 8 …. 31-12-3 …. 2.09
5 …. Eagles…. 19 …. 67-29-15 …. 1.95
6 …. California Premier League…. 5 …. 19-10-2 …. 1.91
7 …. Total Futbol Academy…. 7 …. 21-13-0 …. 1.85
8 …. FRAM…. 23 …. 68-36-20 …. 1.81
9 …. Celtic…. 12 …. 39-22-9 …. 1.8
10 …. Madrid Premier SC…. 8 …. 26-14-8 …. 1.79
11 …. Canyon FC…. 6 …. 19-12-3 …. 1.76
12 …. Empire SC…. 8 …. 24-14-7 …. 1.76
13 …. Albion SC OC…. 6 …. 20-13-4 …. 1.73
14 …. Riverside MGFM…. 13 …. 42-26-11 …. 1.73
15 …. Fullerton Rangers…. 13 …. 37-26-4 …. 1.72
16 …. Roadrunner United FC…. 5 …. 16-11-2 …. 1.72
17 …. Central California Aztecs…. 11 …. 35-22-12 …. 1.71
18 …. South Valley SC…. 13 …. 36-24-8 …. 1.71
19 …. Futbol Foundation of SC…. 9 …. 25-17-5 …. 1.71
20 …. Team USA…. 5 …. 15-9-6 …. 1.71
21 …. Oceanside Breakers… 5 …. 15-10-3 …. 1.71
22 …. AYSO Challenge…. 40 …. 122-80-28 …. 1.71
23 …. Oxnard United SC…. 7 …. 18-12-6 …. 1.67
24 …. SoCal Academy…. 6 …. 18-14-4 …. 1.67
25 …. Newbury Park SC…. 6 …. 16-12-5 …. 1.61
26 …. Santa Monica United…. 15 …. 41-33-9 …. 1.59
27 …. Union Indepeniente FC…. 7 …. 18-14-5 …. 1.59
28 …. L.A. Galaxy Bakersfield…. 9 …. 25-21-7 …. 1.55
29 …. Simi Valley FC Premier…. 7 …. 19-16-5 …. 1.55
30 …. Coastal Valley SC…. 18 …. 48-41-12 …. 1.54
31 …. Inland Empire Surf…. 42 …. 106-90-36 …. 1.53
32 …. Kickers Soccer Club…. 6 …. 15-13-5 …. 1.52
33 …. Pacific Soccer Club…. 10 …. 29-27-9 …. 1.48
34 …. Santa Barbara SC…. 11 …. 27-24-11 …. 1.48
35 …. Ventura County Fusion…. 10 …. 21-19-8 …. 1.48
36 …. Desert Elite FC…. 7 …. 19-19-4 …. 1.45
37 …. San Luis Obispo SC…. 7 …. 16-15-7 …. 1.45
38 …. Oxnard Wave…. 9 …. 25-26-3 …. 1.44
39 …. High Desert Premier…. 7 …. 20-19-8 …. 1.44
40 …. Inland United SC…. 9 …. 21-21-7 …. 1.43
41 …. North Valley SC…. 7 …. 15-16-3 …. 1.41
42 …. Rialto Fire…. 10 …. 24-25-7 …. 1.41
43 …. Inland Empire Premier…. 5 …. 10-10-6 …. 1.38
44 …. Desert United SC…. 6 …. 16-18-7 …. 1.34
45 …. YASC Spartans FC…. 17 …. 40-46-17 …. 1.33
46 …. California Elite SC…. 6 …. 16-19-6 …. 1.32
47 …. BYSC Corona…. 17 …. 38-45-16 …. 1.31
48 …. FC Long Beach…. 11 …. 27-33-10 …. 1.3
49 …. Simi Valley SC (Eclipse)…. 17 …. 43-54-12 …. 1.29
50 …. Palm Desert SC…. 5 …. 9-11-5 …. 1.28
51 …. Newcastle United…. 6 …. 15-20-3 …. 1.26
52 …. AC Brea…. 13 …. 27-37-5 …. 1.24
53 …. Crown City United…. 11 …. 21-31-9 …. 1.18
54 …. MSA FC…. 6 …. 12-18-3 …. 1.18
55 …. FC Golden State OC…. 6 …. 12-18-6 …. 1.17
56 …. Wolves FC…. 5 …. 8-13-2 …. 1.13
57 …. Milan Academy…. 12 …. 27-45-10 …. 1.11
58 …. Orcutt United SL…. 6 …. 11-19-4 …. 1.09
59 …. Albion SC…. 11 …. 24-32-6 …. 1.08
60 …. Ventura FC…. 9 …. 17-30-8 …. 1.07
61 …. L.A. Galaxy Conejo Valley…. 24 …. 43-76-21 …. 1.07
62 …. Orange County Premier…. 15 …. 29-46-9 …. 1.04
63 …. L.A. Premier…. 16 …. 25-47-8 …. 1.04
64 …. FC Golden State…. 10 …. 14-28-9 …. 1.01
65 …. Greater Long Beach SC…. 9 …. 15-30-11 …. 1.01
66 …. L.A. Salsa SC…. 5 …. 8-17-4 …. 0.97
67 …. Westminster SA…. 8 …. 12-25-2 …. 0.97
68 …. Claremont Stars…. 5 …. 8-17-2 …. 0.96
69 …. Necaxa USA FC…. 6 …. 10-25-2 …. 0.86
70 …. Corinthians SC…. 11 …. 14-44-2 …. 0.73
71 …. Valley United SC…. 7 …. 6-21-4 …. 0.71
72 …. Autobahn…. 5 …. 4-19-5 …. 0.61
73 …. Hollywood FC…. 6 …. 4-27-1 …. 0.41


----------



## timbuck (Oct 31, 2016)

mommato2girls said:


> Not enough girls have the interest or the parents I should say. Plus the birthdays don't align. The team will be split up. What are the options? I'd love to hear them and discuss them with the team.


What area are you in?


----------



## mommato2girls (Oct 31, 2016)

Thanks for the responses, we are in the San Diego area. The problem is not the shortage of clubs. She's been asked to come out by different clubs in our area. I like the Extra program for her age and like that it wasn't full year commitment like playing club. Ideally I'd like to delay her playing club until u10/u11, if she decides that is what she wants to focus her energy on. Right now she loves multiple sports and activities and I feel like it is so early to specialize. She just happens to be a pretty darn good soccer player. And the Extra program in our area I guess is not that strong/competitive. Which really is not fun, playing lopsided games and cheering for goals after the 6th, 7th, 8th goal just feels wrong. I feel like our options are limited. But thank you for the responses, I appreciate the willingness to help!


----------



## Laced (Oct 31, 2016)

timbuck said:


> Why not stick together and move to a club?  There are lots of options.


Soccer is an individual sport played in a team setting. It's perplexing that this concept can't seem to take root  in our culture that values individualism. Somehow, team success always comes before individual development. The American brand of basketball is all about individual excellence. That's why we dominate.


----------



## Laced (Oct 31, 2016)

mommato2girls said:


> Thanks for the responses, we are in the San Diego area. The problem is not the shortage of clubs. She's been asked to come out by different clubs in our area. I like the Extra program for her age and like that it wasn't full year commitment like playing club. Ideally I'd like to delay her playing club until u10/u11, if she decides that is what she wants to focus her energy on. Right now she loves multiple sports and activities and I feel like it is so early to specialize. She just happens to be a pretty darn good soccer player. And the Extra program in our area I guess is not that strong/competitive. Which really is not fun, playing lopsided games and cheering for goals after the 6th, 7th, 8th goal just feels wrong. I feel like our options are limited. But thank you for the responses, I appreciate the willingness to help!


AYSO and club don't conflict. If your kid values friendship more than winning, if your goal for her is not to be a pro player or to help her get into college, AYSO's everyone-plays philosophy offers a great option. And makes all the financial sense in the world. If, however, you think she has what it takes to go to be competitive, club is an expensive, but nonetheless better option. Bragging right should never be a consideration. You're right that right around U10/11 is the time to make a decision.


----------



## Daniel Miller (Oct 31, 2016)

Laced said:


> Soccer is an individual sport played in a team setting. It's perplexing that this concept can't seem to take root  in our culture that values individualism. Somehow, team success always comes before individual development. The American brand of basketball is all about individual excellence. That's why we dominate.


That is an interesting take, Laced, and one worthy of debate.  Personally, I value team play over individual play.  These are my reasons.  First, soccer is a "team" sport.  Teams perform better when all players are involved.  Players have more fun when all players are involved.  Team spirit and team retention is higher when players bond as a team.  Having a "team first" mentality improves lifelong cooperative skills and develops social intelligence.

If you have one of those 1 in 100 kids who outpaces his opponents by miles, then my suggestion is to put him on an older team.  I think he will improve his game by competing against older players to a far greater extent than he would by just running over and around kids who cannot keep up.  

Consider what you are looking for in the long term.  The US Men's National Team adds about 10 players to its roster pool every year.  Not all of them play.  For the 2013/2014 season, USSF says that 3,055,148 kids played, not counting AYSO and non-affiliated programs, about 52% of which were boys.  If your son is, say, a 2005 player, he is in a USSF pool of about 250,000 boys.  His odds of making a USMNT roster pool for a 2005 player is 1 in 25,000.  Statistically, after rounding, that is 0%.  

For most families, the "team concept" values obtained by playing on "team oriented" teams will have a far greater impact on a player than being the most-dominant player at age 11.  Perhaps that is why some of us backward Americans believe "team-first" is a better approach than "train the star, not the team."

Finally, I can't accept your basketball analogy.  In the NBA, you may have a point about it being a "star's league."  The NBA alters the rules to help increase offense, and therefore creates "stars" as a matter of policy.  In college and all lower levels, most championship teams play a "team-oriented" style.  Look at the UCLA teams in the 60s and 70s, and the Indiana teams in the 70s and 80s.  Look at the North Carolina and Duke teams since the 80s.  All these teams played zone defenses and motion-style offenses.  (True, though, they also had a lot of star talent.)


----------



## Laced (Oct 31, 2016)

Daniel Miller said:


> That is an interesting take, Laced, and one worthy of debate.  Personally, I value team play over individual play.  These are my reasons.  First, soccer is a "team" sport.  Teams perform better when all players are involved.  Players have more fun when all players are involved.  Team spirit and team retention is higher when players bond as a team.  Having a "team first" mentality improves lifelong cooperative skills and develops social intelligence.
> 
> If you have one of those 1 in 100 kids who outpaces his opponents by miles, then my suggestion is to put him on an older team.  I think he will improve his game by competing against older players to a far greater extent than he would by just running over and around kids who cannot keep up.
> 
> ...


You mentioned a lot of things. Your reasoning is a bit circular. Teams perform "better" because you assign greater value to teams winning. Kids have more fun when they juke an opponent. Kids, or adults for that matter, forget scores in a week or two, but they, and us adults as well, sure will forever talk about the time when we megged someone. Goals is only one way to keep score.

If you think long term, you cannot take your team's wins to scouts or tryouts. What you can bring is your comfort on the ball. Let me give you a specific example. When a defender has the ball facing his own goal with two forwards on his back, what does our coach always tell the player to do? Kick it out of bounds. It's the safest play for the team, but the kid is deprived of a chance to learn to get out of the jam by turning, but dribbling out of the jam, in a real-game pressure situation. If I were to coach a team one day, I'll tell my players to never kick the ball out of bounds in that situation. If you lose the ball and the opponent scores, let it pain you. Let it motivate you at the next practice to learn to feint and turn. To learn to dribble past not one but two opponents. To learn to look up and see passing options. The goal would never bother me as a coach. The option to kick it out of bounds is always there at age 9 or 19. You don't need me to teach you that.

As to the basketball analogy, characterization is meaningless unless we have the same basis for comparison. Compared with Euro style of basketball, the American way is always more individualistic. More dribbling. More dunks. More crossovers. They don't develop these skills because they want to pass, pass, pass for fear of losing possession. What they fail to do, at a very young age, is to learn the individual skills that give them swagger.


----------



## Bootizila (Nov 1, 2016)

Any mandate that states that each player play the same amounts of minutes is certain to fail.  The AYSO Challange (AYSO United) program should be very sucessful, but not because its 50% Garanteed policy.  When the bullets start flying, trust me that 50% deal will go out the window for most teams.  Yes, you will not see situations like on Too many "Club" teams where little johnny rarely plays, and in fact is only on the team to offfset the coaches/club fees.  Many of the better coaches/teams (not a function of flight/level/got soccer) do give all their players ample playing time.   Even within the AYSO environment, coaches unfortunatly bend their own "Everyone Plays" rules.  That said many of these teams will be very sucessful.  They will see a return of many players "lost" to club soccer. You will also see some players will play 85-100% of the time, and other players that may actually play apx 25-50%, be it by self exclussion or otherwise.  In addition, once this program picks up and you begin to see many elite AYSO United teams, be it nationl league or  National cup/olders they will then enter a world where subs are very limited.  This will be a hinderance to AYSO United teams that want have a 50% play rate for all players, and maintain competiveness.  But trust me you will see these teams at very high levels in csl and scdsl.  And guess what then?  They will bitch and moan about DA, ECNL, and under teams stealing "their" players.  And the world turns...


----------



## Bootizila (Nov 1, 2016)

Laced said:


> You mentioned a lot of things. Your reasoning is a bit circular. Teams perform "better" because you assign greater value to teams winning. Kids have more fun when they juke an opponent. Kids, or adults for that matter, forget scores in a week or two, but they, and us adults as well, sure will forever talk about the time when we megged someone. Goals is only one way to keep score.
> 
> If you think long term, you cannot take your team's wins to scouts or tryouts. What you can bring is your comfort on the ball. Let me give you a specific example. When a defender has the ball facing his own goal with two forwards on his back, what does our coach always tell the player to do? Kick it out of bounds. It's the safest play for the team, but the kid is deprived of a chance to learn to get out of the jam by turning, but dribbling out of the jam, in a real-game pressure situation. If I were to coach a team one day, I'll tell my players to never kick the ball out of bounds in that situation. If you lose the ball and the opponent scores, let it pain you. Let it motivate you at the next practice to learn to feint and turn. To learn to dribble past not one but two opponents. To learn to look up and see passing options. The goal would never bother me as a coach. The option to kick it out of bounds is always there at age 9 or 19. You don't need me to teach you that.
> 
> As to the basketball analogy, characterization is meaningless unless we have the same basis for comparison. Compared with Euro style of basketball, the American way is always more individualistic. More dribbling. More dunks. More crossovers. They don't develop these skills because they want to pass, pass, pass for fear of losing possession. What they fail to do, at a very young age, is to learn the individual skills that give them swagger.



BRAVO Laced!!!!  I agree 100%.  Unfortunately too few coaches and parents would agree.


----------



## Daniel Miller (Nov 1, 2016)

Laced said:


> You mentioned a lot of things. Your reasoning is a bit circular. Teams perform "better" because you assign greater value to teams winning. Kids have more fun when they juke an opponent. Kids, or adults for that matter, forget scores in a week or two, but they, and us adults as well, sure will forever talk about the time when we megged someone. Goals is only one way to keep score.
> 
> If you think long term, you cannot take your team's wins to scouts or tryouts. What you can bring is your comfort on the ball. Let me give you a specific example. When a defender has the ball facing his own goal with two forwards on his back, what does our coach always tell the player to do? Kick it out of bounds. It's the safest play for the team, but the kid is deprived of a chance to learn to get out of the jam by turning, but dribbling out of the jam, in a real-game pressure situation. If I were to coach a team one day, I'll tell my players to never kick the ball out of bounds in that situation. If you lose the ball and the opponent scores, let it pain you. Let it motivate you at the next practice to learn to feint and turn. To learn to dribble past not one but two opponents. To learn to look up and see passing options. The goal would never bother me as a coach. The option to kick it out of bounds is always there at age 9 or 19. You don't need me to teach you that.
> 
> As to the basketball analogy, characterization is meaningless unless we have the same basis for comparison. Compared with Euro style of basketball, the American way is always more individualistic. More dribbling. More dunks. More crossovers. They don't develop these skills because they want to pass, pass, pass for fear of losing possession. What they fail to do, at a very young age, is to learn the individual skills that give them swagger.


Your emphasis is on the individual player.  You believe the individual's development is paramount to the team's development.  I can't disagree that individual development is an essential goal for any coach.  But in my opinion, a coach's primary responsibility is to the team, and the individual player serves the team.  Having a kid just trying to juke everybody on the other team may prove that the player has great skills, but it rarely improves the team as a whole, destroys any notion of team concept, and may take away from the development of others on the team.

Let's consider your example of the defender being pressed from behind while facing his own net.  You want the defender to turn the ball into pressure so he can practice juking one or two players at a time, as that would improve his individual development.   In other words, you are willing to put the whole team at risk of giving up a goal so your little superstar can remember how he megged somebody in his defensive third.  If he gets away with it, then great, but he is more likely to lose the ball, give up a goal, and bring down the spirit of the entire team.  His teammates know that little Joey is a ballhog who never passes, so they have to stop playing to watch little Joey show off.  Trust me on this.  The rest of his teammates are going to get sick of your little Joey's antics very quickly.

My solution would be to make an easy pass to the keeper, who then passes to another player on one wing or another.  This is nearly as safe as kicking the ball out of bounds, eliminates the risk of turning the ball into pressure, initiates an attack from the back, and involves at least three players on your team.  And it looks really good.


----------



## socalkdg (Nov 1, 2016)

Laced said:


> When a defender has the ball facing his own goal with two forwards on his back, what does our coach always tell the player to do? Kick it out of bounds. It's the safest play for the team, but the kid is deprived of a chance to learn to get out of the jam by turning, but dribbling out of the jam, in a real-game pressure situation. If I were to coach a team one day, I'll tell my players to never kick the ball out of bounds in that situation. If you lose the ball and the opponent scores, let it pain you. Let it motivate you at the next practice to learn to feint and turn. To learn to dribble past not one but two opponents. To learn to look up and see passing options. The goal would never bother me as a coach. The option to kick it out of bounds is always there at age 9 or 19. You don't need me to teach you that.


Play the keeper was the correct answer. 

Oops, just saw Daniel said the same thing.


----------



## Laced (Nov 1, 2016)

Daniel Miller said:


> Your emphasis is on the individual player.  You believe the individual's development is paramount to the team's development.  I can't disagree that individual development is an essential goal for any coach.  But in my opinion, a coach's primary responsibility is to the team, and the individual player serves the team.  Having a kid just trying to juke everybody on the other team may prove that the player has great skills, but it rarely improves the team as a whole, destroys any notion of team concept, and may take away from the development of others on the team.
> 
> Let's consider your example of the defender being pressed from behind while facing his own net.  You want the defender to turn the ball into pressure so he can practice juking one or two players at a time, as that would improve his individual development.   In other words, you are willing to put the whole team at risk of giving up a goal so your little superstar can remember how he megged somebody in his defensive third.  If he gets away with it, then great, but he is more likely to lose the ball, give up a goal, and bring down the spirit of the entire team.  His teammates know that little Joey is a ballhog who never passes, so they have to stop playing to watch little Joey show off.  Trust me on this.  The rest of his teammates are going to get sick of your little Joey's antics very quickly.
> 
> My solution would be to make an easy pass to the keeper, who then passes to another player on one wing or another.  This is nearly as safe as kicking the ball out of bounds, eliminates the risk of turning the ball into pressure, initiates an attack from the back, and involves at least three players on your team.  And it looks really good.


Do I really have to stipulate that passing back to the keeper is not an option?


----------



## Just a Parent (Nov 1, 2016)

Deadpoolscores! said:


> Ok everyone what are you thoughts on this one...if there was a club out there that would guarantee that your son/daughter will play 50%  and the roster size would be small. Would you join that club? Or wouldn't because of the name of the club? I recently came across this and was surprised about this http://aysounited.org/ It claims that the coaches will be licensed just like any club, will be competing in the same league just like other clubs(league TBD), pay referees just like all the clubs. Would you join or just simply not because of the organization. This is something that just started and is going to grow next year...so what's more important now? What are your thoughts.


I would not join because of the 50% guarantee. I'm a believer in players earning their spots.


----------



## timbuck (Nov 1, 2016)

You guys get hung up on the 50% playing time piece. These teams will follow the same substitution rules as the league they play in (CSL or SCDSL).  
The 50% playing time is a philosophy that they'll want coaches to abide by. Nobody is going to be sitting on the sidelines with a stop watch to measure every kids playing time. 
Some kids will play a full game. Some may only play 25 out of 60 minutes. 
The theory is that theses teams won't have an 18 player roster with 4 kids riding the bench.
Players will still need to earn their playing time. 
Coaches could bench a kid.  And if a parent complains, there might be a consequence with whoever is running AYSO United.  But hopefully the coach is communicating with the parents on why Jimmy only plays 10 minutes last week.


----------



## socalkdg (Nov 1, 2016)

Laced said:


> Do I really have to stipulate that passing back to the keeper is not an option?


With two "forwards" pressing from behind, it was kind of difficult to imagine the keeper not being an option.

So the keeper is covered, occupied, asleep, has two left feet, or something,  two forwards are pressing from behind, and you don't have any other defensive players around to pass to, and the smart play is to beat these two forwards by turning into pressure without losing the ball and giving up a possible goal?  Interesting strategy.   Now you could try dribbling it to the sideline and beat one of the players, with worst case being you kick the ball out of bounds on the attempt.


----------



## watfly (Nov 1, 2016)

If you aren't getting 50% playing time your skills aren't up to the level of the other kids on that team or your on a team with too many players.  In either case, you need to find a new team.  While Laced may be a little black and white, I generally tend to agree with him on the issues regarding team vs player.  It drives me crazy when I see a kid just by default kick the ball out when chasing a ball down while being pressured in their defensive end. This "when in doubt, kick it out" mentality instilled by some coaches is so counter-productive to an individual kids development.  Confidence is a huge part of being a great athlete.  When a coach tells a kid to kick it out, what message does that send a kid? It tells the kid that the coach doesn't believe the kid has the skills to take on the other players or doesn't trust the kid take a touch into space and let the player decide what action to take (whether it be kick it out, pass back to keeper, or take on the player).  It harms a kids confidence and takes his individual decision making skills away, two things which are so important in soccer.  The same message is sent when yelling at a kid to "pass, pass, pass".

While teaching team concepts is valuable, it is more important to develop individual skills and decision making particularly at the younger ages.  Everyone prefers winning over losing, its a lot more fun.  However, at the end of day my priority is for my child to develop each year.  I'm not saying that my kid should have carte blanche to dribble all over the field or his development should take precedent over other kids development.  Their are limits but the scale should always favor individual development.


----------



## Laced (Nov 1, 2016)

socalkdg said:


> With two "forwards" pressing from behind, it was kind of difficult to imagine the keeper not being an option.
> 
> So the keeper is covered, occupied, asleep, has two left feet, or something,  two forwards are pressing from behind, and you don't have any other defensive players around to pass to, and the smart play is to beat these two forwards by turning into pressure without losing the ball and giving up a possible goal?  Interesting strategy.   Now you could try dribbling it to the sideline and beat one of the players, with worst case being you kick the ball out of bounds on the attempt.


Haha. If it's difficult to imagine, pay attention at the next game. In almost every game, a defender is caught in that situation. And incidentally, focus on individual development doesn't mean a player should dribble, dribble, dribble. It's a concept and philosophy that team success comes from individual excellence.


----------



## socalkdg (Nov 1, 2016)

Watch Barca play, the keeper is always an option.   I just think taking on two players near and facing your goal isn't a smart option.


----------



## jrcaesar (Nov 1, 2016)

Laced said:


> In almost every game, a defender is caught in that situation.


Well-coached defenders use their individual excellence to confidently play it to the keeper.


----------



## Laced (Nov 1, 2016)

socalkdg said:


> Watch Barca play, the keeper is always an option.   I just think taking on two players near and facing your goal isn't a smart option.


I guess I need make my point clearer. It is not about what the best option is. It's about how to take advantage of every teaching moment to give players to the most options tomorrow. If all a coach cares about is winning, the safest option is to kick it out of bounds when passing back to the keeper is not an option. Effectively the coach limits his players options to two: passing back the keeper or kicking it out of bounds. He deprives his player of a chance to learn a third option: dribbling out of the jam himself. Or passing to another teammate. More generally, he deprives his players of a chance to develop comfort on the ball, which endures confidence in such pressure situations. I once even saw a coach instructing his player to kick a FK directly out of bounds, because the game was tied with 2 minutes left and he didn't want to risk losing. That's why a lot of defenders in youth soccer don't have the requisite ball skills to make it to the next level. The higher level you go, the more converted defenders you see.

We have more youth players than Germany and England combined. Yet, we struggle to qualify for WC and have never been a contender. This winning-today mentality is a main reason.


----------



## Real Deal (Nov 1, 2016)

I agree that winning today doesn't help us. But soccer is about passing. Passing involves more than one player. The problem with U.S. soccer is that we do not value passing. You suggest even the defenders should be trying to dribble through like Messi. But without defenders who can pass to midfielders who can pass to wingers, who pass to Messi... He would never get the ball!!! 

 It is not only dribbling through and shooting that is necessary. Until we learn that soccer is s team sport involving a series of passes which are as important as the finishes provided by strikers, we will not be competitive with other countries that get it.


----------



## Real Deal (Nov 1, 2016)

I wonder how the youth equivalent of an Iniesta would fare in this country. One thing's for sure-- all the parents would be yelling, "Take it yourself!" Or ,"Take a shot Iniesta!"


----------



## Just a Parent (Nov 1, 2016)

Real Deal said:


> I agree that winning today doesn't help us. But soccer is about passing. Passing involves more than one player. The problem with U.S. soccer is that we do not value passing. You suggest even the defenders should be trying to dribble through like Messi. But without defenders who can pass to midfielders who can pass to wingers, who pass to Messi... He would never get the ball!!!
> 
> It is not only dribbling through and shooting that is necessary. Until we learn that soccer is s team sport involving a series of passes which are as important as the finishes provided by strikers, we will not be competitive with other countries that get it.


Other countries "that get it" emphasize individual skill and creativity for youth. They give young children freedom to play and enjoy the game without adult interference. They know that without good technical abilities passing is useless.


----------



## Laced (Nov 2, 2016)

Real Deal said:


> I agree that winning today doesn't help us. But soccer is about passing. Passing involves more than one player. The problem with U.S. soccer is that we do not value passing. You suggest even the defenders should be trying to dribble through like Messi. But without defenders who can pass to midfielders who can pass to wingers, who pass to Messi... He would never get the ball!!!
> 
> It is not only dribbling through and shooting that is necessary. Until we learn that soccer is s team sport involving a series of passes which are as important as the finishes provided by strikers, we will not be competitive with other countries that get it.


I suggested the defenders learn the skills to have_ the option_ to dribble. We don't value passing in the US? What we don't value or appreciate is that it takes good techniques, composure and high soccer IQ to make good passes. Good passing is an individual skill that takes more than a desire. It takes comfort on the ball and composure under pressure to look up and survey the field. It takes proper striking technique to pass the ball accurately, to have the right curve so it arrives at the right angle for the receiver, to make it properly weighted so it arrives fast so the defender cannot recover. It takes soccer smarts to see paths you don't even know exist, to know that if he dribbles one yard to the left, he's going to drag the defender on his teammate to a certain direction to get his teammate open. It takes timing and precision and foresight and comfort on the ball to put a defender in a constant dilemma to guard him or cover another forward that's on an offball run. For a defender to pass when facing his own goal, he has to learn to turn on the ball first. He has to keep the forwards on his back honest with the threat of dribbling. Kicking the ball out of bounds as the only option is not going to help him learn to pass. Or dribble. Or improve. What it does help is to avoid getting scored on. It does help his team preserve a meaningless win, which he won't remember in a few weeks.


----------



## espola (Nov 2, 2016)

Laced said:


> I guess I need make my point clearer. It is not about what the best option is. It's about how to take advantage of every teaching moment to give players to the most options tomorrow. If all a coach cares about is winning, the safest option is to kick it out of bounds when passing back to the keeper is not an option. Effectively the coach limits his players options to two: passing back the keeper or kicking it out of bounds. He deprives his player of a chance to learn a third option: dribbling out of the jam himself. Or passing to another teammate. More generally, he deprives his players of a chance to develop comfort on the ball, which endures confidence in such pressure situations. I once even saw a coach instructing his player to kick a FK directly out of bounds, because the game was tied with 2 minutes left and he didn't want to risk losing. That's why a lot of defenders in youth soccer don't have the requisite ball skills to make it to the next level. The higher level you go, the more converted defenders you see.
> 
> We have more youth players than Germany and England combined. Yet, we struggle to qualify for WC and have never been a contender. This winning-today mentality is a main reason.


"A lot of" nonsense.


----------



## timbuck (Nov 2, 2016)

We've played against "kick it out.  And kick it as far out as possible so that our team can all get back and defend" teams. 
It is sooooo frustrating to have a throw in every 45 seconds.  
My assistant coach used to love teaching the "kick it out" method. It's safe. If works. It's easy. 
He's no longer coaching with me.  We won a few more games when he was around.  But now our keepers get a ton of balls played back to them.  It hasn't directly cost us a goal.  But the first touch and decision making of my backline has improved a ton.


----------



## socalkdg (Nov 2, 2016)

Passing to an open teammate in a better position then you should always be a top consideration.  This includes the keeper.  Very few teams we have played this year do it.  Our team is still a work in progress as a few girls played a couple years not doing it and that isn't their first inclination.  My daughter needs to be more vocal reminding them that she is open and a good option.  Its the first year for many of them under this system, playing support, passing more than dribbling.  Kicking the ball out of bands should be one of the last options.

I notice when you are coaching from the sideline, watching live or on tv it seems so easy to see all the options that are available, but for a player on the field that has to look 360 degrees in an instant and make the correct decision, it is easy to see why the right choice isn't always made.  I think it is why practice can look so good, but in a game the experience isn't quite there yet to always make the right decisions.


----------



## Deadpoolscores! (Nov 22, 2016)

Deadpoolscores! said:


> Based off the feedback it seems that there should be clause for the AYSO United...if the players does not commit as much as they should they should play less and not be rewarded that minimum playing time. Also selecting well experience coaches not newbies would help as well. Hopefully whoever are the Director of Coaches for each area does a good job in selecting good coaches...also pricing something I didn't touch base. I agree that is something they should be making more affordable. Great job everyone on feedbacks, so it looks like AYSO United has its work cutout.


Well it looks like the DOC for AYSO United (Central "Chino Hills" & Empire "Riverside") has been selected, Tom Lancaster from NOMADS.  He will be hiring the coaches and possibly his staff as well. What are your thoughts, is he the right man for the job knocking on the doors on multiple clubs such as Legends, Arsenal, IE Surf etc.?


----------



## seesnake (Nov 25, 2016)

Will there be a San Diego area option?


----------



## Deadpoolscores! (Nov 25, 2016)

seesnake said:


> Will there be a San Diego area option?


According to the website, presently no but there may be in the future.


----------



## ThtGoaldnKeeper (Mar 6, 2017)

Deadpoolscores! said:


> Ok everyone what are you thoughts on this one...if there was a club out there that would guarantee that your son/daughter will play 50%  and the roster size would be small. Would you join that club? Or wouldn't because of the name of the club? I recently came across this and was surprised about this http://aysounited.org/ It claims that the coaches will be licensed just like any club, will be competing in the same league just like other clubs(league TBD), pay referees just like all the clubs. Would you join or just simply not because of the organization. This is something that just started and is going to grow next year...so what's more important now? What are your thoughts.


In the end it's still AYSO. All AYSO teams "guarantee" 50 percent playing time. It is not a club. There are very few AYSO teams that become top level teams (Thousand Oaks played about Flight 2 level last year). If you want your kid to do good and get better, you HAVE to move to club. I'm not saying that good players do not exist in the AYSO circuit, especially not in the boys, however, your kid will not go past high school or that level if all they do is play AYSO. It is not the name AYSO that causes people to choose club, it's the fact that AYSO is soccer's version of rec ball. 
The decision to play club is the same as a baseball player's to move to travel ball instead of rec ball. It's the same as a swimmer's to join a club instead of just doing high school. The commitment is higher. The competition is higher. The speed of play and the strength. The thing about guaranteeing play is that that mindset prohibits a player's work ethic. If they are guaranteed to play, there is no reason to work harder and harder at practice. To work on your own fitness. Work to please and impress your coach. It takes the competitiveness out of soccer. These kids probably won't be taken seriously. The soccer scope is too big. When you have kids, who in the same 2017-2018 season will be playing ECNL, DA, and Flight 1 teams, and get playing time, how would a kid playing a newly formed AYSO "club" that _doesn't force the kids to earn time. _It's unrealistic. It doesn't work like that in college, in the real world. Things have to be earned.  
 It's a fantastic idea, nevertheless. But, I do think this would be the better option for those looking to transition into the club soccer scene rather than be a permanent home. These are just my thoughts on it .


----------



## jrcaesar (Mar 6, 2017)

ThtGoaldnKeeper said:


> If they are guaranteed to play, there is no reason to work harder and harder at practice. To work on your own fitness. Work to please and impress your coach. It takes the competitiveness out of soccer.


I agree to a point. *But ... *on any club team, a good coach should find a way for kids to play half of the time or those players are on the wrong team (wrong club, wrong tier, wrong coach, too many rostered players, etc.). Even Flight 1 players/parents should have that expectation _most _games. Now there's a big difference between playing 50% of a game and being a starter and playing all 60-70 minutes ... the AYSO "club" team is the same as others in this regard.


----------



## Grace T. (Mar 6, 2017)

ThtGoaldnKeeper said:


> In the end it's still AYSO. All AYSO teams "guarantee" 50 percent playing time. It is not a club. There are very few AYSO teams that become top level teams (Thousand Oaks played about Flight 2 level last year). If you want your kid to do good and get better, you HAVE to move to club. I'm not saying that good players do not exist in the AYSO circuit, especially not in the boys, however, your kid will not go past high school or that level if all they do is play AYSO. It is not the name AYSO that causes people to choose club, it's the fact that AYSO is soccer's version of rec ball.


Having been through both the Extras and Club tryout season this year for my son (ultimately he got an offer for an Extras team and a club team and we went club), the other problem with the AYSO club/extras program is that they still rely on volunteer coaches.   Though the knowledge base is higher than the regular AYSO rec program, it's still not the same as our club staff.  Granted, I'm sure there are some AYSO coaches out there that are better than some individual club coaches.  But overall, the system of relying so heavily on volunteers (whether coaches or refs) does carry a downside for player development.  And because the team is only together for the season (at least in theory) it also seems to put pressure on the staff to put together a team of the fastest and biggest legs, rather than the players with the most soccer knowledge (because it's one season and then out...you aren't trying to build any brand loyalty there).


----------

