U.S. Soccer’s Player Development Initiatives

[BarcaLover]

BOL line will not just magically change the way kids play. It's all about COACHING. Good coaches always used playing out of he back way before BOL was implemented. Bad ones will "hoot it forward" as you very well noted, and already found a way to do it even with BOL in place.

Totally agreed!

Coaching is the key for sure. I watched in a G06 game last season a coach have his GKer get the ball in her hands and walk to the top of the 18. She then turned around and rolled the ball backwards to her CB who was standing on the 6, who then whacked it to midfield.

This is obviously NOT what USSF had in mind when they introduced the Build Out Line. That's a coach that would rather find a way around the rule instead of using it's benefit to teach his team how to play out of the back.

 

[Grace T.]

Totally agreed!

Coaching is the key for sure. I watched in a G06 game last season a coach have his GKer get the ball in her hands and walk to the top of the 18. She then turned around and rolled the ball backwards to her CB who was standing on the 6, who then whacked it to midfield.

This is obviously NOT what USSF had in mind when they introduced the Build Out Line. That's a coach that would rather find a way around the rule instead of using it's benefit to teach his team how to play out of the back.

Every team I've watched so far except 1 (both boys and girls) has employed this strategy. They like it because formerly the striker or winger would be in an offside position but now because of the maneuver the backline is forced to defend back towards goal (on top of the opposite BOL). So the tradeoff is its teaching the front line to press, but the backline is being taught the opposite...to play AYSO ball and hang back.

DYS team used to pass back to the keeper every once in a while...they've only done it once on BOL games so far. I saw one really really good team that should have been able to pass circles around DYS team actually use the goalkeeper but it was difficult for them because of the high press. I saw them do it before in the past too...was a thing of beauty...now it's just a rushed hot mess....they still whipped us but it was closer than it should have been. The new rules require a great deal of skill if a team is to be built out properly, and except for the more advanced teams, most at this age lack the skills to do it properly.

I get that the change to the offside rule was made so that you wouldn't have all 6 opposite players lined up at the build out line, but more often than not it is resulting in run and smash ball.

My modest proposal: keep the old offside rule so the defensive line can also learn to push up and on the punt an offside can be enforced if it goes to the lone striker. Allow the goalkeeper to punt but it can't cross the opposite buildout line (or its ruled offside automatically), keep the buildout line, but opposing players can only cross line when another player receives the ball. Coaches then have the discretion....bad coaches who instruct a punt will quickly find they lose the ball in 50/50 situations or it goes offside easily on the smaller fields, coaches that send it to a defender will have the advantage. Still would teach the front line to press and the side with the ball the ability to react to pressure. The punting option would penalize those teams that line up 5 or 6 players on the line. Punting is an art too and few keepers are taught how to do it well...my proposal has the added benefit of teaching the goalkeeper when its appropriate to play the long ball v. when to build out the back. If it's accompanied with data to coaches that shows teams more often than not lose the ball on a punt and that the punt should only really be used to relieve pressure, I think it would work better.

 

[watfly]

I'm not saying the Build Out Line will eventually make our NTs look like Spain or Germany, but at least they are TRYING to do something to get better.

The buildout line is as effective as "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic". I'm sure it looked like a great idea on the whiteboard at US Soccer headquarters but it will have negligible impact on kid's long term building out the back and possession skills. As we have all seen its far bigger impact has been to create confusion for everyone.

Without the soccer culture changing...I agree that the best way to improve the quality of American soccer is to improve the coaching. If US Soccer was serious about improving play they would invest in making training easier for coaches to obtain. Right now its too expensive and classes are offered too infrequently. Maybe US Soccer could even offer certificate courses in "Possession Play" or special training for DA coaches.

 

[Grace T.]

The buildout line is as effective as "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic". I'm sure it looked like a great idea on the whiteboard at US Soccer headquarters but it will have negligible impact on kid's long term building out the back and possession skills. As we have all seen its far bigger impact has been to create confusion for everyone.

Without the soccer culture changing...I agree that the best way to improve the quality of American soccer is to improve the coaching. If US Soccer was serious about improving play they would invest in making training easier for coaches to obtain. Right now its too expensive and classes are offered too infrequently. Maybe US Soccer could even offer certificate courses in "Possession Play" or special training for DA coaches.

Totally agree, and one of the most immediate changes they could make is to give coaches an actual education in goalkeeping. For the E license, there was zero and while the instructor had a chance to hand out a goalkeeper assignment as part of the test, he didn't...even the exercises involved in building out the back didn't include goalkeeping (I showed up with my old gloves, ready to give it the ol college try and was called upon only 1 out of 14-16 exams to keep). On my own exam, I was reprimanded for in a crossing exercise giving a coaching point to the keeper. On the D license, DYS trainer says that he got just an hour or two. And to get your goalkeeper license, you have to obtain your B license first. Few coaches we have know what to do with the goalkeeper (which is why they instruct them to just punt it which is poor technique....also most kids could be taught the long goalkick if coaches put in the time, but the system discourages from doing so...any kid can goalkick). Of the instructors we have, most of their technique is old (DYS has had so many instructors teach the scoop with the bended leg instead of the forward dive, or the old technique of pressing slowly on the one v one). Many of the goalkeeper trainers are highly expense. In short, US goalkeeper education is horrible, and then we turn around and wonder why we can't build out the back (which naturally starts with the goalkeeper).

 

[BarcaLover]

The buildout line is as effective as "rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic". I'm sure it looked like a great idea on the whiteboard at US Soccer headquarters but it will have negligible impact on kid's long term building out the back and possession skills. As we have all seen its far bigger impact has been to create confusion for everyone.

Without the soccer culture changing...I agree that the best way to improve the quality of American soccer is to improve the coaching. If US Soccer was serious about improving play they would invest in making training easier for coaches to obtain. Right now its too expensive and classes are offered too infrequently. Maybe US Soccer could even offer certificate courses in "Possession Play" or special training for DA coaches.

I will say this in regards to the Build Out Line....if the coach knows his stuff it allows his team the time to build out of the back and have some success.

But if he doesn't know how to teach playing out of the back, then the Build Out Line is a giant waste of time and only creates confusion.

I totally agree on your "Possession Play" certificate idea or maybe a "How to Build Out of the Back" curriculum. That way more coaches would know how to take advantage of the Build Out Line and the kids could learn the principles of playing out from the back.

 

[Grace T.]

I will say this in regards to the Build Out Line....if the coach knows his stuff it allows his team the time to build out of the back and have some success.

But if he doesn't know how to teach playing out of the back, then the Build Out Line is a giant waste of time and only creates confusion.

I totally agree on your "Possession Play" certificate idea or maybe a "How to Build Out of the Back" curriculum. That way more coaches would know how to take advantage of the Build Out Line and the kids could learn the principles of playing out from the back.

No, it requires 3 stars to aligns. 1) the coach needs to know his stuff and how to build out the back, 2) the players need to have the requisite skill to build out the back, UNDER VERY HEAVY PRESSURE, and 3) parents need to be supportive of the coach while the team is learning (and getting killed due to the high pressure) so winning isn't everything. Any of these are missing and it doesn't work. As I said, have seen 1 team use it like it was intended and it was sloppy and ugly against DYS far weaker team...put the team I saw up against a silver elite team and they wouldn't be able to do it either.

 

[BarcaLover]

No, it requires 3 stars to aligns. 1) the coach needs to know his stuff and how to build out the back, 2) the players need to have the requisite skill to build out the back, UNDER VERY HEAVY PRESSURE, and 3) parents need to be supportive of the coach while the team is learning (and getting killed due to the high pressure) so winning isn't everything. Any of these are missing and it doesn't work.

The whole purpose of the BOL is that the kids have more time on the ball initially so that they have a chance to play out of the back and learn the principles. The "UNDER VERY HEAVY PRESSURE" is held back for a moment so that the player receiving the first pass has a chance.

If the team rehearses the proper off the ball movements and knows what the available options are when receiving a pass AND they have the technical skills to make accurate, properly weighted passes AND they can receive the ball cleanly with the correct foot, then they have a chance to build out of the back .

The BOL simply gives a team a chançe to play out of the back.

But I agree with your "3 stars must align" idea.....if any of those 3 are off, disaster is awaiting.

 

[Grace T.]

The whole purpose of the BOL is that the kids have more time on the ball initially so that they have a chance to play out of the back and learn the principles. The "UNDER VERY HEAVY PRESSURE" is held back for a moment so that the player receiving the first pass has a chance.

If the team rehearses the proper off the ball movements and knows what the available options are when receiving a pass AND they have the technical skills to make accurate, properly weighted passes AND they can receive the ball cleanly with the correct foot, then they have a chance to build out of the back .

The BOL simply gives a team a chançe to play out of the back.

But I agree with your "3 stars must align" idea.....if any of those 3 are off, disaster is awaiting.

The unintended consequence of removing the punt is that it has the effect of allowing the opposing team to line up 3 people on the buildup line to rush the defender (usually 2 rush the defender and the winger on the far side cover the keeper since the defender is unlikely to be able or want to cross it over his own box). If you listen to the podcast that was posted, they specifically say that one of the intended effects is to teach the front line how to press high. By taking away the long option, and starting the clock as soon as the keeper releases, they've actually increased the pressure and rendered those additional seconds meaningless. It removes pressure from the keeper and transfers it to the defender. That's why if they were to start the clock when the defender receives it, and couple it with allowing a punt with the old offsides rules, you'd see more teams building out the back, plus teach the keepers when and how to build out the back v. a long ball.

 

[BarcaLover]

The unintended consequence of removing the punt is that it has the effect of allowing the opposing team to line up 3 people on the buildup line to rush the defender (usually 2 rush the defender and the winger on the far side cover the keeper since the defender is unlikely to be able or want to cross it over his own box). If you listen to the podcast that was posted, they specifically say that one of the intended effects is to teach the front line how to press high. By taking away the long option, and starting the clock as soon as the keeper releases, they've actually increased the pressure and rendered those additional seconds meaningless. It removes pressure from the keeper and transfers it to the defender. That's why if they were to start the clock when the defender receives it, and couple it with allowing a punt with the old offsides rules, you'd see more teams building out the back, plus teach the keepers when and how to build out the back v. a long ball.

Last year in the G06 age group the way the rule was enforced was the opponent could not enter until the defender touched the ball, not when it came out if the GKers hand. I guess that got changed this year?

 

[Grace T.]

Last year in the G06 age group the way the rule was enforced was the opponent could not enter until the defender touched the ball, not when it came out if the GKers hand. I guess that got changed this year?

Yes, but there's a lot of confusion surrounding the rules as well this year (if you read above). They also changed the offside rule which has also had its unintended consequences (again, see why they did it...don't want 6 people on the line ready to rush the defender, but teams can still afford to put 3 on the line).

 

[Dos Equis]

Are you speaking from experience? /QUOTE]

Yes, I am. And on this board, that is becoming an increasingly lonely place.

 

[Keepermom2]

Why do you think they're too small? 2004 boys played 9v9 in DA last year after playing 11v11 the year prior. At first it felt too small. After they adjusted the benefits of the small field and less players on the field became very clear...tighter spaces, quicker thinking, higher tempo, and more touches. It was just what they needed. If your kid's team is struggling on the smaller field, good for him/her and teammates. They will be better for it in the long run.

Speaking for the 2018/2019 Soccer Initiatives posted on Cal South Website, it says G2006 U13 will continue to play on the field size that we are playing on right now yet we will be adding 2 more players to each team or 4 more players to the field of play (2 for each team). That doesn't make sense to me which is why I think someone got it wrong. There is nowhere on the US Soccer site that speaks to changes for U13. Their initiatives are confined to U12 and below. http://www.ussoccer.com/coaching-education/resources/us-soccer-player-development-initiatives

 

[soloyosh]

Speaking for the 2018/2019 Soccer Initiatives posted on Cal South Website, it says G2006 U13 will continue to play on the field size that we are playing on right now yet we will be adding 2 more players to each team or 4 more players to the field of play (2 for each team). That doesn't make sense to me which is why I think someone got it wrong. There is nowhere on the US Soccer site that speaks to changes for U13. Their initiatives are confined to U12 and below. http://www.ussoccer.com/coaching-education/resources/us-soccer-player-development-initiatives

Isn't G06 U12? We are a B04 team and we are U14.

 

[Keepermom2]

Isn't G06 U12? We are a B04 team and we are U14.

Next year/season which is what my post is related to G06 will be U13.

 

[Not_that_Serious]

Because all of our "best" coaches are rejects from the U.K. We need to follow someone.

haha some are just straight frauds. then they get questioned about background and coaching methods by legit coaches and they get offended - then leave with half the team from club to club. each time they move they have less kids until they only have their own kid on the team. US Soccer has some real $ in the bank now, time to use it - but they wont. unless its to make more $ or throw at some big name coach

 

[Keepermom2]

Totally agree, and one of the most immediate changes they could make is to give coaches an actual education in goalkeeping. For the E license, there was zero and while the instructor had a chance to hand out a goalkeeper assignment as part of the test, he didn't...even the exercises involved in building out the back didn't include goalkeeping (I showed up with my old gloves, ready to give it the ol college try and was called upon only 1 out of 14-16 exams to keep). On my own exam, I was reprimanded for in a crossing exercise giving a coaching point to the keeper. On the D license, DYS trainer says that he got just an hour or two. And to get your goalkeeper license, you have to obtain your B license first. Few coaches we have know what to do with the goalkeeper (which is why they instruct them to just punt it which is poor technique....also most kids could be taught the long goalkick if coaches put in the time, but the system discourages from doing so...any kid can goalkick). Of the instructors we have, most of their technique is old (DYS has had so many instructors teach the scoop with the bended leg instead of the forward dive, or the old technique of pressing slowly on the one v one). Many of the goalkeeper trainers are highly expense. In short, US goalkeeper education is horrible, and then we turn around and wonder why we can't build out the back (which naturally starts with the goalkeeper).

I just seem to keep agreeing with everything you say no matter what the post. Just recently a parent on the sideline yelled to my daughter to drop to her knee for a scoop which can and often results in the ball bouncing off of a foot or knee if not done perfectly and limits the ability to move fast for the next move. I explained that technique is not utilized with the professional goalkeepers nor does her trainer teach that. Her response was that is the first time she had ever heard that. Not sure if she was presuming I was wrong or not but I did just watch a video of the training for U17 National Team goalkeepers and her trainer is teaching her to do exactly what they do with both the scoop and frontal. You also don't see College Keepers doing it so why teach the kids to do that now to later have to break a habit? I did see one Keeper from another country use that technique in the Olympics and the ball still went through her legs. My poor daughter keeps getting taught various techniques for a variety of things which has caused her considerable confusion. I watch a lot of soccer and I have just recently decided we needed to pick a road and that road is the approach that most closely resembles what is being done in the professional world and tell whom ever is training her that is what she is going to do because the confusion is causing her to make mistakes. I am sure the folks are thrilled when I do that because I am a parent that doesn't know anything. She is finally training with 2 trainers that are teaching consistent approaches and I can see a difference in her game. US Soccer should establish some standards that should be taught based upon proven methods and put it in the training for all coaches. That wouldn't even take that long to do. There aren't that many moves with controversial methods.

 

[RedNevilles]

One initiative I would love to see for the youngest age groups - No Coaching during games. Both parents and coaches should let the kids discover the game. Yes positioning may not be great but more touches on the ball and the freedom to think for themselves will make all the difference in the world.

 

[Grace T.]

I just seem to keep agreeing with everything you say no matter what the post. Just recently a parent on the sideline yelled to my daughter to drop to her knee for a scoop which can and often results in the ball bouncing off of a foot or knee if not done perfectly and limits the ability to move fast for the next move. I explained that technique is not utilized with the professional goalkeepers nor does her trainer teach that. Her response was that is the first time she had ever heard that. Not sure if she was presuming I was wrong or not but I did just watch a video of the training for U17 National Team goalkeepers and her trainer is teaching her to do exactly what they do with both the scoop and frontal. You also don't see College Keepers doing it so why teach the kids to do that now to later have to break a habit? I did see one Keeper from another country use that technique in the Olympics and the ball still went through her legs. My poor daughter keeps getting taught various techniques for a variety of things which has caused her considerable confusion. I watch a lot of soccer and I have just recently decided we needed to pick a road and that road is the approach that most closely resembles what is being done in the professional world and tell whom ever is training her that is what she is going to do because the confusion is causing her to make mistakes. I am sure the folks are thrilled when I do that because I am a parent that doesn't know anything. She is finally training with 2 trainers that are teaching consistent approaches and I can see a difference in her game. US Soccer should establish some standards that should be taught based upon proven methods and put it in the training for all coaches. That wouldn't even take that long to do. There aren't that many moves with controversial methods.

The problem is that goalkeepers are an afterthought for US Soccer. As I wrote, there was nothing in the E License for the goalkeeper and very little in the D. The instructor didn't even bother to hand out a goalkeeper assignment and I brought my gloves for nothing to the exam and got reprimanded for giving the keeper instruction during a crossing exercise (so since there were no keeper exercises, and I'm not supposed to coach the keeper during other exercises, that means the keeper gets no training from the coach?) And to get your keeper license, you have to get at least a B level on your field licenses.

Even if they wanted to, though, it would be tough since there isn't an agreement internationally of what keepers should be doing. It's an oversimplication but there are 3 basic styles of keeping...the tall keeper (where the keeper basically hangs back and uses extension almost like a basketball player, but doesn't catch....he punches...it's the most common European model), the fast keeper (where the keeper charges a lot and plays out of the box like Manuel Neuer) and the big keeper (which basically is used like a fusball keeper, and best associated with the old English style). Thankfully some consensus is coming together now and Neuer's play more than anyone has contributed to showing what keepers can do, but there's always going to be some variance so it's important that keeper trainers keep up to date with all the latest techniques so they are able to apply what works for a particular keeper. The US philosophy has been, to some extent, that it doesn't need to figure this out because lots of kids grow up playing sports with hands (baseball/basketball/football) so it's easy to get keepers who convert from other sports...some have even speculated that it might lead to a new keeper format (an American one) with an emphasis on catching....but to get there we need to do a better job on training.

 

[Grace T.]

One initiative I would love to see for the youngest age groups - No Coaching during games. Both parents and coaches should let the kids discover the game. Yes positioning may not be great but more touches on the ball and the freedom to think for themselves will make all the difference in the world.

This has pros and cons too. I like a lot of it including that kids would learn to think for themselves, and it treats the game kind of like an exam (what have the kids learned?). The biggest obstacles however, even at the lower levels, is the pay to play system (since parents will question coaches that are silent...what are we paying you for?) and that the system is a competitive one that keeps score (since parents will blame the loss on the coaches keeping silent). Dear niece's coach (the one I wrote about in the other form) doesn't say much during the game (other than to remind them to play possession and not kick it wild, or to not dive in on defense)....it's one of the reasons parents are in an uproar.

 

[RedNevilles]

This has pros and cons too. I like a lot of it including that kids would learn to think for themselves, and it treats the game kind of like an exam (what have the kids learned?). The biggest obstacles however, even at the lower levels, is the pay to play system (since parents will question coaches that are silent...what are we paying you for?) and that the system is a competitive one that keeps score (since parents will blame the loss on the coaches keeping silent). Dear niece's coach (the one I wrote about in the other form) doesn't say much during the game (other than to remind them to play possession and not kick it wild, or to not dive in on defense)....it's one of the reasons parents are in an uproar.

I completely understand this but that is the current climate we are in. To change the process we need to change our thinking and if it is an initiative that all have to follow then there won't be such uproar. Currently the playstation coaches who tell their players everything to do will get results over the ones sitting back and letting them play and as results are tracked this causes the discontent with parents. If all coaches sat back and said nothing in games, only before, half time and end then you will really start to see which ones are good trainers as the players will show what they are taught in practice without constantly being told what to do

 

[TangoCity]

One initiative I would love to see for the youngest age groups - No Coaching during games. Both parents and coaches should let the kids discover the game. Yes positioning may not be great but more touches on the ball and the freedom to think for themselves will make all the difference in the world.

That's called recess at school.