# Coaches - What do you look for?



## Supermodel56 (Feb 17, 2017)

As tryouts are winding down and many families are trying to sort out where their DD's will be playing, I thought I'd throw this out there and see if we can get some candid feedback... There really are no right/wrong answers as a lot of this is personal preference, but hopefully it will help parents understand the process and that a million things could be going through the coaches' minds rather than just freaking out and second guessing... This is in the context of youngers...

1) What would be the top 3 characteristics you look for in your starting players and team selection? (be as detailed as you like and state your age group)

2) Have you ever put a player on the B team or lower team even though they performed better or are more skilled than some that made the A team - and if so why? (it's okay to be honest)

3) If you had to choose, would you select size & strength or speed, skill, and IQ?

4) Do you simply always start your top players or do you often mix it up to better manage your rotations? (ie, start a couple better players on bench and worse players on field to help maintain steady game play) How do you determine who starts and why does it change sometimes?

5) Are "package deals" common when recruiting and what is your stance? (for example, you want player X, but they won't come unless you also take player Y) 

6) When evaluating players, what tends to stand out the most to you? 

7) Are there certain types of players that you've found easily get overlooked at least in the beginning ?  For example, at first glance, you'll usually place these players on the "B" team side, and then "A" players on the other field... Then over time you'll shift them around. 

8) How often have you rejected a player because their parents were overbearing? =)

9) Craziest/most surprising thing you've ever seen happen at tryouts... =)

That's probably plenty of a good start!


----------



## ESPNANALYST (Feb 17, 2017)

That would require the lurker coaches who either pretend to be parents or just look to actually contribute.


----------



## Supermodel56 (Feb 17, 2017)

If coaches are concerned, feel free to just create a new account!


----------



## Calisoccer11 (Feb 17, 2017)

All very good questions and certainly many of us parents have had over the year.   One coach told us earlier in our DD's soccer years was that he looked for size and speed.  She was U11 at the time.


----------



## Calisoccer11 (Feb 17, 2017)

Oh and I forgot to add, that while there were many talented girls on that team, we lost just about every game.  Lol!


----------



## Eagle33 (Feb 17, 2017)

top 3:
1. Loves and enjoys the game
2. Good work ethic
3. Coachable


----------



## NoGoal (Feb 17, 2017)

Calisoccer11 said:


> All very good questions and certainly many of us parents have had over the year.   One coach told us earlier in our DD's soccer years was that he looked for size and speed.  She was U11 at the time.


I recall a discussion with my DDs U11 coach 7 yrs ago.  I asked him why the team can't string 5 passes in a row on the ground.  His reply, "they are only 10 yrs old". #huh


----------



## Round (Feb 17, 2017)

For boys or girls?  Not many can do both.


----------



## rainbow_unicorn (Feb 17, 2017)

Eagle33 said:


> top 3:
> 1. Loves and enjoys the game
> 2. Good work ethic
> 3. Coachable


Sorry, those just aren't realistic.  I would group the top three as:
1. Physical attributes (size, quickness, speed)
2. Technical ability
3. Game awareness and mental attributes (tenacity, decision making, poise, etc.)

For US soccer training centers, one of the attributes they look for is "Influence on the game" (is the player making an impact during the game?).  Also, is the player making those around her better?


----------



## rainbow_unicorn (Feb 17, 2017)

NoGoal said:


> I recall a discussion with my DDs U11 coach 7 yrs ago.  I asked him why the team can't string 5 passes in a row on the ground.  His reply, "they are only 10 yrs old". #huh


The real answer as to why they can't string passes together is because he does not know how to teach 10 year olds how to pass.  I've seen 8 year olds put together a nice string of passes...a beautiful sight.


----------



## Supermodel56 (Feb 18, 2017)

Calisoccer11 said:


> Oh and I forgot to add, that while there were many talented girls on that team, we lost just about every game.  Lol!



The question is "where are those girls today"? Was it the right call to simply invest in the big and fast girls? Which btw, finding girls that are both big, strong, and fast seems pretty rare... isn't it usually they're big and strong but slower vs smaller/avg height but fast and more skillful? Which would you big or fast?

And yes, I'm totally aware there are exceptions to this where I've seen amazing players who are both, but it's rare to find more than 1-2 of these on the same team... in fact, if you look at the USWNT, most of the players are average height between 5'6-5'8 and lean. maybe if you're fast, strong, taller, and have skills, you end up playing basketball?!? How much do WNBA players make? Hehe


----------



## ESPNANALYST (Feb 18, 2017)

This UCLA coach and former player sums it up beautifully in my opinion. Twenty minute podcast worth every second because she's realistic and talks about what makes a good college soccer player as well.


----------



## jrcaesar (Feb 18, 2017)

NoGoal said:


> I recall a discussion with my DDs U11 coach 7 yrs ago.  I asked him why the team can't string 5 passes in a row on the ground.  His reply, "they are only 10 yrs old". #huh


Son went to an age group tryout (age changes) for his club last year where he and his B team teammates kept passing the ball around the befuddled A team players in every drill. That's when we started looking for a new club.


----------



## futboldad1 (Feb 18, 2017)

They should look for technical skill and tactical acumen but often it's size and speed which is the only two things they care about. Find a coach that understands. FWIW my two DDs had a good experience with Coach Craig Barclay from England at SD Surf. There are others that are good, and plenty that are bad (they way some rant at kids is insane). Choose wisely.


----------



## LASTMAN14 (Feb 18, 2017)

futboldad1 said:


> They should look for technical skill and tactical acumen but often it's size and speed which is the only two things they care about. Find a coach that understands. FWIW my two DDs had a good experience with Coach Craig Barclay from England at SD Surf. There are others that are good, and plenty that are bad (they way some rant at kids is insane). Choose wisely.


Barclay plays a nice brand of controlled soccer. He has done a nice job of developing foot skill as well. Our girls always enjoy playing Surf.


----------



## Calisoccer11 (Feb 18, 2017)

Supermodel56 said:


> The question is "where are those girls today"? Was it the right call to simply invest in the big and fast girls? Which btw, finding girls that are both big, strong, and fast seems pretty rare... isn't it usually they're big and strong but slower vs smaller/avg height but fast and more skillful? Which would you big or fast?
> 
> And yes, I'm totally aware there are exceptions to this where I've seen amazing players who are both, but it's rare to find more than 1-2 of these on the same team... in fact, if you look at the USWNT, most of the players are average height between 5'6-5'8 and lean. maybe if you're fast, strong, taller, and have skills, you end up playing basketball?!? How much do WNBA players make? Hehe


There were some girls on the team that were big, height and stature, and others that were tall and lean.  All the girls were fast.   Where are they now?  Most play on tier one, academy teams or ECNL.  A few have already signed with colleges.  Lost track of a few.  This particular team my DD was on, fell apart at the end of the season.  It was good to see many of the girls succeed and find better teams or maybe just a better fit/coach.  My DD had some pretty decent coaches and became a much more technical player.  This has served her well with some teams and with others, not so much.  Her last coach favored the more aggressive players, which my DD can be but she's not going to be charging like a bull down the line all the time.  We found a new coach this past season and things have been much better.  As of now, she doesn't want to play college but my fingers are crossed!


----------



## zebrafish (Feb 19, 2017)

futboldad1 said:


> They should look for technical skill and tactical acumen but often it's size and speed which is the only two things they care about. Find a coach that understands. ... Choose wisely.


Could not agree more. Problem is that tactical acumen is hard to see in tryouts. I think this is something that can only be seen with more time than coaches have during a tryout. But IMHO having players with good tactical IQ matters a lot to a team's ultimate success.


----------



## Supermodel56 (Feb 19, 2017)

I'm curious if coaches are solely thinking about this upcoming season or for longer term - in other words, would they take a player they know has more potential and will be great for this club in a year or are most just thinking - these are the players who are going to help me win this season.


----------



## NoGoal (Feb 19, 2017)

Supermodel56 said:


> The question is "where are those girls today"? Was it the right call to simply invest in the big and fast girls? Which btw, finding girls that are both big, strong, and fast seems pretty rare... isn't it usually they're big and strong but slower vs smaller/avg height but fast and more skillful? Which would you big or fast?
> 
> And yes, I'm totally aware there are exceptions to this where I've seen amazing players who are both, but it's rare to find more than 1-2 of these on the same team... in fact, if you look at the USWNT, most of the players are average height between 5'6-5'8 and lean. maybe if you're fast, strong, taller, and have skills, you end up playing basketball?!? How much do WNBA players make? Hehe


Um, the average height for American women is not 5'6-5'8"....it's 5'4".  Google it!


----------



## NoGoal (Feb 19, 2017)

jrcaesar said:


> Son went to an age group tryout (age changes) for his club last year where he and his B team teammates kept passing the ball around the befuddled A team players in every drill. That's when we started looking for a new club.


That is a huge tell, lmao!


----------



## NoGoal (Feb 19, 2017)

futboldad1 said:


> They should look for technical skill and tactical acumen but often it's size and speed which is the only two things they care about. Find a coach that understands. FWIW my two DDs had a good experience with Coach Craig Barclay from England at SD Surf. There are others that are good, and plenty that are bad (they way some rant at kids is insane). Choose wisely.


The biggest misconception by club coaches is.  Give me the most athletic player and I will turn them into soccer players.


----------



## Daniel Miller (Feb 19, 2017)

NoGoal said:


> The biggest misconception by club coaches is.  Give me the most athletic player and I will turn them into soccer players.


If you get that kid at U10, its not such a reach to believe you can turn an athlete into a soccer player.  But if you get the kid at U14, it's too late by a couple of years.  Tell him to study math and take up a musical instrument, because that's the only way he's getting into college.


----------



## NoGoal (Feb 19, 2017)

Daniel Miller said:


> If you get that kid at U10, its not such a reach to believe you can turn an athlete into a soccer player.  But if you get the kid at U14, it's too late by a couple of years.  Tell him to study math and take up a musical instrument, because that's the only way he's getting into college.


Some, but not every athletic player is a natural on the ball.  Sure you can teach them to do skills on the ball, but once the whistle blows.  It's a different story and rely on their size and speed.


----------



## Supermodel56 (Feb 19, 2017)

NoGoal said:


> Um, the average height for American women is not 5'6-5'8"....it's 5'4".  Google it!


Umm... if you read what I said, the average height on the USWNT is between 5'6"-5/8"... (excluding keepers). So yes, on average, they're slightly taller, but we're not talking super tall - either...  Not like comparing football or basketball players to normal people. Not a single player over 6ft and you have several very good impact players 5'6 and under. Which again, size should be less important than skill, speed, and IQ. 

Tobin Heath: 5'6"
Carly Lloyd: 5'8"
Alex Morgan: 5'7"
Crystal Dunn: 5'1"
Julie Johnston: 5'7"
Ali Long: 5'7"
Mallory Pugh: 5'5"
Kelly O'Hara: 5'5"
Christen Press: 5'7"
Becky Sauerbrunn: 5'7"

Just to name a few...


----------



## NoGoal (Feb 19, 2017)

Supermodel56 said:


> Umm... if you read what I said, the average height on the USWNT is between 5'6"-5/8"... (excluding keepers). So yes, on average, they're slightly taller, but we're not talking super tall - either...  Not like comparing football or basketball players to normal people. Not a single player over 6ft and you have several very good impact players 5'6 and under. Which again, size should be less important than skill, speed, and IQ.
> 
> Tobin Heath: 5'6"
> Carly Lloyd: 5'8"
> ...


I did reread your post, this is your quote "in fact, if you look at the USWNT, most of the players are average height between 5'6-5'8 and lean". How are they of average height if they are taller than 5'4"? You did not post the WNT's average height is 5'-6" to 5'-8". 

Crystal Dunn and Meghan Klingenberg are the smallest players on the team at 5'1" and 5'2" respectively.  Pugh is not 5'5", I say she is at most 5'4" and average height.


----------



## Supermodel56 (Feb 19, 2017)

NoGoal said:


> I did reread your post, this is your quote "in fact, if you look at the USWNT, most of the players are average height between 5'6-5'8 and lean". How are they of average height if they are taller than 5'4"? You did not post the WNT's average height is 5'-6" to 5'-8".
> 
> Crystal Dunn and Meghan Klingenberg are the smallest players on the team at 5'1" and 5'2" respectively.  Pugh is not 5'5", I say she is at most 5'4" and average height.


Not sure what your point is, mine is that it appears the girls that are that much bigger don't really have an advantage down the road... so perhaps at the youngers if coaches are just looking at size, it's really more a short term view vs developing players that have the more critical skills and traits to be successful over the long term.

In fact, it could be argued that even at the younger ages while size can play a role, speed, skill, and IQ play a larger factor in winning games - which means if coaches really are looking at size and strength first.... it's probably not the wisest move.


----------



## NoGoal (Feb 19, 2017)

Supermodel56 said:


> Not sure what your point is, mine is that it appears the girls that are that much bigger don't really have an advantage down the road... so perhaps at the youngers if coaches are just looking at size, it's really more a short term view vs developing players that have the more critical skills and traits to be successful over the long term.
> 
> In fact, it could be argued that even at the younger ages while size can play a role, speed, skill, and IQ play a larger factor in winning games - which means if coaches really are looking at size and strength first.... it's probably not the wisest move.


I agree, quickness, speed, touch and IQ is important.  I would even add aggression, determination and work rate.  Unfortunately, it's a fact club coaches prefer to have BFS younger players, because they truly believe they can turn those players into soccer players by the time they are 16-18 yrs old.


----------



## MakeAPlay (Feb 20, 2017)

ESPNANALYST said:


> This UCLA coach and former player sums it up beautifully in my opinion. Twenty minute podcast worth every second because she's realistic and talks about what makes a good college soccer player as well.


She is an amazing coach and mentor for young women.  You are extremely lucky if your player gets to work with her.


----------



## coachrefparent (Feb 20, 2017)

1. Ball handling (receiving, dribbling, passing)
2. Aggressiveness  (always moving, engaging, no fear)
3.Speed
A top player will be above average in all three phases, though maybe not the fastest.
Obviously these vary in emphasis if you are looking to fill different positions in your lineup.


----------



## timbuck (Feb 20, 2017)

I look for a the kid that comes to tryouts and does a proper warm up on his/her own.  Not the kid that shows up and starts striking balls into a net from 17 yards away with no pressure.
Are they getting themselves ready to perform?  Ball skills, increase of speed as they warm up, stretching, grabbing another player and working together (passing, playing 1v1, hitting crosses and finishing).


----------



## Daniel Miller (Feb 20, 2017)

In evaluating a prospect, I always look at four attributes in combination:

1.  Transportation:  For me, there are only two acceptable forms of transportation; something expensive, or something reliable.  In the best of all worlds, the prospect arrives in a dependable Toyota, driven by his nanny.

2.  Pocket Peep:  The bulge in a parent's back pocket correlates with the size of a parent's wallet.

3.  Friendliness:  Is the mother sufficiently solicitous, in the penal sense of the word?

4.  Inofficiousness:  The only acceptable parental communication is "do I dip the card, or slide it?"

If four of the prior tests are passed, the prospect makes the team, and a discussion is scheduled regarding the extra training fees necessary to prepare him for ODP tryouts two years hence.

If three tests are passed, the parents are told that the prospect will be a starter at his chosen position.

If two tests are passed, the parents are told that their son will be placed on the "B team," but that I will surely call him up by mid season.

If only one test is passed, then the player is referred to our "Future Soccer Stars" program consisting of drills to decrease bedwetting.  Unless the only test passed is Test #3.  In which case the kid makes the team, with scholarship.


----------



## Eusebio (Feb 21, 2017)

zebrafish said:


> Could not agree more. Problem is that tactical acumen is hard to see in tryouts. I think this is something that can only be seen with more time than coaches have during a tryout. But IMHO having players with good tactical IQ matters a lot to a team's ultimate success.


I'm going to put Surf on the spot. About 6-7 years ago, I was at a boys u-little try-out. There were maybe 30-ish players trying out for the A and B team. On the first two days, if I recall correctly they spent about 75% of the time on technical related drills. It included a group-wide passing/dribbling drill where there were about 7-8 stations that were all interconnected. You had 3-4 kids on each station and it was impossible to memorize or hear from the coach what each station required. So the players would not only have to focus on their station but look at the upcoming station to see what to do next. It required focus, concentration, and communicating with people around them. It was a fantastic drill to see which players were capable of thinking on their feet while maintaining their technique and focus. They didn't start doing scrimmages extensively until the last day of try-outs. I thought it was a very well-run 3 day try-out that gave a good sense of a player in various aspects given the short timeframe. 

Flash-forward 4-5 years and the Surf try-outs devolved into 15 minutes of technical drills, which were basically just warm-ups, and then jumped into scrimmages for the next 3 days. It basically just highlighted the big and/or aggressive player, and the ball dominate players. It seemed almost impossible to systematically identify players who possessed a superior game i.q, focus, or tactical awareness. The numbers at the try-outs had also swelled to over 80 players. 

Surf isn't alone, at many of the clubs the try-outs turned into huge cattle calls and the coaches job is simply herd them into a "B", "C", or "D" team cow pen. The "A" team players are now identified and recruit far earlier, so the A teams are usually set before the try-outs start unless some wonder-kid shows up. I've noticed over the years that at the younger ages, the A teams usually have the best wingers and forwards because ball dominate players are usually the easiest to identify at cattle calls. But many B teams end up having a surprisingly strong center mids or intelligent defenders. Those type of players don't always pop immediately during cattle call scrimmages. How many B teams have you seen that had a strong defense but just didn't have any firepower up front? This is partly the reason. It's also why you often see A teams where their starting line is basically 11 forwards and wingers. 

I would love if Surf and other major clubs went back to adding complex technical drills to the try-out curriculum and just spent more of the try-out days getting a fuller sense of a player. if they did that, they might have less buyer's remorse and less of having 3-4 kids playing less than 30% of the game for almost the entire season. Then again, the business model has now changed, so large cattle calls are probably hear to stay for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Deadpoolscores! (Feb 21, 2017)

Eusebio said:


> I would love if Surf and other major clubs went back to adding complex technical drills to the try-out curriculum and just spent more of the try-out days getting a fuller sense of a player. if they did that, they might have less buyer's remorse and less of having 3-4 kids playing less than 30% of the game for almost the entire season.


If they did that, that would require them to do actual work and use some thinking process. Oh no!!!


----------



## ESPNANALYST (Feb 21, 2017)

Eusebio said:


> I'm going to put Surf on the spot. About 6-7 years ago, I was at a boys u-little try-out. There were maybe 30-ish players trying out for the A and B team. On the first two days, if I recall correctly they spent about 75% of the time on technical related drills. It included a group-wide passing/dribbling drill where there were about 7-8 stations that were all interconnected. You had 3-4 kids on each station and it was impossible to memorize or hear from the coach what each station required. So the players would not only have to focus on their station but look at the upcoming station to see what to do next. It required focus, concentration, and communicating with people around them. It was a fantastic drill to see which players were capable of thinking on their feet while maintaining their technique and focus. They didn't start doing scrimmages extensively until the last day of try-outs. I thought it was a very well-run 3 day try-out that gave a good sense of a player in various aspects given the short timeframe.
> 
> Flash-forward 4-5 years and the Surf try-outs devolved into 15 minutes of technical drills, which were basically just warm-ups, and then jumped into scrimmages for the next 3 days. It basically just highlighted the big and/or aggressive player, and the ball dominate players. It seemed almost impossible to systematically identify players who possessed a superior game i.q, focus, or tactical awareness. The numbers at the try-outs had also swelled to over 80 players.
> 
> ...


This is the most eloquent, objective and precise representation of a Surf tryout I have ever read. Kudos.
Still the same scrimmage baby scrimmage. To be fair it's like that at all the bigs


----------



## Calisoccer11 (Feb 21, 2017)

Eusebio said:


> I'm going to put Surf on the spot. About 6-7 years ago, I was at a boys u-little try-out. There were maybe 30-ish players trying out for the A and B team. On the first two days, if I recall correctly they spent about 75% of the time on technical related drills. It included a group-wide passing/dribbling drill where there were about 7-8 stations that were all interconnected. You had 3-4 kids on each station and it was impossible to memorize or hear from the coach what each station required. So the players would not only have to focus on their station but look at the upcoming station to see what to do next. It required focus, concentration, and communicating with people around them. It was a fantastic drill to see which players were capable of thinking on their feet while maintaining their technique and focus. They didn't start doing scrimmages extensively until the last day of try-outs. I thought it was a very well-run 3 day try-out that gave a good sense of a player in various aspects given the short timeframe.
> 
> Flash-forward 4-5 years and the Surf try-outs devolved into 15 minutes of technical drills, which were basically just warm-ups, and then jumped into scrimmages for the next 3 days. It basically just highlighted the big and/or aggressive player, and the ball dominate players. It seemed almost impossible to systematically identify players who possessed a superior game i.q, focus, or tactical awareness. The numbers at the try-outs had also swelled to over 80 players.
> 
> ...


Yep, we had this same experience.  About 60 kids and just scrimmages for tryouts.  Teams were most definitely set--not sure why clubs do this--seems like a big waste of time.


----------



## socalkdg (Feb 21, 2017)

coachrefparent said:


> 1. Ball handling (receiving, dribbling, passing)
> 2. Aggressiveness  (always moving, engaging, no fear)
> 3.Speed
> A top player will be above average in all three phases, though maybe not the fastest.
> Obviously these vary in emphasis if you are looking to fill different positions in your lineup.


My kid has tons of 1 and 3, but what is the best way to improve #2, aggressiveness?   I see it in spurts, but not all the time.   What is weird is she is super aggressive when playing keeper, but not in the field.


----------



## timbuck (Feb 21, 2017)

ESPNANALYST said:


> This is the most eloquent, objective and precise representation of a Surf tryout I have ever read. Kudos.
> Still the same scrimmage baby scrimmage. To be fair it's like that at all the bigs


seems that quite a few clubs also prefer the "scrimmage" as their go to training session once teams are formed.
I watched a boys 03 or 04 team (not saying which club) play the same short sided game for 90 minutes a few weeks ago.
And by "short sided"-  it was 7v7 plus a keeper.


----------



## rainbow_unicorn (Feb 21, 2017)

It's easy for us to be on the sidelines and critique coaches/clubs.  But if you were a coach trying to pick the best team in one hour, what would you do to select the best players?  Would you rather take a kid who is great technically but crumbles and is non-existent during a game?  Or would you rather take the unorthodox looking kid with the herky-jerky moves who seems to be dominant during games?   Short-sided scrimmages are the best way to see how kids will actually measure up during a game.


----------



## rainbow_unicorn (Feb 21, 2017)

socalkdg said:


> My kid has tons of 1 and 3, but what is the best way to improve #2, aggressiveness?   I see it in spurts, but not all the time.   What is weird is she is super aggressive when playing keeper, but not in the field.


Agressiveness can be taught but takes some time to develop...it is 100% mental.  I think the only thing that you can do is remind them before the game that it might be the one thing that you want them to work on that day (going in hard, dispossession, etc.).  

Also, keep in mind that playing agressively takes a lot of energy.  That one agressive scrum to win back the ball may sap a player's energy where they can't make a good offensive run for the next five minutes.


----------



## mirage (Feb 21, 2017)

Eusebio said:


> .....I was at a boys u-little try-out..........if I recall correctly they spent about 75% of the time on technical related drills.....
> 
> Flash-forward 4-5 years....then jumped into scrimmages for the next 3 days. It basically just highlighted the big and/or aggressive player, and the ball dominate players.....


Perhaps its because what they are looking for different things,  just as all college ID camps are mostly scrimmages.  When kids are U-little, they are looking for skill levels more than anything.  When they reach U13+ they are looking for soccer IQ, creativity and yes, aggressiveness and how dominant can the player be on the field.  Skills and techniques are compulsory at these ages.  The level of competencies will play a part in players ability to perform in scrimmages.

Just to be clear, I am not defending any club, big or small.  Just trying to share some insight into what happens as kids get older and what they will face, since so many of parents that post here are younger  age group parents.  Clearly, many of you have older kids that have gone through this but I'm not seen those comments thus far on this particular thought.

The short sided is preferred initially to see faster plays and see more skills.  Full size field is preferred to see soccer IQ and tactical knowledge of the game.  Movements off the ball for any given position can only be seen on the full field.  And scrimmage is the most efficient way to create game situation to evaluate how players make decisions and perform during tryouts and ID camps.

Just my take on this discussion....


----------



## mirage (Feb 21, 2017)

rainbow_unicorn said:


> Agressiveness can be taught but takes some time to develop...it is 100% mental....


Not sure about that.  It is mental but its much more deep rooted.  Its part of the makeup of the player.  Yes, it can be increased but its not natural for passive person to become aggressive, just because its required in the game.  And the biggest issue for making someone aggressive, when they are not naturally, is the hesitation.  Hesitation can play havoc by delaying timing of what happens and it can lead to more injuries as well as not being effective and being late.  It only takes a fraction of a second but you can see it on the field.



rainbow_unicorn said:


> Also, keep in mind that playing agressively takes a lot of energy.  That one agressive scrum to win back the ball may sap a player's energy where they can't make a good offensive run for the next five minutes.


That's a problem.  Need more conditioning and clearly, the players that can do both will be chosen over a player that cannot.  This can be worked on and is straight forward, unlike aggressiveness.


----------



## sandshark (Feb 21, 2017)

Is someone asking coaches to be honest on a public talk forum > NO WAY!  At the higher level of play they will look for a good player (plenty of good players in So Ca) with acceptable skills, high work rate and parents willing to shell out the cash to chase the large tournaments and out of town league play.


----------



## rainbow_unicorn (Feb 21, 2017)

mirage said:


> Not sure about that.  It is mental but its much more deep rooted.  Its part of the makeup of the player.  Yes, it can be increased but its not natural for passive person to become aggressive, just because its required in the game.  And the biggest issue for making someone aggressive, when they are not naturally, is the hesitation.  Hesitation can play havoc by delaying timing of what happens and it can lead to more injuries as well as not being effective and being late.  It only takes a fraction of a second but you can see it on the field.


Agreed...not natural for everybody but can be cultivated over time (like, years).  But lack of aggression should not be confused with being hesitant.  You can have a naturally aggressive player that hesitates (because they may not read the game as quickly as others) and you can have a soft non-aggressive player always be the fastest to act on a play because they read/anticipate the game so well (they just won't go in for that hard tackle).  



> That's a problem.  Need more conditioning and clearly, the players that can do both will be chosen over a player that cannot.  This can be worked on and is straight forward, unlike aggressiveness.


I brought up the point about energy and aggressiveness since I see parents screaming at kids to run when its deep into the second half and the kids are just flat out gassed.  Makes me want to see parents get onto a field and play 90 minutes so that I scream at them when their legs feel like rubber.


----------



## Eusebio (Feb 21, 2017)

mirage said:


> Perhaps its because what they are looking for different things,  just as all college ID camps are mostly scrimmages.  When kids are U-little, they are looking for skill levels more than anything.  When they reach U13+ they are looking for soccer IQ, creativity and yes, aggressiveness and how dominant can the player be on the field.  Skills and techniques are compulsory at these ages.  The level of competencies will play a part in players ability to perform in scrimmages.


Let me just clarify, when I said "Flash-forward 4-5 years", I wasn't comparing a U-little try-out from 5 years ago with an olders try-out of today. I was comparing apples to apples of how I saw try-outs in the same age group from 5-7 years ago and then today in that age group. My observation wasn't just based off following my own child going up the ranks.

Also even though theoretically skills and technique should be compulsory at U13+, you know that's often not the case.  Man-childs and other big kids are able to get away with sloppy technique and relatively poor decision making because of their size, especially in a try-out situation. When you throw a bunch of kids together who have never played with each other, it's not easy to judge decision making, off the ball movement and other aspects of game IQ. Having that "first to the ball" mentality is great, but it's also important what they do with the ball afterwards and so on.

The beauty of that complex station drill at the Surf try-out from 6-7 years is that drill would be useful from ages U8 to U15, not just U-littles. That drill was fantastic for identifying intelligent players. Interview any coach who had a former player go professional and then ask him what quality stuck out the most. 9 times out of 10, they'll say his "game intelligence" and/or "work ethic". We have to do a better job at identifying smart players and nurturing them in the early stages and utilizing them even though they still may be rough around the edges. Can't keep dumping them to "B" and "C" teams where they get churned out prematurely. 

Dealing with large try-outs is never easy for coaches and no system is perfect. But I think there is a much better way to do it then they are right now. IMO, Surf had it right 6-7 years ago. It's a shame they and other clubs went away from that.


----------



## mirage (Feb 21, 2017)

rainbow_unicorn said:


> Agreed...not natural for everybody but can be cultivated over time (like, years).  But lack of aggression should not be confused with being hesitant.  You can have a naturally aggressive player that hesitates (because they may not read the game as quickly as others) and you can have a soft non-aggressive player always be the fastest to act on a play because they read/anticipate the game so well (they just won't go in for that hard tackle).
> 
> 
> I brought up the point about energy and aggressiveness since I see parents screaming at kids to run when its deep into the second half and the kids are just flat out gassed.  Makes me want to see parents get onto a field and play 90 minutes so that I scream at them when their legs feel like rubber.


Your right. I wasn't equating lack of aggressiveness to hesitation.  I should have said often, when non-agressive player is forced to be aggressive, there is a bit of holding back initially for challenges.  Nothing to do with how well any player (aggressive or not) can read and anticipate the game.

On the other point, what you say is exactly the reason kids don't listen to their parents during the game.  They know that the parents cannot do what they are doing (most of them anyway...).  It just pisses them off so its a lose-lose for parents to scream from the sideline.


----------



## mirage (Feb 21, 2017)

Eusebio said:


> Let me just clarify, when I said "Flash-forward 4-5 years", I wasn't comparing a U-little try-out from 5 years ago with an olders try-out of today. I was comparing apples to apples of how I saw try-outs in the same age group from 5-7 years ago and then today in that age group. My observation wasn't just based off following my own child going up the ranks....


Thanks for clarifying.  My bad....

I didn't interpret that that's what you'd meant.


----------



## Socal United (Feb 21, 2017)

I am a coach but am exclusively in the U littles.  I seem to be able to reach them for some reason and have had some success teaching kids how to play properly and learn the game so I have stayed there.  Too be honest, speed, skill, etc are all great.  Every coach looks for all of those things.  Those kids will stand out and get chosen first.  For me, after the couple obvious ones, I do it a little differently with the little ones.  The difference many times after the couple studs in negligible.  My next look is body language.  Are they attentive?  Do they look at me if I am speaking to them?  Do they try to do whatever I asked them?  If there is a line with all of the kids do they pay attention to what the others are doing or just talk in line?  Seems arbitrary but I think it speaks volumes about the coachability of the kid.   Most of all, I want kids that are coachable.  I have passed on numerous kids over the years because of this because I think it is the most valuable trait of all.


----------



## timmyh (Feb 21, 2017)

Eusebio said:


> ...The beauty of that complex station drill at the Surf try-out from 6-7 years is that drill would be useful from ages U8 to U15, not just U-littles. That drill was fantastic for identifying intelligent players...


Sounds cool. I would love to hear more details about this. Can you describe it?


----------



## coachrefparent (Feb 24, 2017)

socalkdg said:


> My kid has tons of 1 and 3, but what is the best way to improve #2, aggressiveness?  I see it in spurts, but not all the time.  What is weird is she is super aggressive when playing keeper, but not in the field.


I agree with those that say its hard to teach/coach. I have this issue with one of my kids. She will kill her older brother when they play together, but on the field with other girls her age she's more "respectful". As I tell coaches (and parents) when I referee, soccer is a contact sport, and the best players don't fear contact, but more often thrive on it. They want the ball, they want engagement, they want to be the center of attention, they don't back down. That's what I refer to as aggressiveness.

As for tryouts, I agree as a coach that it is a mess. Retention and loyalty are important to teams and clubs, especially when players have siblings and friend within the club. "Sorry Mrs. Jones, your son Jimmy is just a tad subpar, but I hear coach John really wants your daughter Jane to stay with his team, as she's such a great player..." This makes it harder for coaches, when a team may need to be split/relegated due to talent coming in, or that needs to be jettisoned. Not fun stuff.

In the end, if development is paramount to winning, you'll keep some less talented players and not ask some betters on. There are always losers. If you have  big club, this is easier, as there are 3-5 teams per age, and you can just move players around, collect their money and not tell them Rec is their better option.


----------



## Zerodenero (Feb 24, 2017)

rainbow_unicorn said:


> Agressiveness can be taught but takes some time to develop...it is 100% mental.  I think the only thing that you can do is remind them before the game that it might be the one thing that you want them to work on that day (going in hard, dispossession, etc.).


Nature or nurture? .....Can aggressiveness really be taught?? - Not according to an old chap who's been scouting/coaching top-tier female soccer in Socal for several decades.

Link:http://www.socceramerica.com/article/43695/growing-pains-girls-face-challenge-of-the-commot.html


----------



## MakeAPlay (Feb 25, 2017)

Zerodenero said:


> Nature or nurture? .....Can aggressiveness really be taught?? - Not according to an old chap who's been scouting/coaching top-tier female soccer in Socal for several decades.
> 
> Link:http://www.socceramerica.com/article/43695/growing-pains-girls-face-challenge-of-the-commot.html


Great commentary from an AMAZING coach.  Thanks for sharing ZD.


----------



## Glen (Feb 25, 2017)

The "competitive cauldron" employed by Anson Dorrance suggests that aggression can be developed through training.  I guess Bobak and Dorrance disagree.


----------



## NoGoal (Feb 25, 2017)

Glen said:


> The "competitive cauldron" employed by Anson Dorrance suggests that aggression can be developed through training.  I guess Bobak and Dorrance disagree.


Anson experience is based on his college soccer student athletes in which the majority are YNT players who are already aggressive.  Bobak's assestment is based on youth players in which he is trying to weed out the the contenders and the pretenders.


----------



## Glen (Feb 25, 2017)

That's fair.  Reading the article closer, I think both Anson and Bobak are saying that aggression can be developed.  But Bobak seems to suggest that there needs to be a fundamental competitiveness in the kid to bring out the aggression.


----------



## zebrafish (Feb 25, 2017)

“Now the ones who have it, I notice what I’m doing is I’m polishing what they have. But if they’re not able to have that aggressiveness, I’m not able to bring it out. I can’t polish something that doesn’t exist. I haven’t seen anything out there to bring it out. I can only keep aggressiveness going in a positive direction in the ones who have it.”

Certainly an interesting article. I think there are kids who always have aggressiveness, sometimes have it, and never have it. I think he is talking about the second category in terms of the players for which he can develop this tendency.


----------



## Bananacorner (Feb 25, 2017)

coachrefparent said:


> I agree with those that say its hard to teach/coach. I have this issue with one of my kids. She will kill her older brother when they play together, but on the field with other girls her age she's more "respectful". As I tell coaches (and parents) when I referee, soccer is a contact sport, and the best players don't fear contact, but more often thrive on it. They want the ball, they want engagement, they want to be the center of attention, they don't back down. That's what I refer to as aggressiveness.
> 
> As for tryouts, I agree as a coach that it is a mess. Retention and loyalty are important to teams and clubs, especially when players have siblings and friend within the club. "Sorry Mrs. Jones, your son Jimmy is just a tad subpar, but I hear coach John really wants your daughter Jane to stay with his team, as she's such a great player..." This makes it harder for coaches, when a team may need to be split/relegated due to talent coming in, or that needs to be jettisoned. Not fun stuff.
> 
> In the end, if development is paramount to winning, you'll keep some less talented players and not ask some betters on. There are always losers. If you have  big club, this is easier, as there are 3-5 teams per age, and you can just move players around, collect their money and not tell them Rec is their better option.



I think you brought up a key point.  A lot of people believe a child has a certain level of aggressiveness, and that doesn't vary across situations.  But as you mention, your daughter is aggressive with her older brother but passive with girls her age.  My younger daughter varies by situation also.  If she is playing with rec players, she is shoving, pushing for the ball, defensively chasing players all the way down the field and stripping them of the ball, literally dribbling "over" players to get the ball into the goal.  It got to be too easy for her, so I asked her if she wanted to play competitive.  But when I took her to try out for a competitive team, she looked like the least aggressive player imaginable.  She watched.  She ran next to or behind the dribbling player without touching her, letting her score.   I was scratching my head.  For the next tryout, I told her she would get a piece of candy every time she touched the ball, and she was still hesitant at first, but by the end she was getting stuck in, dribbling down the field during the scrimmage, shooting, coming in hard for tackles, etc.  But next session, she was back to passive again (can only give a little girl so much candy...)

My point is I think sometimes coaches/parents think that what you see is what you get, but it in my experience it is so situational.  If I can't predict it, and I'm the parent, I don't think a coach can predict what she will do next.  Some kids may get overlooked because they aren't aggressive in every situation, and something as scary as a tryout with kids who are playing at a higher level than they are used to, might make the trait "go dormant."  I think it will come out again when she gets comfortable with the higher level of play, but I'll let you know.


----------



## Sane65 (Feb 25, 2017)

Supermodel56 said:


> Umm... if you read what I said, the average height on the USWNT is between 5'6"-5/8"... (excluding keepers). So yes, on average, they're slightly taller, but we're not talking super tall - either...  Not like comparing football or basketball players to normal people. Not a single player over 6ft and you have several very good impact players 5'6 and under. Which again, size should be less important than skill, speed, and IQ.
> 
> Tobin Heath: 5'6"
> Carly Lloyd: 5'8"
> ...


Abby Wambach: 5'11"


----------



## Sane65 (Feb 25, 2017)

rainbow_unicorn said:


> Agressiveness can be taught but takes some time to develop...it is 100% mental.  I think the only thing that you can do is remind them before the game that it might be the one thing that you want them to work on that day (going in hard, dispossession, etc.).
> 
> Also, keep in mind that playing agressively takes a lot of energy.  That one agressive scrum to win back the ball may sap a player's energy where they can't make a good offensive run for the next five minutes.


Aggressiveness is simply a personality trait.  I've seen it in top skill players and/or mid level.  It is not a bad thing to not be overtly aggressive but maybe the player is better suited for a different position if the player has a unique skill set.  Something needs to be a "special".  Coach-ability,  IQ, Skill, Speed, Aggressiveness and/or tactical awareness.   These talents/skills whether stand alone or in combinations need to be celebrated! These are all sets that are stand outs.  Also depends on what the team needs within any particular season.....


----------



## espola (Feb 26, 2017)

Sane65 said:


> Aggressiveness is simply a personality trait.  I've seen it in top skill players and/or mid level.  It is not a bad thing to not be overtly aggressive but maybe the player is better suited for a different position if the player has a unique skill set.  Something needs to be a "special".  Coach-ability,  IQ, Skill, Speed, Aggressiveness and/or tactical awareness.   These talents/skills whether stand alone or in combinations need to be celebrated! These are all sets that are stand outs.  Also depends on what the team needs within any particular season.....


A player can be aggressive in a skillful, courteous way (going after the ball), or aggressive in a bullying way (knocking your opponent on his ass).  Depending on coach, teammates, opponents, and referees, results may vary.


----------



## Supermodel56 (Feb 26, 2017)

espola said:


> A player can be aggressive in a skillful, courteous way (going after the ball), or aggressive in a bullying way (knocking your opponent on his ass).  Depending on coach, teammates, opponents, and referees, results may vary.


Agree - although I think identifying desired aggressiveness is tough - for example, you take a kid who's got great skills, plays aggressive against opponents, and knows better than to take balls away from teammates vs another teammate who is bigger, less skilled, but knocking other kids on their ass, constantly steals the ball away from their own teammates to try to score and impress the coach... Player 1 never even gets to show her aggressiveness because she doesn't stoop to that level and Player 2 makes the team but 2-3 games into the season she's consistently turning the ball over because she won't pass and opponents know to just target her. 

Do coaches actually notice that and see the difference to select the "right" player? Or are tryouts intended to just be every boy/girl for himself and soccer IQ goes out the window? Does soccer IQ ever get taken into consideration?


----------



## espola (Feb 26, 2017)

Supermodel56 said:


> Agree - although I think identifying desired aggressiveness is tough - for example, you take a kid who's got great skills, plays aggressive against opponents, and knows better than to take balls away from teammates vs another teammate who is bigger, less skilled, but knocking other kids on their ass, constantly steals the ball away from their own teammates to try to score and impress the coach... Player 1 never even gets to show her aggressiveness because she doesn't stoop to that level and Player 2 makes the team but 2-3 games into the season she's consistently turning the ball over because she won't pass and opponents know to just target her.
> 
> Do coaches actually notice that and see the difference to select the "right" player? Or are tryouts intended to just be every boy/girl for himself and soccer IQ goes out the window? Does soccer IQ ever get taken into consideration?


I would not want to make a general statement about coaches in that regard.  YMMV


----------



## Supermodel56 (Feb 26, 2017)

espola said:


> I would not want to make a general statement about coaches in that regard.  YMMV


That's fair... It was more rhetorical and I probably should've rephrased the question... but I guess it's because I've seen it quite a few times and as for my DD, it's tough because the question is do I "coach" her to do the same thing and take the ball back from same teammate or others (which is totally against her character) or tell her to play her game and risk not getting to show her skills because teammates won't pass to her, steal the ball away, etc... 

does that make sense?


----------



## espola (Feb 26, 2017)

Supermodel56 said:


> That's fair... It was more rhetorical and I probably should've rephrased the question... but I guess it's because I've seen it quite a few times and as for my DD, it's tough because the question is do I "coach" her to do the same thing and take the ball back from same teammate or others (which is totally against her character) or tell her to play her game and risk not getting to show her skills because teammates won't pass to her, steal the ball away, etc...
> 
> does that make sense?


A good coach should be able to recognize and correct that behavior.


----------



## rainbow_unicorn (Feb 26, 2017)

Supermodel56 said:


> Agree - although I think identifying desired aggressiveness is tough - for example, you take a kid who's got great skills, plays aggressive against opponents, and knows better than to take balls away from teammates vs another teammate who is bigger, less skilled, but knocking other kids on their ass, constantly steals the ball away from their own teammates to try to score and impress the coach... Player 1 never even gets to show her aggressiveness because she doesn't stoop to that level and Player 2 makes the team but 2-3 games into the season she's consistently turning the ball over because she won't pass and opponents know to just target her.


Stealing the ball from their own teammates?!?  And is she knocking other team or her own players on their ass??  LOL.  Any normal coach would tell that girl, "what the heck are you doing?"


----------



## Supermodel56 (Feb 26, 2017)

rainbow_unicorn said:


> Stealing the ball from their own teammates?!?  And is she knocking other team or her own players on their ass??  LOL.  Any normal coach would tell that girl, "what the heck are you doing?"


You'd be surprised... omg, have I got stories for ya... and coach never said a thing (at least not that we're aware - which to be fair we shouldn't hear about it if he did - but the behavior continued throughout the season...)  I'll also add that in just about every other aspect, the coach was actually fantastic - which is why I find the attention on aggressiveness so fascinating.


----------



## Zerodenero (Feb 26, 2017)

Supermodel56 said:


> You'd be surprised... omg, have I got stories for ya... and coach never said a thing (at least not that we're aware - which to be fair we shouldn't hear about it if he did - but the behavior continued throughout the season...)  I'll also add that in just about every other aspect, the coach was actually fantastic - which is why I find the attention on aggressiveness so fascinating.


In addition to aggressiveness, mental *resilience* is mandatory to foster growth - on AND off the field.

Below is a clip of Jacqueline Novogratz, a highly successful entrepreneur/philanthropist who shares a few thoughts on this topic which in my experience, directly correlates to sports, business and the game of life.

Link: https://www.forbes.com/video/5334588524001/


----------



## Mystery Train (Feb 27, 2017)

Wait, someone just double check my count here: we're 4 pages in and we've had one coach respond so far?  So then 3.9 pages of parents talking about what they think about what coaches think?  Got it.  Carry on.


----------



## Socal United (Feb 27, 2017)

Mystery Train said:


> Wait, someone just double check my count here: we're 4 pages in and we've had one coach respond so far?  So then 3.9 pages of parents talking about what they think about what coaches think?  Got it.  Carry on.


I wanted to say the same thing since I was the coach but it went the route it normally does....


----------



## Zerodenero (Feb 27, 2017)

Mystery Train said:


> Wait, someone just double check my count here: we're 4 pages in and we've had one coach respond so far?  So then 3.9 pages of parents talking about what they think about what coaches think?  Got it.  Carry on.





Socal United said:


> I wanted to say the same thing since I was the coach but it went the route it normally does....


Lol. Maybe so..... But in all reality, the parents are the most relevant, impactful *coach* a player will have in their life.


----------



## Socal United (Feb 27, 2017)

Zerodenero said:


> Lol. Maybe so..... But in all reality, the parents are the most relevant, impactful *coach* a player will have in their life.


There is no disputing that.  That said, the question asked what coaches look for.


----------



## Bdobyns (Feb 27, 2017)

Supermodel56 said:


> Umm... if you read what I said, the average height on the USWNT is between 5'6"-5/8"... (excluding keepers). So yes, on average, they're slightly taller, but we're not talking super tall - either...  Not like comparing football or basketball players to normal people. Not a single player over 6ft and you have several very good impact players 5'6 and under. Which again, size should be less important than skill, speed, and IQ.
> 
> Tobin Heath: 5'6"
> Carly Lloyd: 5'8"
> ...


The USWNT is not taking the average, they are taking the exceptional.  All college programs want the exceptional, however, I would be willing to bet that once the exceptional are committed, size will play a big role in where scholarship dollars are spent.


----------



## Supermodel56 (Feb 28, 2017)

Bdobyns said:


> The USWNT is not taking the average, they are taking the exceptional.  All college programs want the exceptional, however, I would be willing to bet that once the exceptional are committed, size will play a big role in where scholarship dollars are spent.


That doesn't even make sense... if the most exceptional players are on average between 5'6"-5'8" why the hell would scholarship dollars all of a sudden favor bigger players? 

Maybe check out TopDrawerSoccer and look at the top 100 freshman recruits... here's the top 10 and last 10 so you can see the consistency. in fact, as you go down the list, it would appear that all things equal, more shorter/avg height players are selected. What it tells me is that height/size in itself is not really an advantage for soccer in the long run - if your DD's projected height on the growth chart falls between 5'6"-5'8" you're in pretty good shape.  Even in the top 10 recruits, less than half are over 5'8" and only one player over 6ft.

#1 - Jessie Fleming: 5'3"
#2 - Ella Stevens: 5'9"
#3 - Deyna Castellanos: 5'6"
#4 - Tierna Davidson: 5'10"
#5 - Taylor Kornieck: 6'1"
#6 - Jennifer Westendorf: 5'9"
#7 - Annika Rodriguez: 5'2"
#8 - Kristina Schuster: 5'7"
#9 - Kaiya McCullough: 5'8"
#10 - Chloe Froment: 5'7"
Avg height: 5'7.5" Range: 5'2"-6'1" 

#91 - Beattie Goad: 5'7"
#92 - Avery Hay: 5'6"
#93 - Chandler Backes: 5'9"
#94 - Emily Hess: 5'4"
#95 - Doro Greulich: 5'10"
#96 - Hugrun Olafsdottir: 5'7"
#97 - Alyssa Jefferson: 5'5"
#98 - Ali Russo: 5'4"
#99 - Mary O'Hara: 5'4"
#100 - Laura Hamilton: 5'7"
Avg height: 5'6.3" Range: 5'4"-5'10"


----------



## Bdobyns (Feb 28, 2017)

Supermodel56 said:


> That doesn't even make sense... if the most exceptional players are on average between 5'6"-5'8" why the hell would scholarship dollars all of a sudden favor bigger players?
> 
> Maybe check out TopDrawerSoccer and look at the top 100 freshman recruits... here's the top 10 and last 10 so you can see the consistency. in fact, as you go down the list, it would appear that all things equal, more shorter/avg height players are selected. What it tells me is that height/size in itself is not really an advantage for soccer in the long run - if your DD's projected height on the growth chart falls between 5'6"-5'8" you're in pretty good shape.  Even in the top 10 recruits, less than half are over 5'8" and only one player over 6ft.
> 
> ...


Really, you don’t get it?  How many WNT players are there?  How many D1 programs are there?  There is more scholarship money out there than spots on the WNT.  Of course you are going to get more girls that are around the 5’6” range because that is where the majority of girls fall.  The number of girls 5’8” and above are more rare and thus that much more desired.  Doesn’t mean that they are better.  When a D1 programs has a chance to grab defenders and forwards that are tall, they will take the risk.  My little turd is 5’6” and with studs, she can say 5’7”.  Many D1 coaches told us that they want center backs that are tall and that if she wants to play defense, she will be playing outside back. 

BTW watch out for that #9 on your list.


----------



## coachrefparent (Feb 28, 2017)

Supermodel56 said:


> That doesn't even make sense... if the most exceptional players are on average between 5'6"-5'8" why the hell would scholarship dollars all of a sudden favor bigger players?
> 
> Maybe check out TopDrawerSoccer and look at the top 100 freshman recruits... here's the top 10 and last 10 so you can see the consistency. in fact, as you go down the list, it would appear that all things equal, more shorter/avg height players are selected. What it tells me is that height/size in itself is not really an advantage for soccer in the long run - if your DD's projected height on the growth chart falls between 5'6"-5'8" you're in pretty good shape.  Even in the top 10 recruits, less than half are over 5'8" and only one player over 6ft.
> 
> ...


Maybe the tallest (6+) girls aren't playing soccer in college? Basketball, volleyball? It is strange though.


----------



## NoGoal (Feb 28, 2017)

Here is interesting video on straight line speed vs zigzag speed/quickness.  Ronaldo vs a Sprinter.


----------



## Supermodel56 (Mar 1, 2017)

NoGoal said:


> Here is interesting video on straight line speed vs zigzag speed/quickness.  Ronaldo vs a Sprinter.


That is really interesting! I was just reading on how taller people are supposed to be faster because they have longer strides - but this could explain why "shorter" people actually may have an advantage in soccer since you're not always running in a straight line...  perhaps once you reach a certain height and/or stride length, there are diminishing returns... it also differs for men vs women due to differences in center of gravity.

Bdobyns - its true if you look at the breakdown, defenders seem to skew taller, as are keepers. Different positions require different skill sets and body types.... while there are always exceptions to the rule, the lesson may be that as you train, bear in mind positions that are more natural to your body type.


----------



## socalkdg (Mar 1, 2017)

Supermodel56 said:


> That is really interesting! I was just reading on how taller people are supposed to be faster because they have longer strides - but this could explain why "shorter" people actually may have an advantage in soccer since you're not always running in a straight line...  perhaps once you reach a certain height and/or stride length, there are diminishing returns... it also differs for men vs women due to differences in center of gravity.


Except in this test Ronaldo was actually taller than the sprinter.   The other thing is Ronaldo does both straight line and zig zag running during the game, thus would be used to both and have experience with both.  The sprinter would only be used to straight line.  Give him a few months running the zig zag and I'm pretty sure he would cut down his time.   My DD has really long strides which gives her great straight line speed.  The coach has worked with her on shortening her stride for certain situations to help with quicker changes of directions.  

One thing I've always felt is that shorter girls might have an advantage with balance while running and getting bumped.  A taller girl might be able to be knocked off her stride a bit easier.  This is just a feeling, with no data to back it up.


----------



## NoGoal (Mar 1, 2017)

Speed= stride length + strike rate

Any player overstriding and striking/running on their heels is actually pumping the brakes.


----------



## rainbow_unicorn (Mar 1, 2017)

Finally, people are starting to get that height is not all that important in soccer.  Yes, you need height if you're a center back or a forward to win headers and hold the ball.  But everywhere else on the pitch (not including air situations) height can work to your disadvantage.  Tall people (over 6'2" for men and maybe 5'8" for women) tend to be slower/less quick.


----------



## Supermodel56 (Mar 1, 2017)

rainbow_unicorn said:


> Finally, people are starting to get that height is not all that important in soccer.  Yes, you need height if you're a center back or a forward to win headers and hold the ball.  But everywhere else on the pitch (not including air situations) height can work to your disadvantage.  Tall people (over 6'2" for men and maybe 5'8" for women) tend to be slower/less quick.


I would even venture to say you don't need all tall forwards depending on formation and skill levels - better to mix it up, give the defense different looks and styles of play to deal with, and exploit the mismatches.


----------



## mirage (Mar 1, 2017)

Supermodel56 said:


> I would even venture to say you don't need all tall forwards depending on formation and skill levels - better to mix it up, give the defense different looks and styles of play to deal with, and exploit the mismatches.


Completely agree.  Tall forwards are good for over the top and chase it kind of tactics but not a discriminator for possession-based attacks.  I know everyone points to Messi (5'6"-ish) but look at many other successful forwards (e.g., Aguero, Naymar, Griezmann,...) and none of them are more than 5-10ish.  Ibra is an exception, along with Christiano - both over 6' tall.  Luis Suarez, who I consider to be the most complete forward player today, is 5'-11".

As for winning headers, there are two components in the equation.  Timing and vertical leap ability.  Many shorter players win headers over taller.  What you care is the players ability to jump high (for the ultimate vertical reach) and ability to read the ball for timing the jump.  The key is to execute the jump at the right moment.


----------



## Bdobyns (Mar 5, 2017)

How many goals are scored and games won because of a set piece?  According to one source (http://eplindex.com/19280/importance-set-pieces-stats-analysis.html ), nearly 40% come from set pieces.  According to another site, http://statsbomb.com/2013/07/how-do-headers-compare-to-shots/ , headers score 12% of the time whereas shots are at 9.1%.  So if you can add some height to your team, especially for set pieces, there is probably a greater chance for a goal and thus a victory.  So, as one of hundreds of college coaches that have money to spend (some more and some less), you want people that can get their head on the ball.


----------



## espola (Mar 5, 2017)

Bdobyns said:


> How many goals are scored and games won because of a set piece?  According to one source (http://eplindex.com/19280/importance-set-pieces-stats-analysis.html ), nearly 40% come from set pieces.  According to another site, http://statsbomb.com/2013/07/how-do-headers-compare-to-shots/ , headers score 12% of the time whereas shots are at 9.1%.  So if you can add some height to your team, especially for set pieces, there is probably a greater chance for a goal and thus a victory.  So, as one of hundreds of college coaches that have money to spend (some more and some less), you want people that can get their head on the ball.


In high school games, many coaches sub in a tall player on corner kicks, or a big thrower for a throwin.  Under competition rules that inhibit substitutions, those players have value only if they can play effectively the other 90% of the game.

Here is another silly stat - 25% to 30% of corner kick attempts result with the ball going all the way through or over the crowd in front of the goal.  Very few teams station a player over there.


----------



## Eusebio (Mar 6, 2017)

I remember a game earlier this season where we had a fill-in coach. Normally our team has a tall forward playing the #9 and the team often plays over the top, run and dump balls to him. Pretty much anytime the ball is in the midfield, the players look to put the ball over the top to the forward. 

But about half-way through the game, the guest coach took out the tall forward and put in a small technical player at the #9 position. You could hear an audible groan from the parents on the sideline. For about the first 5 minutes, the team continued to play over the top balls to the little forward. It soon became painfully obvious they were just giving the ball away playing it over the top. So about 10 minutes in, you could see the players start playing the ball to the little forward's feet. He would check in and lay-off the ball for combination plays. Pretty soon our team was actually getting possession in the attacking 3rd and the outside mids and attacking mid were getting more involved in the attack and began creating higher quality chances on goal. 

For much of the season, our team had been playing a counter-attacking style, but within just 15 minutes of changing the forward, it completely changed the look of the offense. There's nothing wrong with having a tall forward, I just think coaches should be more willing to experiment, particularly with their smaller players.

After that game, the smaller player never played forward again. Not sure if the guest coach ever relayed a complete game summary. So the tall player returned to forward permanently. Though I did hear the parents weren't happy when he was on the bench much of that game.


----------



## jrcaesar (Mar 6, 2017)

Bdobyns said:


> How many goals are scored and games won because of a set piece? According to one source (http://eplindex.com/19280/importance-set-pieces-stats-analysis.html ), nearly 40% come from set pieces.


*No ... that's not what it says at all. 

Here is the image from that story link - only 15% of plays in the 2011-12 EPL season coverted. Only 4 of 20 EPL teams converted at >20% that year. 




*


----------



## coachrefparent (Mar 6, 2017)

jrcaesar said:


> *No ... that's not what it says at all.
> 
> Here is the image from that story link - only 15% of plays in the 2011-12 EPL season coverted. Only 4 of 20 EPL teams converted at >20% that year.
> 
> ...


Unless there is more data in the story, you cannot determine the percentage of set pieces were "converted" into goals. This would require knowing how many set pieces were taken, and how many goals were scored off those. Neither of these figures are included here. 

This graph simply tells us that of X number of goals, Y number were scored off set pieces, and the percentage that represents (and of course X-Y goals were not scored on set pieces.)


----------



## Supermodel56 (Mar 6, 2017)

jrcaesar said:


> *No ... that's not what it says at all.
> 
> Here is the image from that story link - only 15% of plays in the 2011-12 EPL season coverted. Only 4 of 20 EPL teams converted at >20% that year.
> 
> ...


If you look at the numbers - the highest number of goals scored off set pieces is 14 - and that was for Stoke - which if you look at total # of goals scored - was just 36... it's clear they were missing a significant component of their game outside of set pieces. Set pieces alone do not win games or seasons. I'm guessing that statistically, there's a fairly narrow range of avg # of set pieces that occur in a game. So you're only going to get so many chances - the teams and players that can capitalize on both are the ones that score the most goals. Look at Man City and Man United- they've "maximized" their set pieces and also show a very strong game in regular play with 93 & 89 total goals. If Newcastle could capitalize on more of their set pieces, they could bring it up to maybe 66 total goals. Whereas Blackburn and Chelsea need to score more from the field... 

Thinking we're going to just have all tall players so we can win all the set pieces is just plain dumb. The height certainly can play a role, but the reality, you need the speed, agility, and skills to be able to get yourselves into scoring positions and create opportunities. Shorter players have an advantage because of their lower center of gravity and short legs - making them much more nimble - in a football analogy, running backs (with some exceptions) tend to be much shorter so they can make frequent cuts vs. wide receivers who are generally taller so they can run faster, stretch the field, and reach up to grab the passes. WR's just need to be able to make 1-2 cuts per play.  Think a giraffe vs a cheetah.


----------



## espola (Mar 6, 2017)

jrcaesar said:


> *No ... that's not what it says at all.
> 
> Here is the image from that story link - only 15% of plays in the 2011-12 EPL season coverted. Only 4 of 20 EPL teams converted at >20% that year.
> 
> ...


There is also a missing view - what percentage of a team's shots on goal were from set pieces?


----------



## espola (Mar 6, 2017)

Supermodel56 said:


> If you look at the numbers - the highest number of goals scored off set pieces is 14 - and that was for Stoke - which if you look at total # of goals scored - was just 36... it's clear they were missing a significant component of their game outside of set pieces. Set pieces alone do not win games or seasons. I'm guessing that statistically, there's a fairly narrow range of avg # of set pieces that occur in a game. So you're only going to get so many chances - the teams and players that can capitalize on both are the ones that score the most goals. Look at Man City and Man United- they've "maximized" their set pieces and also show a very strong game in regular play with 93 & 89 total goals. If Newcastle could capitalize on more of their set pieces, they could bring it up to maybe 66 total goals. Whereas Blackburn and Chelsea need to score more from the field...
> 
> Thinking we're going to just have all tall players so we can win all the set pieces is just plain dumb. The height certainly can play a role, but the reality, you need the speed, agility, and skills to be able to get yourselves into scoring positions and create opportunities. Shorter players have an advantage because of their lower center of gravity and short legs - making them much more nimble - in a football analogy, running backs (with some exceptions) tend to be much shorter so they can make frequent cuts vs. wide receivers who are generally taller so they can run faster, stretch the field, and reach up to grab the passes. WR's just need to be able to make 1-2 cuts per play.  Think a giraffe vs a cheetah.


And not all set piece plays intend the ball to go to a tall player.


----------



## CoachMike (Mar 18, 2017)

I think for youngers, its better to have a more skills/technical based tryout.

I personally coach olders and feel that a fairly short passing / dribble drill followed by a longer session of small sided scrimmages are the best way to see a player. Rotate teams and put everyone against everyone. Especially when an awful lot of players show up and there is limited time, while every other team is doing tryouts that same week...

Evaluation wise their first touch, positioning and awareness are critical to me but I can afford to be a little more picky with my selections as we have a solid squad previously.

The kid who gives a lot of energy from the get go [the Alexis], the vocal one [knows the game], and the one who is always moving into space [aware] are usually ones to look out for. I feel it is quite easy to tell who will perform and develop, and who is not quite there yet but of course anyone can be good if so motivated and driven enough.


----------



## CoachMike (Mar 18, 2017)

mirage said:


> Completely agree.  Tall forwards are good for over the top and chase it kind of tactics but not a discriminator for possession-based attacks.  I know everyone points to Messi (5'6"-ish) but look at many other successful forwards (e.g., Aguero, Naymar, Griezmann,...) and none of them are more than 5-10ish.  Ibra is an exception, along with Christiano - both over 6' tall.  Luis Suarez, who I consider to be the most complete forward player today, is 5'-11".
> 
> As for winning headers, there are two components in the equation.  Timing and vertical leap ability.  Many shorter players win headers over taller.  What you care is the players ability to jump high (for the ultimate vertical reach) and ability to read the ball for timing the jump.  The key is to execute the jump at the right moment.


I agree 100%. My first season doing HS futbol here, my shortest kid was by far the best at heading. He'd often win heads over people seemingly twice his size.

On the flip side I wasn't blessed with forwards but did have a very tall FWD, and someone who could take throws like a set piece. Saw a couple of times the ball hit my FWDs face and deflect away. Not much use there.


----------



## The Driver (Mar 22, 2017)

Zerodenero said:


> Link:http://www.socceramerica.com/article/43695/growing-pains-girls-face-challenge-of-the-commot.html


 Bump


----------



## The Driver (Mar 22, 2017)

The article was fire.


----------

