# 7v7 was a joke at SURF CUP



## silverstreak (Aug 7, 2016)

1.  6 goals scored by keeper punts
2. several goals scored on direct kickoff shots
3. hardly any goalkeeper distributions out of the back
4. pressure line NOT implemented
5. Poor display of quality soccer or team play (win at all cost mentallity) 
6. Throw ins back post....lol

at the end of the day U.S soccer and Surf Cup got it wrong......these girls are too fast, too skilled, too strong to be bottled up and the use of the small sided game was non existent............hence win at all cost ...Ugly Ugly Ugly........survival game.......smash it from anywhere on the field at your chance of a goal.......i talked to several coaches and they were actually apologetic after winning ugly games.....AND THEY SAY THIS IS GOOD FOR OUR KIDS?????   blues cup, surf thanksgiving expect many teams at this age to pull out.....good luck


----------



## full90 (Aug 7, 2016)

This sounds like an issue with your coach. Your coach could've solved issues 1-6 for your team regardless of what other teams and coaches were doing.

When you say the girls are too fast, too skilled and too strong to be bottled up, you are exactly the problem. If they are so skilled, being bottled up shouldn't be a problem. Making fast and strong skilled kids play small sided is exactly what they need. Win at all cost lies at the feet of your coach, not a message board, a tournament or US Soccer.


----------



## tabletop (Aug 7, 2016)

full90 said:


> This sounds like an issue with your coach. Your coach could've solved issues 1-6 for your team regardless of what other teams and coaches were doing.
> 
> When you say the girls are too fast, too skilled and too strong to be bottled up, you are exactly the problem. If they are so skilled, being bottled up shouldn't be a problem. Making fast and strong skilled kids play small sided is exactly what they need. Win at all cost lies at the feet of your coach, not a message board, a tournament or US Soccer.


Anyone who was there feels the exact same way the OP does.


----------



## espola (Aug 7, 2016)

silverstreak said:


> 1.  6 goals scored by keeper punts
> 2. several goals scored on direct kickoff shots
> 3. hardly any goalkeeper distributions out of the back
> 4. pressure line NOT implemented
> ...


The small-field, small-sided, limited-play game is great for kids who have never played before.  

I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## silverstreak (Aug 7, 2016)

Guess you had to be there....not really much to argue.....guarantee plenty will after...like I said....several coaches were at the mercy to play bad soccer....I mean it's surf cup....your not gonna play pretty and lose to prove a point....lol


----------



## SOCCERMINION (Aug 7, 2016)

I watched some of the small field games at Surf Cup. Let's be honest these are above average developed girls. Most all of them were able to shoot from  most anywere on the small fields, and the goalies were able to punt the ball on frame. This format may be ok for your beginners to help develope them. But IMHO I dont think it works for our homegrown Socal girls used to playing with their older sisters. Might as well make them play futsal, which most the youngers in SoCal are already accustomed to playing.


----------



## espola (Aug 7, 2016)

SOCCERMINION said:


> I watched some of the small field games at Surf Cup. Let's be honest these are above average developed girls. Most all of them were able to shoot from  most anywere on the small fields, and the goalies were able to punt the ball on frame. This format may be ok for your beginners to help develope them. But IMHO I dont think it works for our homegrown Socal girls used to playing with their older sisters. Might as well make them play futsal, which most the youngers in SoCal are already accustomed to playing.


When my older son played Div 7 rec ball, 4v4 on a miniature field, he and several other players in the league could punt the ball the length of the field during their time in goal (one of the rules was that players could only play keeper for half a game at most).  Some games boiled down to two strong keepers punting to each other over the heads of their teammates.  The next season, the rules were changed so that keepers could not score direct unless they brought the ball up over the midline.

When it was time for my younger son to play, we skipped 4v4 and had him play up on an 8v8 team with his brother.


----------



## Sped (Aug 8, 2016)

silverstreak said:


> 1.  6 goals scored by keeper punts
> 2. several goals scored on direct kickoff shots
> 3. hardly any goalkeeper distributions out of the back
> 4. pressure line NOT implemented
> ...


How did surf cup get it wrong?  They're just playing the way most of the country is doing it.


----------



## espola (Aug 8, 2016)

Sped said:


> How did surf cup get it wrong?  They're just playing the way most of the country is doing it.


I read the OP as a complaint about the new national rules for this age group, not Surf Cup in particular.


----------



## watfly (Aug 8, 2016)

You think it was bad for the girls, it may have been worse on the boys side.  Had the the buildout lines and no punting been enforced it might have made it slightly better but it is clear that US Soccer has not thought this through.  No offsides on goal kicks so just load up the box and kick downfield and hope for a touch in or a rebound in front of the goal.  Shots from the kickoff.  Every free kick was a shot taking opportunity.  Endless throw-ins.  Credit to the couple teams, like TFA, that stayed true to the game of soccer.  If US Soccer's goal was promote shot taking from all over the field and kick ball then mission accomplished.  US Soccer should promote futsal if they want to encourage touches, not try to turn the outdoor game into futsal with bigger goals and a lighter ball.


----------



## espola (Aug 8, 2016)

watfly said:


> You think it was bad for the girls, it may have been worse on the boys side.  Had the the buildout lines and no punting been enforced it might have made it slightly better but it is clear that US Soccer has not thought this through.  No offsides on goal kicks so just load up the box and kick downfield and hope for a touch in or a rebound in front of the goal.  Shots from the kickoff.  Every free kick was a shot taking opportunity.  Endless throw-ins.  Credit to the couple teams, like TFA, that stayed true to the game of soccer.  If US Soccer's goal was promote shot taking from all over the field and kick ball then mission accomplished.  US Soccer should promote futsal if they want to encourage touches, not try to turn the outdoor game into futsal with bigger goals and a lighter ball.


"true to the game of soccer"?  

The point of the game is to put the ball in the other team's goal, and prevent them from doing it to you.  All the rest is style.


----------



## bababooey (Aug 8, 2016)

Those 7v7 fields are tiny. I watched a few of the games going on while my dd's team was warming up. It might be better if they played futsal on these fields versus "regular" soccer. The ball was in the air too much IMHO. Maybe our young players would be better served with the ball on the ground more often, no throw-ins, no goalie punts, etc.

It was fun to watch these little players out there busting their butts. It seems like so long ago that my kid was this age.


----------



## texanincali (Aug 8, 2016)

Sped said:


> How did surf cup get it wrong?  They're just playing the way most of the country is doing it.


I think the main point he is making is US Soccer got it wrong.  I haven't yet seen a 7v7 game but I can tell you that the field dimensions for 9v9 are considerably smaller than pre-existing 9v9 fields.  It makes for a very ugly game with the 05's and 06's if you are playing on the new size fields recommended by USSF.  I can't imaging the '04 boys DA playing on these smaller fields - it is going to make for ugly, mucked up games that will not be what anyone is used to.

Maybe it is just an adjustment period everyone has to go through, but I think we will begin to hear more and more about how the changes are being implemented.


----------



## watfly (Aug 8, 2016)

espola said:


> "true to the game of soccer"?
> 
> The point of the game is to put the ball in the other team's goal, and prevent them from doing it to you.  All the rest is style.


I normally don't respond to troll comments, but that is also the same point of water polo, lacrosse, etc but we don't call that soccer.  Obviously you weren't there...there wasn't a coach I spoke to that thought what was being played was in the spirit of soccer.  "This is a joke" was the common comment I heard.


----------



## Flash91 (Aug 8, 2016)

I coach the 07 surf Hawaii girls team, and I admit the first game I played was purely kickball just to try and win!
It's not how we teach or play soccer, the next two games I decided to just build out from the back and play our POSSESION style.
We lost 2-1 to eagles & tied 1-1 to Colorado!
I personally think the small fields are wrong!
If my younger team makes surf cup next year we won't make the trip to surf cup to play 7v7 kickball!
Bummers


----------



## espola (Aug 8, 2016)

watfly said:


> I normally don't respond to troll comments, but that is also the same point of water polo, lacrosse, etc but we don't call that soccer.  Obviously you weren't there...there wasn't a coach I spoke to that thought what was being played was in the spirit of soccer.  "This is a joke" was the common comment I heard.


I have been saying for months that the new small-side rules proposed by USYSA are a joke.


----------



## Flash91 (Aug 8, 2016)

watfly said:


> I normally don't respond to troll comments, but that is also the same point of water polo, lacrosse, etc but we don't call that soccer.  Obviously you weren't there...there wasn't a coach I spoke to that thought what was being played was in the spirit of soccer.  "This is a joke" was the common comment I heard.


Agreed it was a JOKE!
Definitely not SOCCER


----------



## ajaffe (Aug 8, 2016)

7v7
Infantil B = 12/13 year olds

This is from a tournament that was on BeinSports just after the rules were announced.


----------



## tabletop (Aug 8, 2016)

ajaffe said:


> 7v7
> Infantil B = 12/13 year olds
> 
> This is from a tournament that was on BeinSports just after the rules were announced.


And if the Surf Cup fields were as big as La Liga Promises, there would have been no complaints.  The fields were tiny.  I've seen fields almost as short as Surf Cup but nobody has come close to what they had in terms of length and width.


----------



## texanincali (Aug 8, 2016)

ajaffe said:


> 7v7
> Infantil B = 12/13 year olds
> 
> This is from a tournament that was on BeinSports just after the rules were announced.


To be fair - 7v7 is played in Europe all the way up to older age groups.  The difference is that the 7v7 field at La Masia is 60 yards x 40 yards...US Soccer's recommendation for 7v7 field size is 47x30.

As I stated before, this will begin to gather more steam as fields are set up and played with the new format.  I will give time to adjust, but so far it has created bad, ugly soccer.


----------



## GunninGopher (Aug 8, 2016)

tabletop said:


> The fields were tiny.


Did you measure them to see if the met any particular standard?  I think the message thread title (another person I know) is a bit provocative if Surf Cup met the USYSA standards.

47x30 yards is the *max *size for the 7v7 game in USYSA standards. The FA has it at 60x40 yards (FIFA is similar). That is a huge difference.


----------



## JayWill (Aug 8, 2016)

I've seen this issue at a few tournaments since May, most recently at Slammers where the U10 (G2007) fields were set at the standards minimum. The length of the 7v7 field was the same as the width of 9v9 field right next to it, and yeah there were a couple GK punt bounce goals. The field didn't even have a goal box painted in, just a small box the width of the goal and maybe 4 feet out, too small to be useful for anything, and refs allowed the goalies to pick the ball up pretty much anywhere. It's weird when a 9 year old can throw in to the back post. The issue is amplified when a team is significantly better than another, where 5-0 or 6-0 games on larger fields turn into 12-0 and 15-0 games.

The biggest issue though has been inconsistency with the rules. GK punts/no punts, offsides/no offsides, full defense drop backs behind the mid line on goal kicks or not. I've seen it all over the place and somewhere in between. I know this is new and everyone is trying to adapt, but the kids need some consistency here.


----------



## JayWill (Aug 8, 2016)

GunninGopher said:


> Did you measure them to see if the met any particular standard?  I think the message thread title (another person I know) is a bit provocative if Surf Cup met the USYSA standards.
> 
> 47x30 yards is the *max *size for the 7v7 game in USYSA standards. The FA has it at 60x40 yards (FIFA is similar). That is a huge difference.


The CAL SOUTH chart I have says 47x30 minimum to 70x50 maximum for 7v7 games. 47x30 is really small (witnessed personally at Slammers last month) so it sounds likely that this was the field size for the Surf Cup U10 games.


----------



## watfly (Aug 8, 2016)

JayWill said:


> The issue is amplified when a team is significantly better than another, where 5-0 or 6-0 games on larger fields turn into 12-0 and 15-0 games.


From what I saw this past weekend and how today's semi results played out, I would actually say it is the great equalizer, as lesser teams can play the punt, goal kick and kickoff game with their strongest footed kid.


----------



## JayWill (Aug 8, 2016)

watfly said:


> From what I saw this past weekend and how today's semi results played out, I would actually say it is the great equalizer, as lesser teams can play the punt, goal kick and kickoff game with their strongest footed kid.


Hmm yeah maybe so, if they play that game I guess. I know it's mostly the big clubs and big tourneys that are generally talked about around here, but not all U10 girls teams have even one big foot though. There was a team in my kid's bracket in a recent tourney that had a -40 GD over 4 games on a small field. I felt bad for them but it seemed they held their heads high and made the best of it.


----------



## GunninGopher (Aug 8, 2016)

JayWill said:


> The CAL SOUTH chart I have says 47x30 minimum to 70x50 maximum for 7v7 games. 47x30 is really small (witnessed personally at Slammers last month) so it sounds likely that this was the field size for the Surf Cup U10 games.


Thanks for pointing that out.

The message I posted (3 or 4 above) has an attached document (Standards Chart SSG.pdf) which is currently available on the USYS website. It clearly says that 47x30 is the maximum field size. The document that you are probably referring to is currently available on the Cal South website (USSF_SSG_Chart_080416.pdf attached below) which lists that as a minimum. Some ambiguity there, but I suspect that the USYS document has a typo and it should read "Minimum Field Size" for 47x30. The document available on Cal South says "Revised 11/23/15: 7v7 field range corrected to reflect accurate field dimensions" at the bottom, so would appear they caught and corrected the mistake, but USYS still hasn't updated the document on their site.

Nobody that is complaining about Surf Cup 7v7 field sizes has yet posted what they actually were. In situations where I've felt that a field was sub-standard, I've paced the lines to determine the approximate distances. Hopefully someone that is complaining about the field size felt strongly enough to actually validate their opinions.

I'd say that if the fields in question were near the Cal-South minimum, they have a valid complaint. This tournament advertises itself and is perceived to be a high standard competition. Using the minimum standard field, if that is actually the case, is not in keeping with that ideal.


----------



## Socal United (Aug 8, 2016)

GunninGopher said:


> Thanks for pointing that out.
> 
> The message I posted (3 or 4 above) has an attached document (Standards Chart SSG.pdf) which is currently available on the USYS website. It clearly says that 47x30 is the maximum field size. The document that you are probably referring to is currently available on the Cal South website (USSF_SSG_Chart_080416.pdf attached below) which lists that as a minimum. Some ambiguity there, but I suspect that the USYS document has a typo and it should read "Minimum Field Size" for 47x30. The document available on Cal South says "Revised 11/23/15: 7v7 field range corrected to reflect accurate field dimensions" at the bottom, so would appear they caught and corrected the mistake, but USYS still hasn't updated the document on their site.
> 
> ...


----------



## Socal United (Aug 8, 2016)

I was coaching this weekend, it was hard to stomach.  I am not sure what the idea is behind the small field size, but it took away from the game.  In the BU10, two teams from out of town that are not near some of our local teams will win due to the size of the fields.  There are some on here that think the point is to put the ball in the net, but is that really the reasoning behind these changes?  You can't have it both ways.  The problem is, punting and goal kicks were allowed and it completely destroyed the game.  Crossfire was the most to benefit from it, they score 95% of their goals off of goal kicks.  With no offsides on a goal kick, the coach would stick his kids right in front of my keeper and if he didn't upper v it from the goal kick, they would deflect it, own goal, etc.  I am sorry, this could not be the intention behind these moves.  The premise is ok, but it doesn't work unless rules are in place to keep this from happening.  It was not soccer in any way, great teams like TFA are penalized for being the one team trying to play.  If you look at the finals, it was the two teams best at hitting it from way out.  Is that going to make our kids better?


----------



## Charlotte's Chauffeur (Aug 8, 2016)

JayWill said:


> The CAL SOUTH chart I have says 47x30 minimum to 70x50 maximum for 7v7 games. 47x30 is really small (witnessed personally at Slammers last month) so it sounds likely that this was the field size for the Surf Cup U10 games.


 Yes, 47x30 to 70x50.  I hope Blues Cup and other top tournaments go with the 70x50 next time!  http://www.calsouth.com/data/Downloads/Top_Stories/2015/USSF_SSG_Chartx.pdf


----------



## watfly (Aug 8, 2016)

GunninGopher said:


> Nobody that is complaining about Surf Cup 7v7 field sizes has yet posted what they actually were. In situations where I've felt that a field was sub-standard, I've paced the lines to determine the approximate distances. Hopefully someone that is complaining about the field size felt strongly enough to actually validate their opinions.


I didn't bring my measuring wheel to the game but they could have been 47 yards although they seemed shorter.  No way they were over 47 yards, the fields were tiny.  Regardless, there was no need to measure the fields as what we actually saw played out on the fields is plenty of evidence to validate the opinions.   Some, but not all, of it could have been mitigated if Surf had implemented the rules associated with the small fields like no punting and buildout lines.    Kick offs and goal kicks on 7v7 fields still need to be addressed by US Soccer if they are going to stick to this concept although I feel the overall concept is structurally flawed.

I'm sure it looked good on the whiteboard at US Soccer headquarters; however, for the coaches and kids whose priority is winning, US Soccer just made it much easier for them to play kickball.


----------



## EvilGoalie 21 (Aug 8, 2016)

The goal of the small sided initiatives as I understand it is to make fast on the ground connections in small spaces and execute accurately.  The goal of Surf Cup is to win a trophy.  Maybe confronting the issue of why those might appear to be incompatible is something we collectively as a soccer culture have to go through.  A bit ago my kid played on one of these academy type teams where the scrimmages were split the field in half, narrow it up, keep the ball on the ground and play fast. For the goalies no punts, no goal kicks, be the defender that sets the line. Futsol?  Yeah, pretty much-bit more width to play with.   But about the most exciting youth soccer you could hope to see.  Reading this thread and thinking how much I enjoyed watching that.


----------



## GunninGopher (Aug 8, 2016)

watfly said:


> I didn't bring my measuring wheel to the game but they could have been 47 yards although they seemed shorter.


You can always pace it out by walking at an even pace. You know that the regulation penalty area is 44yards (18+8+18). Count the steps that you take to walk the penalty area along the goal line. Divide the 44 yards by that number of steps, and that is your yards per step (bring it to 2 decimal places). It will probably be around 50. Then multiply the number of steps you seek to measure by that factor and you will get the approximate yardage.



watfly said:


> I'm sure it looked good on the whiteboard at US Soccer headquarters; however, for the coaches and kids whose priority is winning, US Soccer just made it much easier for them to play kickball.


USYS field dimension conform the FIFA and FA guidelines, so they stand in good company. If the tournament chose utilize the lower standard which was likely intended for lower level play, it sounds to me like your beef is with Surf Cup.


----------



## 3leches (Aug 8, 2016)

I watched a friends game and the field was tiny.


----------



## RedHawk (Aug 8, 2016)

Surf Cup field size was 47x30. And this hasn't been mentioned yet but the refs gave a full 10 yards on every free kick on that size field.


----------



## RocketFuel (Aug 8, 2016)

You gotta be careful at surf cup.  You want your u10 to look good due to all the college coaches walking around.


----------



## timbuck (Aug 8, 2016)

Did teams really pay $950 to play a game of punt and sprint?
Teams might have been working for a few weeks on improving their short passing game and getting out of tight spaces.  They should have been working on trapping or volleying balls out of the air as they come from 37 yards away towards your goal.
Has anyone seen yet what the various fields for this age group will look like this Fall?  Will there be big discrepancies from field to field with the minimum and maximum dimensions?
I tried looking at the SCDSL and Cal South Websites, but I couldn't find what format of play and field sizes the 06-08 teams are playing this year.  Are they 7v7 on small fields and will build out lines be used?  Have teams started to practice with this in mind?


----------



## GunninGopher (Aug 8, 2016)

timbuck said:


> I couldn't find what format of play and field sizes the 06-08 teams are playing this year. Are they 7v7 on small fields and will build out lines be used?


This post has a link to the Cal South guidelines:

7v7 was a joke at SURF CUP

06 are 9v9 playing on 75x47 to 90x60 yards. 07-08 are 7v7 playing on 47x30 to 70x50


----------



## jrcaesar (Aug 8, 2016)

GunninGopher said:


> The message I posted (3 or 4 above) has an attached document (Standards Chart SSG.pdf) which is currently available on the USYS website. It clearly says that 47x30 is the maximum field size. The document that you are probably referring to is currently available on the Cal South website (USSF_SSG_Chart_080416.pdf attached below) which lists that as a minimum


I still can only find Cal South charts that have the 05s playing 11 v 11 on the smaller range fields (75x47 to 90x60). Where is the new chart that you posted found? Thanks.


----------



## timbuck (Aug 8, 2016)

What was the average roster size for 7v7 this weekend?


----------



## JayWill (Aug 8, 2016)

jrcaesar said:


> I still can only find Cal South charts that have the 05s playing 11 v 11 on the smaller range fields (75x47 to 90x60). Where is the new chart that you posted found? Thanks.


GunninGopher attached it to a post above. Or you can find it here: http://media.calsouth.com/data/Downloads/Top_Stories/2016/USSF_SSG_Chart_080416.pdf?rev=32A7


----------



## RedHawk (Aug 8, 2016)

timbuck said:


> What was the average roster size for 7v7 this weekend?


I would say 11


----------



## JayWill (Aug 8, 2016)

timbuck said:


> Has anyone seen yet what the various fields for this age group will look like this Fall?  Will there be big discrepancies from field to field with the minimum and maximum dimensions?
> I tried looking at the SCDSL and Cal South Websites, but I couldn't find what format of play and field sizes the 06-08 teams are playing this year.  Are they 7v7 on small fields and will build out lines be used?  Have teams started to practice with this in mind?


Well, my U10 (2007) DD has participated in 5 tournaments since May and the rules and field sizes have been all over the place. Only her first tournament played no punts and a build out line, but midfield was used as the build out line rather than a 14 yard line which I believe is intended. Since then there's been almost zero consistency. I guess it's at the discretion of the tournament directors and how the refs are briefed on the game rules. Hopefully this all gets straightened out by the time the fall regular season starts.


----------



## jrcaesar (Aug 8, 2016)

OK, found it with your link, thanks @JayWill ! I was still seeing the older version on the site when searching.


----------



## timbuck (Aug 8, 2016)

JayWill said:


> Well, my U10 (2007) DD has participated in 5 tournaments since May and the rules and field sizes have been all over the place. Only her first tournament played no punts and a build out line, but midfield was used as the build out line rather than a 14 yard line which I believe is intended. Since then there's been almost zero consistency. I guess it's at the discretion of the tournament directors and how the refs are briefed on the game rules. Hopefully this all gets straightened out by the time the fall regular season starts.


My 07 guested a few weeks ago. I totally forgot there was supposed to be a build out line and no keeper punts. Those rules weren't enforced. I don't recall any whistles for heading the ball either.

And she had a scrimmage this weekend. The ref and opposing coach were not aware that a ball could go any direction on a kickoff now. 
Gonna be an interesting season.


----------



## Truth (Aug 8, 2016)

silverstreak said:


> 1.  6 goals scored by keeper punts
> 2. several goals scored on direct kickoff shots
> 3. hardly any goalkeeper distributions out of the back
> 4. pressure line NOT implemented
> ...


I completely agree. Not sure if it's US Soccer's fault or Surf Cup's, but it was ridiculous the little I saw. Saw a Crossfire team score 3 times from a kickoff. Teams were forming a wall on kickoff! Build out lines were painted but didn't look like they were being used. Keeper punts went back and forth between keepers. Poorly thought out. This is exactly the wrong direction for our youngers soccer.


----------



## espola (Aug 8, 2016)

Should have sold t-shirts at the tournament saying

Pele didn't have a build-out line


----------



## timbuck (Aug 8, 2016)

espola said:


> Should have sold t-shirts at the tournament saying
> 
> Pele didn't have a build-out line


Did he even have shoes?


----------



## Truth (Aug 9, 2016)

espola said:


> Should have sold t-shirts at the tournament saying
> 
> Pele didn't have a build-out line


Haha


----------



## MostlyDisappointed (Aug 9, 2016)

And here we go.

Listen. The rules are having exactly their designed effect: to out the soccer know-nothings who would allow a u10 keeper to punt a ball into an opponent's box just because they can. 

Frankly, US Soccer doesn't give a damn about all you people who think it's more important to win than to learn the game. They're more than happy to support the handful of people who know what the hell they're doing and let the rest of you lift cups and fall out of your lawn chairs with glee while your gazelle-like kid gets up and down as fast as they can before sailing off into the wasteland of college soccer. THEY'RE DONE WITH THAT CRAP.

So, if you care about your 8 year-old learning anything, why don't you have a word with your coach about why it's stupid for Jonny to shoot off the kickoff, despite whatever the hell some out of state club who wasted time and effort to come down here wants to do. Keep encouraging your kid to go get the ball in these new and difficult small-spaces, and don't freak when they (inevitably!) lose the ball and give up a goal because they're trying to learn to do the right thing. 

If you've convinced yourself that there's such a thing as "real soccer" at u10, find the nearest mirror, gaze into it, and ask yourself where you went wrong in your quest to understand this game. 

Or don't. But don't pretend like the rest of us need to play along with your rec-soccer charade. The kids need to learn to play properly, and that shit is hard to do. A big field at 9 won't help them to do it.


----------



## MostlyDisappointed (Aug 9, 2016)

espola said:


> Should have sold t-shirts at the tournament saying
> 
> Pele didn't have a build-out line


They don't need build-out lines in Brazil because they don't have morons who would encourage a kid to punt it into the goal.  

Also, it'd be super cool to reference Pele's experience with a tshirt sold to bunch of upper middle-class parents at a polo field.


----------



## timbuck (Aug 9, 2016)

At least in sand soccer, a keeper punt is considered indirect and needs to hit someone before it goes in.
I wonder what the kids would do on a small field like this if there were no coaches.  Would they shoot from the kickoff?  Would a keeper try to punt it into the goal?
Soccer (actually, all sports) at this age shouldn't be "coach driven". It should be player driven.  If a team wins or loses a game at 9 years old because of a "great coaching move" something is wrong. 
I coach basketball for 6th grade girls.  They are all beginners.  We've played teams that have 10 different "plays" to in-bound the ball.  They run 8 different offenses.  But only 1 girl per team can dribble the ball. And they are 30% on layups.  Don't know how to box out.  On defense they run to a "spot" around the paint and play zone defense (11 year old girls can't shoot much beyond 10 feet, so it's a good strategy. But it's lazy).
My team has lost a few more than we've won.  But our practices are focused on dribbling, jump-stop, pivot if you pick up your dribble, and shooting layups.  On offense we run a 3-2 with a pick on the ball.  Or a 1-4 isolation.  We don't assign positions.  We teach them about spacing and cutting.  I don't park the big kid in the middle.  Everyone should be able to dribble the ball if they get it.  And we only play man-to-man defense.


----------



## Truth (Aug 9, 2016)

MostlyDisappointed said:


> And here we go.
> 
> Listen. The rules are having exactly their designed effect: to out the soccer know-nothings who would allow a u10 keeper to punt a ball into an opponent's box just because they can.
> 
> ...


Yes, I agree that some teams played to use every advantage and some teams didn't. But why didn't Surf Cup enforce the rules designed for the smaller fields? It's a simple fix, isn't it? Why paint build-out lines and then IGNORE them? Just seemed to me to be poorly thought-out.


----------



## Wez (Aug 9, 2016)

It's a little ironic we're still actively arguing over a game being "fixed" in Nationals and now we're arguing over a team doing what it takes to win in Surf Cup with ridiculously small fields.  High profile tournaments are not the place to assume a team is going to "do what's best for long term development".


----------



## PaytoplayinLancaster? (Aug 9, 2016)

Wez said:


> It's a little ironic we're still actively arguing over a game being "fixed" in Nationals and now we're arguing over a team doing what it takes to win in Surf Cup with ridiculously small fields.  High profile tournaments are not the place to assume a team is going to "do what's best for long term development".


Wez, you bring up a great point.  The game is being played according to the rules without the desired result.


----------



## EvilGoalie 21 (Aug 9, 2016)

Were the goals used on the short sided fields  6.5 X 18 like they're supposed to be?  If anybody saw the U12 USSDA games on the boys side, was it also blast it to win, or were the games better?


----------



## Wez (Aug 9, 2016)

EvilGoalie 21 said:


> Were the goals used on the short sided fields  6.5 X 18 like they're supposed to be?  If anybody saw the U12 USSDA games on the boys side, was it also blast it to win, or were the games better?


The small fields were a disaster, imho.  In the course of the 6 games this weekend, we scored at least a half dozen headers from throw ins.  You preferred a throw in over a corner kick, because you could more accurately place the ball right toward the goal.  Just had to make sure someone got their head on it.


----------



## twoclubpapa (Aug 9, 2016)

timbuck said:


> ... I coach basketball for 6th grade girls.  .........  And we only play man-to-man defense.


Another example of how male privilege runs rampant in today's culture.


----------



## Truth (Aug 9, 2016)

Wez said:


> It's a little ironic we're still actively arguing over a game being "fixed" in Nationals and now we're arguing over a team doing what it takes to win in Surf Cup with ridiculously small fields.  High profile tournaments are not the place to assume a team is going to "do what's best for long term development".


Well, that discussion wasn't about tactics. It was about whether a competition actually took place. 

I didn't camp out at the fields, but I did stop to marvel at 1) kids forming a wall on kickoff, and 2) parents going absolutely insane. I had forgotten about the insanity levels at the younger ages.


----------



## Truth (Aug 9, 2016)

EvilGoalie 21 said:


> Were the goals used on the short sided fields  6.5 X 18 like they're supposed to be?  If anybody saw the U12 USSDA games on the boys side, was it also blast it to win, or were the games better?


From what I saw (and please correct me if I'm wrong), there were 3 sizes of fields. Full sized 11v11, smaller sizes (8v8?), and tiny (7v7?). It was those tiny fields that we're talking about. Might be ok if they played 5v5 and they didn't allow punts, throw-ins and shots on kickoff.


----------



## timbuck (Aug 9, 2016)

Wez said:


> The small fields were a disaster, imho.  In the course of the 6 games this weekend, we scored at least a half dozen headers from throw ins.  You preferred a throw in over a corner kick, because you could more accurately place the ball right toward the goal.  Just had to make sure someone got their head on it.


When the new rules came out, I thought "This is awesome. We are smack dab at the inflection point of when youth soccer in the US will propel our players to compete on an international stage when they are adults."
After seeing this and other posts, I now feel like saying "Oh no.  We are in soccer purgatory for a while.  Same clowns, different circus."


----------



## Wez (Aug 9, 2016)

timbuck said:


> When the new rules came out, I thought "This is awesome. We are smack dab at the inflection point of when youth soccer in the US will propel our players to compete on an international stage when they are adults."


Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a large part of why we don't compete on the big soccer stage well, because we don't have 11 year olds playing soccer several hours a day?  I was under the impression that other Countries just take the sport and the training of their youth, much more seriously than us...


----------



## full90 (Aug 9, 2016)

I still don't get why the coaches aren't held at fault for this? No matter how the other team is playing you can tell your kids "goalie, play the ball on goal kicks and punts." "No shots from kickoff or free kicks." Etc etc etc. it could've been a valuable weekend to play soccer in small spaces. REGARDLESS of how the other team was playing. 

Field measurements, tourney hosts, refs are all irrelevant. If your coaches aren't teaching your kids to play soccer they either don't know how to teach it or don't care enough to teach it. The blame is theirs. Yes you may lose. And may lose big. But is the goal to win a tourney or develop your kids?


----------



## Wez (Aug 9, 2016)

full90 said:


> ...is the goal to win a tourney or develop your kids?


Don't you spend all your time developing outside of tournaments.  Why bother spending the extra money on a tourney if it isn't all about going for a win?  If all you want is pure development, stick to practice and scrimmages.


----------



## timbuck (Aug 9, 2016)

Wez said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't a large part of why we don't compete on the big soccer stage well, because we don't have 11 year olds playing soccer several hours a day?  I was under the impression that other Countries just take the sport and the training of their youth, much more seriously than us...


I think there's a lot of "little parts" of why we don't compete.  Here's a partial list of what people say are the reasons:

We focus too much on winning at young ages
Our college system sucks for developing soccer pros
We don't have a soccer culture
Our kids are over-coached
Our kids are taught tactics when they should be taught technical aspects
Our parents don't understand the rules
Our parents scream incorrect instructions to players
We play 11v11 at too early of an age
Our kids don't play pick up soccer
Top teams take big kids and teach them to play physical before they teach them how to really play.
Top teams take fast kids and win games because they area fast. But don't teach them how to really play
Top teams take an 8 year old that can kick it a mile, but they don't teach him how to really play
Our pro league is the UEFA Senior Tour
We either play too much (year round) or not enough (only 2 practices a week)
Tournaments have kids playing 4 games in 36 hours. Or up to 6 games in 50 hours.
I'm sure there's more.


----------



## Wez (Aug 9, 2016)

So is it a myth that kids in EU Soccer Academies train everyday for hours?


----------



## MostlyDisappointed (Aug 9, 2016)

Wez said:


> Don't you spend all your time developing outside of tournaments.  Why bother spending the extra money on a tourney if it isn't all about going for a win?  If all you want is pure development, stick to practice and scrimmages.


Trust me, you'll soon get your wish. As DA expands into lower age groups, and kids and parents start to reassess their goals, all you weekend warriors will be free to move the goals wherever you want, do flip-throws into the box, ignore the build out line - whatever you want - 'til your heart's content. 

Competition at the sub-14 level should be about players trying to kill each other, not teams.


----------



## Eusebio (Aug 9, 2016)

We throw the term "Kickball" a lot around here, but what I saw at the U10 level this weekend was Kickball in its finest and purest form. 

I found the whole spectacle ironic.  It was the perfect microcosm of our youth development system put on steroids. You had big strong footed players dominating. You had 60% of the coaches abandoning any semblance of development and doing absurd tactics for the sake of a u10 trophy. Another  30% of the coaches reluctant but eventually feeling the need to roll in the mud as well to compete. Then about 10% of the coaches stubbornly sticking to development while getting their butts kicked in the process. Crazy parents abound. P_assersby_ who are not in the bubble just completely stunned at what is being passed off as competitive soccer. That is US youth soccer in a nutshell if it was placed inside a diorama for a science fair. 

Surf Cup probably should have enforced the new rules alongside the new field dimensions, but honestly this is the very first tournament with the new changes, so they probably get a free pass. But they're going to have to make some major adjustments next year otherwise they shouldn't even bother having a bracket in this age group


----------



## watfly (Aug 9, 2016)

full90 said:


> I still don't get why the coaches aren't held at fault for this? No matter how the other team is playing you can tell your kids "goalie, play the ball on goal kicks and punts." "No shots from kickoff or free kicks." Etc etc etc. it could've been a valuable weekend to play soccer in small spaces. REGARDLESS of how the other team was playing.


I don't think anyone is giving the kickball coaches a break at all.  However, what US Soccer is doing with the 7v7 tiny fields is only excerbating kickball soccer not reducing it. Adjusting the rules for a play out line and no punting is fine but that's just the tip of the iceberg for the rules that would have to be changed to truly encourage quick passing soccer on that small of a field (I'm all for small, but not so tiny that it fundamentally changes the game).  At the point when you have implemented all these different rules you will have completely bastardized outdoor soccer. And for what reason when you already have futsal that encourages the sort of play that US Soccer is seeking? As its crafted right now the tiny 7v7 game will only serve to improve the kids throw-in and shot making skills.

I think someone mentioned it before but game play is only a small fraction of actually training time that kids receive.  The practice field is the place to promote tight, small sided soccer.


----------



## Goalie1310 (Aug 9, 2016)

My son guest played as a keeper this weekend and loved it. He thought it was fast and full of action I do think it is a different style game on these small fields and in my opinion will help the kids with ball skills,passing and shooting not to mention you will definitely need a keeper who will also benefit from all the shots. And yes punts should not be allowed and build up line should be used. You can watch short videos on Instagram @ soccerkeeper1310


----------



## Striker008 (Aug 9, 2016)

watfly said:


> I don't think anyone is giving the kickball coaches a break at all.  However, what US Soccer is doing with the 7v7 tiny fields is only excerbating kickball soccer not reducing it. Adjusting the rules for a play out line and no punting is fine but that's just the tip of the iceberg for the rules that would have to be changed to truly encourage quick passing soccer on that small of a field (I'm all for small, but not so tiny that it fundamentally changes the game).  At the point when you have implemented all these different rules you will have completely bastardized outdoor soccer. And for what reason when you already have futsal that encourages the sort of play that US Soccer is seeking? As its crafted right now the tiny 7v7 game will only serve to improve the kids throw-in and shot making skills.
> 
> I think someone mentioned it before but game play is only a small fraction of actually training time that kids receive.  The practice field is the place to promote tight, small sided soccer.


I think a lot of the points I read in here are valid, but my issue with the field sizes and changes is you can't implement one part rule (field size) and not the other (no punting, build out line) without seeing a sacrifice in quality of play which is what was observed out there this weekend or any of the other tournaments that have used these field sizes which is soccer played the "wrong" way as it is called by some.  I absolutely agree that the real development of players is what practices are for, where a coach can stop play or explain in more detail why or why not players should do things outside of the pressures and temptations of a game setting.   Games have become showcases for clubs to try and win at all costs to gain bragging rights and for parents who never get to one practice, a chance to become armchair coaches and get the satisfaction of watching their kid become the next Alex Morgan/Landon Donovan or justifying why they paid these thousands of dollars to a more prestigious club as opposed to another.  

Someone mentioned earlier that the small sized fields force players to play in tight spaces and learn to make quicker decisions which will translate better once they get to a bigger field setting which is why small sides games are played in practice.  The difference is small sided games in practices don't use the large goals but rather smaller goals like Pugg.  I think therein lies the problem and the conundrum with these fields in games, yes it's the coaches responsibility to implement otherwise, but the temptation on a small field with a big goal in my opinion just defeats the whole purpose of teaching the kids the right way when you add the excitement of a game in a tournament in a setting where winning is looked upon as the ultimate prize by a club and parents.  A field that small with goals just big enough to make practically anywhere on the field a scoring opportunity including goalie punts, then it just snowballs as most teams fall in line and the intent of playing the right way with these rule changes is not achieved.  Small fields with small goals forces build up, strategy, and precision to score and you can't shoot/punt from the other side of the field to score, while small fields with larger goals would be more slanted towards kickball on goal and win at all costs which is what was observed for the most part this weekend.  Of course no one would pay $1500 a team to go play each other on Pugg goals so it is what is at this point.

Either you play with all the rules intended or you go back to what it was last year, but you can't have both and still achieve the desired result that US youth soccer wants.


----------



## Hired Gun (Aug 9, 2016)

silverstreak said:


> 1.  6 goals scored by keeper punts
> 2. several goals scored on direct kickoff shots
> 3. hardly any goalkeeper distributions out of the back
> 4. pressure line NOT implemented
> ...


Legends Cup at Silver Lakes earlier this summer had the same field size.  That too was a disaster.  There was no flow this weekend as well with throw ins every minute.  Only solution I see is add 10 plus yards for the length, 5 more yards each side for the width, no punts only roll outs, no direct kicks for kick offs.  If you keep that size you need to go 5v5 with a heavier futsal ball.  Every coach, parent, spectator were shaking their heads this weekend.  Coaches played by the rules they were given - I do not fault them as this was an expensive trip/tourney for all.  Bottom line adjustments need to be made.


----------



## Goalie1310 (Aug 9, 2016)

Hired Gun said:


> Legends Cup at Silver Lakes earlier this summer had the same field size.  That too was a disaster.  There was no flow this weekend as well with throw ins every minute.  Only solution I see is add 10 plus yards for the length, 5 more yards each side for the width, no punts only roll outs, no direct kicks for kick offs.  If you keep that size you need to go 5v5 with a heavier futsal ball.  Every coach, parent, spectator were shaking their heads this weekend.  Coaches played by the rules they were given - I do not fault them as this was an expensive trip/tourney for all.  Bottom line adjustments need to be made.


I do agree with the throw ins and flow of the game being off as well as the shots from kick off. I also think their is potentially a huge up side I do think the game is faster and will force players to improve their foot skills, passing,possession and no one ever talks about more touches for the keepers. I did see negative aspects but i saw huge potential in what could happen 1v1 creativity quick crisp passing and building from the back. I will also say again my son who some of you might know loves to play the keeper position and was all smiles. He loved the action and the pace he did not have a winning weekend but he had a great weekend of fun. This style seems to have created more touches for everyone and yes some clubs will play a better style than others but most importantly my son is super excited to get started. Check out some surf cup action on Instagram @ soccerkeeper1310 and get a goalies point of view.


----------



## RedHawk (Aug 9, 2016)

We played at Legends cup this year also.  First game had no keeper punts and build out line was used.  2nd game refs allowed keeper punts and no buildout line was used.  Third game we played on a field twice the size of the first two games and resembled more of a 8v8 game.  Bottom line is until all parties are trained(including Ref's)/informed of all the new rules/mandates we should play the 8v8 rules/field size.


----------



## Goalie1310 (Aug 9, 2016)

We were at legends as well and I agree it was odd. It may be my imagination but I thought Surf fields were smaller.


----------



## jrcaesar (Aug 10, 2016)

Wez said:


> Don't you spend all your time developing outside of tournaments. Why bother spending the extra money on a tourney if it isn't all about going for a win? If all you want is pure development, stick to practice and scrimmages.


Specific to playing in Surf Cup, you are probably correct. But as for other <U13 teams, going to one or two tournaments (and not 6 in a summer) and playing the style you train is part of the development process. The kids experience what a tournament is like, see how other teams play and handle their business, and grow from it, win or lose. Because ultimately #15 on the list above, *"Tournaments have kids playing 4 games in 36 hours. Or up to 6 games in 50 hours." *really is detrimental.


----------



## Wez (Aug 10, 2016)

jrcaesar said:


> Because ultimately #15 on the list above, *"Tournaments have kids playing 4 games in 36 hours. Or up to 6 games in 50 hours." *really is detrimental.


I disagree.  My 11 year old did this and yes, was tired by the end of Monday, but this is an experience well worth the effort:


----------



## JayWill (Aug 10, 2016)

jrcaesar said:


> Specific to playing in Surf Cup, you are probably correct. But as for other <U13 teams, going to one or two tournaments (and not 6 in a summer) and playing the style you train is part of the development process. The kids experience what a tournament is like, see how other teams play and handle their business, and grow from it, win or lose. Because ultimately #15 on the list above, *"Tournaments have kids playing 4 games in 36 hours. Or up to 6 games in 50 hours." *really is detrimental.


Interesting take. I hadn't ever really thought about too many tournaments being a negative, but it got me digging around and reading a few articles. The arguments against them that I've read so far do make a lot of sense. I clearly still have a lot to learn as a club soccer parent.


----------



## JackZ (Aug 10, 2016)

Goalie1310 said:


> I do agree with the throw ins and flow of the game being off as well as the shots from kick off. I also think their is potentially a huge up side I do think the game is faster and will force players to improve their foot skills, passing,possession and no one ever talks about more touches for the keepers. I did see negative aspects but i saw huge potential in what could happen 1v1 creativity quick crisp passing and building from the back. I will also say again my son who some of you might know loves to play the keeper position and was all smiles. He loved the action and the pace he did not have a winning weekend but he had a great weekend of fun. This style seems to have created more touches for everyone and yes some clubs will play a better style than others but most importantly my son is super excited to get started. Check out some surf cup action on Instagram @ soccerkeeper1310 and get a goalies point of view.



Thanks for sharing, looks like the GKs were really busy. No dog in this fight as mine is an 03, but it was fun watching your vids!

Link for the lazy - https://www.instagram.com/soccerkeeper1310/


----------



## jrcaesar (Aug 10, 2016)

JackZ said:


> Thanks for sharing, looks like the GKs were really busy. No dog in this fight as mine is an 03, but it was fun watching your vids!


Nice vids. But, wow, having to defend against a kickoff?!! Geez!


----------



## timbuck (Aug 10, 2016)

US Soccer recommends that tournaments shouldn't be played at younger ages. Will the new dimensions / rules cause teams to rethink their future tournament participation?


JayWill said:


> Interesting take. I hadn't ever really thought about too many tournaments being a negative, but it got me digging around and reading a few articles. The arguments against them that I've read so far do make a lot of sense. I clearly still have a lot to learn as a club soccer parent.


Tournaments are fun.  Kids enjoy them. For the most part, parents enjoy them.  But that doesn't mean they are "good" for players.
We don't ask or expect adults to play multiple games in a day. Sure, kids have free subs, while adults play the majority of a 90 minute game.
But the point of youth sports is to learn and improve from week to week.  Not much learning and improvement take place in the 3 hours between games.  It becomes a war of attrition.  The Development Academy concept is to have more and better training but to play less games that are more "meaningful."
Many teams play 6 tournaments a summer.  That's anywhere from 18 to 36 games over the course of an 8 week summer.
Mix in hot turf fields and/or subpar grass fields.  Fatigue and bad playing surfaces can lead to injuries.
And then you have coaches who want 10 year olds to act like professional athletes.  "No sleepovers, no pool time, no ice cream on tournament weekends."  These things might lead to a drop in performance, but they also lead a 10 year old to burnout.  There are some kids out there that will thrive in this environment.  I think they are in the minority.


----------



## GunninGopher (Aug 10, 2016)

In all the talk about "Development", have we lost touch with the fun of playing?

Frankly, I'm sick of the word. Most of the kids just want to have fun. My daughter would rather play a couple games and hang out with her friends than go to practice 4 times a week.

One of the most memorable quotes from the minimal training I've seen is "the game is the best teacher".


----------



## dfbmike (Aug 10, 2016)

timbuck said:


> US Soccer recommends that tournaments shouldn't be played at younger ages. Will the new dimensions / rules cause teams to rethink their future tournament participation?
> 
> 
> Tournaments are fun.  Kids enjoy them. For the most part, parents enjoy them.  But that doesn't mean they are "good" for players.
> ...



been saying this for some time...tournaments are nothing but fundraisers for the clubs, nothing else good comes from it.  best of the best?  best of what....give me abreak, what a clownshow....nice concept for the olders but not needed for the littles.
ill take league sep through may/june league with rel and promotion, 1 game per week and then give the kids a break and have them enjoy their summers.  throw in 1 or 2 team bonding, away tourneys towards the beginning of league and call it a day.


----------



## Goalie1310 (Aug 10, 2016)

I don't think their is one right answer in developing your son or daughter as every kid is different. My kids G06 and b07 love to play and train and they do a lot of both their dreams and passion drive them. I shut up and drive and secretly hope they want to join a surf(surfing waves) team soon so I don't have to ever see Lancaster,Norco and whatever other unbelievably hot place they make me go to HaHa I started dreaming for a second.......so my kids train 4 days a week 2 field trainings and 2 keeper trainings they love to compete and train because it's fun to them. We have one rule for them as far as activities go they have to pick something and stick with it for the season or whatever. So for now or forever you will see us on the soccer fields throughout the country well you will see them as I'm usually hiding somewhere I meen watching from a distance. Good luck to all of you and have fun. Also thank you for watching their videos on Instagram @ soccerkeeper1310.

Thank you


----------



## dfbmike (Aug 10, 2016)

back to back tourneys are the worst, or how about the ol back to back to back?
2 weeks, 9 to possibly 12/15 games plus practices and possibly privates for the "really committed", insane.


----------



## Goalie1310 (Aug 10, 2016)

dfbmike said:


> been saying this for some time...tournaments are nothing but fundraisers for the clubs, nothing else good comes from it.  best of the best?  best of what....give me abreak, what a clownshow....nice concept for the olders but not needed for the littles.
> ill take league sep through may/june league with rel and promotion, 1 game per week and then give the kids a break and have them enjoy their summers.  throw in 1 or 2 team bonding, away tourneys towards the beginning of league and call it a day.


You are absolutely right if your kids don't think playing soccer in the summer is enjoyably. My kids can't wait for summer because they want to play soccer and go to the beach. Now if it's that you want to enjoy your summer well I understand haha. My son loved Vegas cup,Dallas cup,surf cup pats snd whatever other cup I'm forgetting my daughter also plays in  10-12 cups. I need to fill my cup up just thinking of these deserts. Enjoy!


----------



## Goalie1310 (Aug 10, 2016)

I think my kids are insane! Are their parents that think their kids are normal?I knew I was bad at this haha. You will see us at west coast sat and my daughter is at Anaheim surf I think.


----------



## Wez (Aug 10, 2016)

dfbmike said:


> been saying this for some time...tournaments are nothing but fundraisers for the clubs, *nothing else good comes from it*.


I must have traveled to another planet, this doesn't sound like a youth soccer forum anymore...


----------



## espola (Aug 10, 2016)

GunninGopher said:


> In all the talk about "Development", have we lost touch with the fun of playing?
> 
> Frankly, I'm sick of the word. Most of the kids just want to have fun. My daughter would rather play a couple games and hang out with her friends than go to practice 4 times a week.
> 
> One of the most memorable quotes from the minimal training I've seen is "the game is the best teacher".


Yeah, but -- if all you ever play against is bush-leaguers, that's all you w ill learn.


----------



## Socal United (Aug 10, 2016)

jrcaesar said:


> Nice vids. But, wow, having to defend against a kickoff?!! Geez!


Kick offs were easy.  We gave up 3 goals in one game on goal kicks, there is no offsides on a goal kick and their goalie could kick it far, so they just set up in front of our goal and goalie.  It certainly worked.  All of the kick offs went over, too close....


----------



## EvilGoalie 21 (Aug 11, 2016)

Wez said:


> I must have traveled to another planet, this doesn't sound like a youth soccer forum anymore...


This thread has run its course a bit but reading back through and didn't get why you were so surprised here Wez.


----------



## Wez (Aug 11, 2016)

EvilGoalie 21 said:


> This thread has run its course a bit but reading back through and didn't get why you were so surprised here Wez.


It was directed at the commentor who basically said tournaments are nothing but a club money grab and offer no value to the kids.

I couldn't disagree more.  This isn't AYSO we're discussing.  We pay for competitive development and for someone to have the opinion that tournaments are all bad, just doesn't make any sense to me.


----------



## MostlyDisappointed (Aug 11, 2016)

Wez said:


> It was directed at the commentor who basically said tournaments are nothing but a club money grab and offer no value to the kids.
> 
> I couldn't disagree more.  This isn't AYSO we're discussing.  We pay for competitive development and for someone to have the opinion that tournaments are all bad, just doesn't make any sense to me.


What's "competitive development"?


----------



## Wez (Aug 11, 2016)

MostlyDisappointed said:


> What's "competitive development"?


Is that a trick question?  Teaching kids how to play soccer so they have success when matched against their peers?


----------



## EvilGoalie 21 (Aug 11, 2016)

MostlyDisappointed said:


> What's "competitive development"?


I know where you're coming from.  And then the sort of inverse question, which would come up from time to time on the old forum-"If its all about development, what are we developing all these kids for".


----------



## EvilGoalie 21 (Aug 11, 2016)

Wez said:


> It was directed at the commentor who basically said tournaments are nothing but a club money grab and offer no value to the kids.
> 
> I couldn't disagree more.  This isn't AYSO we're discussing.  We pay for competitive development and for someone to have the opinion that tournaments are all bad, just doesn't make any sense to me.


I see.  I like this thread because it has all these great socal soccer cross currents.  Let's not use AYSO as the poor cousin though.  For me, AYSO is great for at least three reasons.  1. If you ever had a grumpy patch with club-and it will happen-watching 5 yrs old kick the ball around in shorts that are too big can bring perspective.  2.  You can watch the club coaches handing out business cards and know what keeps club in business.  3. If you start finding club parents crazy you can go watch AYSO games and see what truly crazy parents are like.  

From my sliver of experience, the tourneys are of different value depending on what kind of team your kid is on.  On the boys side I think there are three kind of teams: no gratification, instant gratification and delayed gratification. Different teams work for different kids and different families at different times. No gratification teams are self explanatory.  It happens.  Instant gratification teams are built with an eye to winning tournaments. The coaching and development can be superb, but in other cases not so much. The delayed gratification teams are like what the DA teams are supposed to be; teams that are supposed to be less about winning and more about developing for the future. So you get coaches trying to peer through the cloudy crystal ball of puberty, talking about national championships at U16 and the next round of cuts coming in two weeks.  That's why I was interested in what sort of teams the newer DA clubs were fielding. And that's why Surf Cup has the new DA section.  Doesn't want to lose that business.

I don't know.  I think at some point each kid that takes it seriously dictates what level of development they want, fun become passion with a dash of suffering, style become important, development like a thirst for knowledge.


----------

