Kickball Reigns

My DD's team (U17) plays possession ball but it still surprises me that a lot of the older teams still play kick ball and it's some times difficult for a team who plays possession to play against a kick ball team. It's sad but it does win games especially if you have a fast forward but it's not pretty and not fun to watch. The best exciting games to watch are teams that both play possession, now that's where you see true skill, patience and finesse.
 
socalkdg said:
Watched the men's Stanford UCLA game yesterday. Stanford played very direct while UCLA was playing out of the back. Stanford won. The field just seems too small for male college players. Almost felt like indoor soccer with their speed, strength, skills. What is the field sizes for Men's professional compared to college?
Click to expand...

IFAB - Law 1 provides for a maximum field size of 130x100 and a minimum of 100x50 yards
  • FIFA/Olympic/MLS = fields tend to be 120x80 yards (maximum size) and 110x70 (minimum size), with virtually all venues supporting the maximum size (although many older European pitches can't.
  • Multi-purpose artificial turf HS/College fields tend to be 115x65 yards. They are not as wide because most stadiums were built to host football and have a 400 meter track around the pitch area, these are within IFAB - Law 1, but not appropriate for professional play.
  • Youth 11v11 will go 115x75 (Flight 1 / USSDA / ECNL) down to 105x65 (U13) and everything in between.
 
MWN said:
IFAB - Law 1 provides for a maximum field size of 130x100 and a minimum of 100x50 yards
  • FIFA/Olympic/MLS = fields tend to be 120x80 yards (maximum size) and 110x70 (minimum size), with virtually all venues supporting the maximum size (although many older European pitches can't.
  • Multi-purpose artificial turf HS/College fields tend to be 115x65 yards. They are not as wide because most stadiums were built to host football and have a 400 meter track around the pitch area, these are within IFAB - Law 1, but not appropriate for professional play.
  • Youth 11v11 will go 115x75 (Flight 1 / USSDA / ECNL) down to 105x65 (U13) and everything in between.
Click to expand...
UCLA's Marshall Field has been 120x75 since the track was modified a little over 15 years ago.

http://www.uclabruins.com/news/2000/6/22/208269505.aspx

The North Athletic Field can be bigger or small depending upon how they mark the field.
 
etc1217 said:
My DD's team (U17) plays possession ball but it still surprises me that a lot of the older teams still play kick ball and it's some times difficult for a team who plays possession to play against a kick ball team. It's sad but it does win games especially if you have a fast forward but it's not pretty and not fun to watch. The best exciting games to watch are teams that both play possession, now that's where you see true skill, patience and finesse.
Click to expand...

An easy solution to this (and what the top college possession teams do) is to have a faster 4 or 5 player. Having a fast central defender will snuff out all of the kickball and slant the possession percentages even more. I saw a possession team two weeks ago hold a good kickball team to 3 total shots all game and they held over 80% possession. Kickball teams suck to play against but if you have the right pieces they are easy to defend.
 
The point of playing is to win. At some point you need to let the horses loose and win a game now instead of 3 years down the line.

If it takes a "kick ball" to give the best player on the field an opportunity to score, why not and why not more often?
 
Chalklines said:
The point of playing is to win. At some point you need to let the horses loose and win a game now instead of 3 years down the line.

If it takes a "kick ball" to give the best player on the field an opportunity to score, why not and why not more often?
Click to expand...

I think that playing STRICTLY direct play (my definition of kickball is playing it direct all the time even when there are better options) hurts the development of not only the attacking players but the defenders and keeper too. Learning how to pass and dribble your way out of pressure is a valuable skill that most D1 players aren't very proficient at. The teams that have players at all positions that are capable of this are extremely tough to beat. You can't pressure them without getting counterattacked quickly. The best teams can beat you in multiple ways but the way that they hurt you the most is by forcing you to chase because they are possessing the ball.
 
Chalklines said:
The point of playing is to win. At some point you need to let the horses loose and win a game now instead of 3 years down the line.

If it takes a "kick ball" to give the best player on the field an opportunity to score, why not and why not more often?
Click to expand...
While understanding the developmental points of possession and not booting the ball (which as noted by Makeaplay will result in a better winning team all around), this rings true. At what point are kids taught (developed) to win? Or does the "beautiful game" trump this?

It reminds me of a time I played my MIL in tennis, an avid player that had been playing for decades, and was tops in her club. I beat her easily despite not having picked up a racket in years. She claimed that the only reason I won was because I did not properly return the ball, and my shots were erratic (all true). But I followed the rules of tennis and won. (so called, ugly win.)
Just like the self-proclaimed elite clubs that complain when they are beaten by a team who doesn't play to their "beautiful game"/possession only standards.

Beyond development, the point of the game is to win. Imagine Aaron Rodgers being chastised for throwing all those (kickball) hail Marys to win games. I guess he wasn't developed well enough to know better.
 
MakeAPlay said:
I think that playing STRICTLY direct play (my definition of kickball is playing it direct all the time even when there are better options) hurts the development of not only the attacking players but the defenders and keeper too. Learning how to pass and dribble your way out of pressure is a valuable skill that most D1 players aren't very proficient at. The teams that have players at all positions that are capable of this are extremely tough to beat. You can't pressure them without getting counterattacked quickly. The best teams can beat you in multiple ways but the way that they hurt you the most is by forcing you to chase because they are possessing the ball.
Click to expand...

My take is that in order for the US to be more successful internationally, more possession (as opposed to direct) soccer must be played. Doesn't US Soccer believe the same thing? Why else would the buildout lines for the younger ages be implemented? Although I've seen a few coaches "circumvent" the rules re: keepers punting and the buildout line, these rules should still help the younger generation with possession. So if more kids played possession style soccer wouldn't that help the future of US Soccer?
 
MakeAPlay said:
I think that playing STRICTLY direct play (my definition of kickball is playing it direct all the time even when there are better options) hurts the development of not only the attacking players but the defenders and keeper too. Learning how to pass and dribble your way out of pressure is a valuable skill that most D1 players aren't very proficient at. The teams that have players at all positions that are capable of this are extremely tough to beat. You can't pressure them without getting counterattacked quickly. The best teams can beat you in multiple ways but the way that they hurt you the most is by forcing you to chase because they are possessing the ball.
Click to expand...

The problem being, of course, that it takes kids a long time to develop those skills, as seen not just from my comments but some of the other ones.
coachrefparent said:
While understanding the developmental points of possession and not booting the ball (which as noted by Makeaplay will result in a better winning team all around), this rings true. At what point are kids taught (developed) to win? Or does the "beautiful game" trump this?

It reminds me of a time I played my MIL in tennis, an avid player that had been playing for decades, and was tops in her club. I beat her easily despite not having picked up a racket in years. She claimed that the only reason I won was because I did not properly return the ball, and my shots were erratic (all true). But I followed the rules of tennis and won. (so called, ugly win.)
Just like the self-proclaimed elite clubs that complain when they are beaten by a team who doesn't play to their "beautiful game"/possession only standards.

Beyond development, the point of the game is to win. Imagine Aaron Rodgers being chastised for throwing all those (kickball) hail Marys to win games. I guess he wasn't developed well enough to know better.
Click to expand...


A few things...first of all we are talking about kids here that are learning to play the game. Is it more important for them to win or to learn how to play properly when they are young? I'd argue in the younger stages it's more important for them to learn how to play. US Soccer's latest guidelines (none of which are being listened to) is that scoring and winning should be deemphasized in the younger stages. The guidelines are being widely ignored because that's not what the parents are looking for...they are looking for the wins.

But separate from that is the question of whether US Soccer should be developing a better possession based game. A lot of this stems from the success of the Spanish and Brazilian teams. And the record in the Champions Cup and World Cup seems to be that possession based teams will usually defeat more direct oriented teams (Exhibit A: the English). But that possession takes a long time to develop, is vulnerable to mistakes, and until possession is mastered the direct method can often defeat possession based soccer.

Then, even internationally, there's a split in what soccer should be. In most of the world it's a beautiful game that is largely mistakes oriented...the winning team isn't always the most athletic but the one that can move the ball well while making the fewest mistakes...it's a negative game (like tic-tac-toe) in which the score should be 0-0 unless one or the other side makes a mistake. In the US and England, it's (like basketball or American football) been viewed more as a positive game...not about avoiding mistakes but about making the score.

I'm not weighing in on which is a better approach. As other have mentioned as well, you can have winning teams with the direct approach, whether in college or internationally. But the powers-that-be have decided we don't want that...so short of changing their mind, possession soccer remains the ideal.
 
Grace T. said:
The problem being, of course, that it takes kids a long time to develop those skills, as seen not just from my comments but some of the other ones.



A few things...first of all we are talking about kids here that are learning to play the game. Is it more important for them to win or to learn how to play properly when they are young? I'd argue in the younger stages it's more important for them to learn how to play. US Soccer's latest guidelines (none of which are being listened to) is that scoring and winning should be deemphasized in the younger stages. The guidelines are being widely ignored because that's not what the parents are looking for...they are looking for the wins.

But separate from that is the question of whether US Soccer should be developing a better possession based game. A lot of this stems from the success of the Spanish and Brazilian teams. And the record in the Champions Cup and World Cup seems to be that possession based teams will usually defeat more direct oriented teams (Exhibit A: the English). But that possession takes a long time to develop, is vulnerable to mistakes, and until possession is mastered the direct method can often defeat possession based soccer.

Then, even internationally, there's a split in what soccer should be. In most of the world it's a beautiful game that is largely mistakes oriented...the winning team isn't always the most athletic but the one that can move the ball well while making the fewest mistakes...it's a negative game (like tic-tac-toe) in which the score should be 0-0 unless one or the other side makes a mistake. In the US and England, it's (like basketball or American football) been viewed more as a positive game...not about avoiding mistakes but about making the score.

I'm not weighing in on which is a better approach. As other have mentioned as well, you can have winning teams with the direct approach, whether in college or internationally. But the powers-that-be have decided we don't want that...so short of changing their mind, possession soccer remains the ideal.
Click to expand...
I disagree that this is what U.S. Soccer "wants." What they want is that players be taught (and learn) possession soccer. I have never heard US Soccer state that direct play should be eliminated from Soccer, nor have I seen such a thing at the highest levels of soccer.

Everyone (should) want players that are very good at possession soccer, but for them to use whatever the particular game situation requires.

What I am responding to is that large contingent of people that consistently bang the drum that direct play (what they call kickball) must be completely eliminated from the game or the win is not legitimate (or "it's not soccer.")
 
UCLA BruWins said:
My take is that in order for the US to be more successful internationally, more possession (as opposed to direct) soccer must be played. Doesn't US Soccer believe the same thing? Why else would the buildout lines for the younger ages be implemented? Although I've seen a few coaches "circumvent" the rules re: keepers punting and the buildout line, these rules should still help the younger generation with possession. So if more kids played possession style soccer wouldn't that help the future of US Soccer?
Click to expand...

Yes and that is my point. At some point a sacrifice has to be made in order to teach the kids the skills needed to succeed later and at a much higher level. It's better to do it early and to mandate it than to have kids learn later.

My analogy for this is how you teach a kid math. A kid can learn how to come up with the correct answer without learning how to properly line up an equation (winning by any means necessary). Now that works for the simple problems but once you get to the more complex mathematical problems without learning the basics you are lost (kicking and hoping) and suddenly "hate" math. If the kid had learned to do it properly when it didn't matter (ULittle soccer) then when it got tough it would be no big deal.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Grace T. said:
My '07 nieces team is in a bit of an uproar. Coach has been insisting the goalkeeper usually build out from the back on a goalkick (can go for the longer ball but only if the player is really open or if the FB's are under heavy pressure). Team has had a rough season so far with many goals because the FBs loose it either getting it upfield or on the goalkick. Parents are demanding to know why the keeper isn't told to boot it more (keeper getting blamed also for having a weak leg but the keeper can kick long...coach doesn't want her too) or the kick given to midfielder with a big leg. Parents want to know why they aren't winning more and passing it to their best striker who everyone assumes will play for the national team more. Parents also upset the coach is rotating all the positions and confusing the kids (with the exception of the GK and the lead striker who usually play their position). I watched them play for the first time this weekend....they played pretty possession soccer against a very fast team playing kickball and got creamed. I thought my kids team had the second guessing the coaches bad, but wooh :eek:...guess you guys were right about the parent stereotypes.
Click to expand...
Kudos to that coach for sticking to what he/she believes is best for the players long-term development. All other things being equal, I would rather have my daughter's team play controlled/possession soccer and lose rather than play kickball and win.
 
coachrefparent said:
I disagree that this is what U.S. Soccer "wants." What they want is that players be taught (and learn) possession soccer. I have never heard US Soccer state that direct play should be eliminated from Soccer, nor have I seen such a thing at the highest levels of soccer.

Everyone (should) want players that are very good at possession soccer, but for them to use whatever the particular game situation requires.

What I am responding to is that large contingent of people that consistently bang the drum that direct play (what they call kickball) must be completely eliminated from the game or the win is not legitimate (or "it's not soccer.")
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone (or very few) is/are saying that the ball should never played directly. But the entire point of the US soccer development initiatives, and more importantly the guidelines, is that they want to emphasize possession soccer. The issue is that often times there is a binary choice: in the case of my niece's team, for example, the keeper can punt or long ball it, or she can play it to the back...the coach doesn't want the long ball unless it results in a clear possession (which most of the time, unless the other team's player is asleep, will be never)....the parents want her to boot it on the 50/50 chance that the fast striker will be able to win it and run away with it. And when it comes to teaching the youngers, they'll learn the habit of otherwise always going for the long ball or going for the short. Again, not taking a position on the merits, but it seems clear US Soccer's preference from everything they've written is that they want the keeper to learn to build out the back, everything else being equal.
 
Don't over-engineer the game so that it isn't fun. Kids should have fun in practices. A good coach will set up games/drills that encourage possession. Kids want to play. Kids want to have fun. And they get over the wins & losses much faster than a lot of adults. If US Soccer wants more kids playing soccer, which should result in better play at the highest levels, then focus on the younger kids should be having fun. If done correctly the kids will stick with it and in the process learn how to play a more possession based game (assuming that possession is what is taught in practices). IMO
 
MyDaughtersAKeeper said:
Don't over-engineer the game so that it isn't fun. Kids should have fun in practices. A good coach will set up games/drills that encourage possession. Kids want to play. Kids want to have fun. And they get over the wins & losses much faster than a lot of adults. If US Soccer wants more kids playing soccer, which should result in better play at the highest levels, then focus on the younger kids should be having fun. If done correctly the kids will stick with it and in the process learn how to play a more possession based game (assuming that possession is what is taught in practices). IMO
Click to expand...

Your posts are very insightful.

Of course, you've just touched on the other big debate going on in U.S. soccer besides possession v. direct: skills based education v. directed self learning. The group that currently has U.S. soccer's ear is very big on directed self-learning or just let the kids play. That includes minimally calling fouls, try not to joystick coach, no lines in practice, drills should be much less structured especially on the early levels (just one v ones, 2 v 2, scrimmage). The critique, though, is that it doesn't teach the youngest then the skills they need to play well: skill moves, how to cross, individual defensive skills to be learned outside of the context of team training. It also doesn't include any sort of agility training or (when the kids are older) strength and flexibility training. Sure a coach can correct things here and there, but they shouldn't be spending time teaching kids how to pass or shoot properly....that's the responsibility, according to this school of thought, of the player outside of team training (if they are old enough) or if not that's what parents and/or trainers and/or academy is for. The next shoe to drop is a restructuring the licensing courses....to some extent they've already begun to implement it with the F course which emphasizes no lines and a just let them play environment...but if the rumors are true, some of the shifts they are doing (such as breaking up the D course into separate days), is to lay the ground work to shift towards an even more direct self-learning philosophy.

AYSO, by contrast, is very different. Their national curriculum is very skills based, even though they don't always have volunteer coaches that can teach the basics properly. As a result, AYSO also winds up putting more of an emphasis (perhaps unintentionally) on direct soccer as well. Yet strangely, AYSO is the one that deemphasizes winning (skills based and direct being more geared towards producing learning results) v. US soccer (which despite the guideline recommendations still is competitive soccer even at the lower levels, and that competition in turn makes it harder to introduce either a possession-based or skills-based education).

^-\_;)_/-^
 
I've been shocked at what our coach has been able to do with a group of "barely recreational, small and/or unskilled or both, not particularly athletic" girls who are 8 and 9 years old. Some of these girls could barely dribble, much less pass to another player accurately. And receiving a pass? Maybe if it bumped up against their shins (as they stood flat-footed gaping at it). The team started 1-2 years behind everyone (didn't start until U10) and didn't play Spring soccer.

By their 5th game in Fall, they are building it out of the back, passing around the back to switch fields if necessary, bringing it up under control through passing to the midfield or up the wings. I was watching with my mouth hanging open. Oh sure, they made lots of mistakes, but the distance they had come from a group of girls who could barely dribble without toe poking it hard out of bounds was incredible.

And yes, this coach concentrates on fun -- patient, but firm and instructive at the same time. Its amazing to me.
 
Bananacorner said:
I've been shocked at what our coach has been able to do with a group of "barely recreational, small and/or unskilled or both, not particularly athletic" girls who are 8 and 9 years old. Some of these girls could barely dribble, much less pass to another player accurately. And receiving a pass? Maybe if it bumped up against their shins (as they stood flat-footed gaping at it). The team started 1-2 years behind everyone (didn't start until U10) and didn't play Spring soccer.

By their 5th game in Fall, they are building it out of the back, passing around the back to switch fields if necessary, bringing it up under control through passing to the midfield or up the wings. I was watching with my mouth hanging open. Oh sure, they made lots of mistakes, but the distance they had come from a group of girls who could barely dribble without toe poking it hard out of bounds was incredible.

And yes, this coach concentrates on fun -- patient, but firm and instructive at the same time. Its amazing to me.
Click to expand...


So they are playing with the build out line? "passing around the back to switch fields"...if I might ask, are they using the keeper to switch it out from one end to the other? One of the side effects of the build out line is that it also teaches the players on the other team to pressure high (you've basically got 3 players ready to rush across the build out line and swarm the defender who is left with the option of booting it down the line, kicking it out, or dribbling). Have seen few teams able to do the switch without it turning to a one v one against the keeper, let alone a group of "not particularly athletic girls." What's your secret?
 
Grace T. said:
So they are playing with the build out line? "passing around the back to switch fields"...if I might ask, are they using the keeper to switch it out from one end to the other? One of the side effects of the build out line is that it also teaches the players on the other team to pressure high (you've basically got 3 players ready to rush across the build out line and swarm the defender who is left with the option of booting it down the line, kicking it out, or dribbling). Have seen few teams able to do the switch without it turning to a one v one against the keeper, let alone a group of "not particularly athletic girls." What's your secret?
Click to expand...

Rondos, rondos, and more rondos. Ha, partly kidding, but it does seem to help the girls learn how to pass well under pressure.
Certainly they aren't able to switch fields at any time, and there are still tons of mistakes, but yes, I saw them switch around the back using the keeper (who is the most athletic kid on the team), and also without the keeper (when there was clumping on one side of the field, inconsistent pressure). This wasn't after the goalie had the ball -- this is after it had been passed back to relieve pressure and then passed around to the other side. This wasn't meant as a endorsement of the build out line, rather just a comment on how I'm now convinced that any team can learn how to play decent possession soccer with the right coaching.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top