A good article about Coaches and Parents here in America

Toch said:
Love the hate parents sneak into their observations.
This idiot was hating so much he took a
Jab at a kid. Who cares why or how she got called to
DA? Stop the hating on kids. At least let them turn 18 before you start talking smack
Click to expand...
I'm sorry you see it as hate. DA I thought was to try and find the "best of the best" and develop them into YNT players and some will make it to the big squad. You can't do that if you promise everyone 25% starts and have some parents demand only one GK be on the team. Parents have told DA Docs I must play up, CM and start every game or I will look elsewhere. I guess I should have waited until their all 18 and then talk smack. I wasn't talking smack on the kid btw just the dad, but if you truly see it like that I'm super sorry. Everyone in the DA is getting what they want and that is not how you get the cream to rise to the top. That is my opinion based on playing sports since I was 5. Maybe the Girls DA has the formula that will take the USA girls soccer program to even higher level than ever before. ECNL has no promises on starts. You have to drive to Vegas and hope you get in the game. That is college. College has absolutely zero promises of starts last I heard.
 
Justus said:
...You can't do that if you promise everyone 25% starts...
Click to expand...
Actually, that's the only way to develop players. No one gets better sitting on the bench. No one actually knows who from their pool are actually going to be world-class players, so you need to get everyone playing as much as possible.
 
focomoso said:
Actually, that's the only way to develop players. No one gets better sitting on the bench. No one actually knows who from their pool are actually going to be world-class players, so you need to get everyone playing as much as possible.
Click to expand...
Q @focomoso. Are we talking about the ultimate goal of finding the "best of the best" girls soccer players in the USA? I agree you can't have fun if you sit on the bench, that sucks. I just don't believe you can "develop female soccer players" 14 or 15 year old's into world class girl soccer players that barely play and get to start 25% of all games. 1 out of 4 starts! Now if you're trying to have kid playing in front of college coaches, build a business to develop players into better student/athletes, then yes, 25% is very nice for those customers who need that guarantee. We are talking about the USSF League right and it's stated goal to find the cream at the top? If you're slow, you can NEVER get faster. Parents spend $$$$$ to try and get their kid fast. Impossible just like a player getting taller. Ain't gonna happen. Girls have to deal with genetics unlike most males. Boys can get faster up to 21, not girls. Girls can only hope they keep their speed when they were 13. The only thing these coaches can "develop" is better humans, safe environment, be good teammates, pass the rock, striking a ball, dribbling a ball and of course, how to juggle for one hour alone and then another 30 minutes dribbling through cones with no defense. A truthful coach trying to find the cream at the top will tell parents the truth.
 
Poconos said:
where did you get this?
Click to expand...
Genetics vs Development for girls. It's one philosophy I was taught 4 years ago. Girls become young woman and their bodies need to get ready to have babies. Bigger hips and breast can cause one to slow down.
 
Justus said:
Genetics vs Development for girls. It's one philosophy I was taught 4 years ago. Girls become young woman and their bodies need to get ready to have babies. Bigger hips and breast can cause one to slow down.
Click to expand...
You’re not wrong on how women develop. But if you don’t think someone can get faster- you have no idea what you are talking about. Some girls grow taller with puberty and it takes them some time to adjust to their new body.

Heck- I have a friend who is in her 40s. She’s always been pretty fit. She is now in the process of qualifying for the Olympic trials in the marathon. That requires world class speed and endurance. She was fast 6 years ago.... but not world class.
 
timbuck said:
You’re not wrong on how women develop. But if you don’t think someone can get faster- you have no idea what you are talking about. Some girls grow taller with puberty and it takes them some time to adjust to their new body.

Heck- I have a friend who is in her 40s. She’s always been pretty fit. She is now in the process of qualifying for the Olympic trials in the marathon. That requires world class speed and endurance. She was fast 6 years ago.... but not world class.
Click to expand...
I trying to be careful with my words. Let me explain: Were talking about finding the future National Team players for woman to be clear here and why we have the USSF League in the first place. If 10 is the highest level for world class girls soccer player and you're at a 6 at 14 years old, yes you can spend thousand of $$$$ to get to 6.5. You will NEVER get to 8 and the odds of getting faster than 6.5 is bad because girls will gain weight and will need to work even harder to keep the new 6.5 speed score. And that will 100% disqualify dd at the highest level. I never ran a marathon but I'm not sure how fast you have to be. Were talking 0-3 seconds and 0-5. Not endurance.
 
Justus said:
Q @focomoso. Are we talking about the ultimate goal of finding the "best of the best" girls soccer players in the USA? I agree you can't have fun if you sit on the bench, that sucks. I just don't believe you can "develop female soccer players" 14 or 15 year old's into world class girl soccer players that barely play and get to start 25% of all games. 1 out of 4 starts! Now if you're trying to have kid playing in front of college coaches, build a business to develop players into better student/athletes, then yes, 25% is very nice for those customers who need that guarantee. We are talking about the USSF League right and it's stated goal to find the cream at the top? If you're slow, you can NEVER get faster. Parents spend $$$$$ to try and get their kid fast. Impossible just like a player getting taller. Ain't gonna happen. Girls have to deal with genetics unlike most males. Boys can get faster up to 21, not girls. Girls can only hope they keep their speed when they were 13. The only thing these coaches can "develop" is better humans, safe environment, be good teammates, pass the rock, striking a ball, dribbling a ball and of course, how to juggle for one hour alone and then another 30 minutes dribbling through cones with no defense. A truthful coach trying to find the cream at the top will tell parents the truth.
Click to expand...
I'm much more versed on the boys side, but my point is that up to about 15 or 16 (or maybe even older), no one knows who is going to "make it" and who isn't. Puberty is a lottery and if you spend all your time developing the 15 best 12-year-olds, in 5 years, you may find that you've been developing the wrong kids. The 25% rule makes sure that some of the kids that aren't superstars at 12, but who have a chance to be at 16 get some high-level soccer.
 
Justus said:
I trying to be careful with my words. Let me explain: Were talking about finding the future National Team players for woman to be clear here and why we have the USSF League in the first place. If 10 is the highest level for world class girls soccer player and you're at a 6 at 14 years old, yes you can spend thousand of $$$$ to get to 6.5. You will NEVER get to 8 and the odds of getting faster than 6.5 is bad because girls will gain weight and will need to work even harder to keep the new 6.5 speed score. And that will 100% disqualify dd at the highest level. I never ran a marathon but I'm not sure how fast you have to be. Were talking 0-3 seconds and 0-5. Not endurance.
Click to expand...
To continue this. At least on the boys side, the 8s and 9s at 12 are rarely the 8s and 9s at 19. Often it's the 7s that have the chance to end up as 10s. Note all the European superstars who were cut from various top academies at 14 only to thrive in a "lower" system and come back better.
 
focomoso said:
I'm much more versed on the boys side, but my point is that up to about 15 or 16 (or maybe even older), no one knows who is going to "make it" and who isn't. Puberty is a lottery and if you spend all your time developing the 15 best 12-year-olds, in 5 years, you may find that you've been developing the wrong kids. The 25% rule makes sure that some of the kids that aren't superstars at 12, but who have a chance to be at 16 get some high-level soccer.
Click to expand...
There you go. I agree on the boy side. All good
 
I'd also argue that "fast" does not always mean "good soccer player". Sure, you can't be a turtle out there. But a 40 yard dash time, a 3 mile run time or the beep test are not an indicator of someone being a great soccer player. But at 10 years old, the fast kid will ALWAYS stand out as the "best" player on the field. See how many times that player runs on to the end of a through ball only to donk it out of bounds with her 1st or 2nd touch. Sure, she'll score 2 or 3 goals per game. But nobody looks at the 15 times she blew it.
 
timbuck said:
I'd also argue that "fast" does not always mean "good soccer player". Sure, you can't be a turtle out there. But a 40 yard dash time, a 3 mile run time or the beep test are not an indicator of someone being a great soccer player. But at 10 years old, the fast kid will ALWAYS stand out as the "best" player on the field. See how many times that player runs on to the end of a through ball only to donk it out of bounds with her 1st or 2nd touch. Sure, she'll score 2 or 3 goals per game. But nobody looks at the 15 times she blew it.
Click to expand...
I was thinking the same thing why are we only talking about speed and size with soccer development. This isn't the NFL
 
timbuck said:
I'd also argue that "fast" does not always mean "good soccer player". Sure, you can't be a turtle out there. But a 40 yard dash time, a 3 mile run time or the beep test are not an indicator of someone being a great soccer player. But at 10 years old, the fast kid will ALWAYS stand out as the "best" player on the field. See how many times that player runs on to the end of a through ball only to donk it out of bounds with her 1st or 2nd touch. Sure, she'll score 2 or 3 goals per game. But nobody looks at the 15 times she blew it.
Click to expand...
You have to have some speed 8 out of 10 and physical strength for girls, is huge at the highest levels of soccer. Not talking college, talking all the best in the world. That is why we have a girls DA, to find the best of the best. Speed alone will not get you in but you better have it or be 5 10'
 
ToonArmy said:
I was thinking the same thing why are we only talking about speed and size with soccer development. This isn't the NFL
Click to expand...
World Cup teams only I'm talking about. You can't develop speed or size. So if you don't have either, most likely on the girls side ur toast. It's reality. 300 D1 colleges and 3000 more colleges, no problem. All who can run and kick a ball can play somewhere in college.
 
This discussion started with an article about "joysticking". I think it was related mostly to parents, but I've read several other opinions in here that are even against "joysticking" coaches. I"m going to provide my experience and opinion and would like feedback to help me understand why so many are against active coaching/parenting when done with good fundamental knowledge.

My daughter plays club field soccer and futsal. Futsal delivers incredible development for instinct, touch, and precision, but this has to be applied to field play. Now, her futsal coach is extremely active during games with "joysticking", but she develops and grows tremendously from the active guidance. She will hear step on it, move, open up, pass, dribble, Scarlett is open, push up, etc. etc. My opinion is that she learns and develops much faster not just due to futsal, but to the "joysticking" that is teaching her constantly what to do.

Furthermore, we watch the older kids play with the same coach and active guidance "joysticking" who are absolutely amazing with their skills, possession, and control of the ball and game. They are amazing from the "joysticking" and constant repetition of "joysticking" to the point where the strategy and system is embedded in their heads. They also dominate in field soccer due to their incredible skills.

Her field soccer development is not nearly as active and her field soccer team does not have near the possession and control skill of her futsal team which even has younger players. I will also add that her futsal team does not have tons of rules and the need to order parents to not coach from the sideline. This whole winning is not what it's about and "joysticking" is bad philosophy just baffles the hell out of me.

Maybe every kid is different and some may be able to handle pressure and direction more than others? Maybe some of us parents don't want to spend 20 hours a week and thousands and thousands of dollars a year for love of the game she can get recreationally? Maybe kids need the constant direction on the field to help them advance and develop faster to compete against the best in their age which gives them advantage as they get older?

I know several kids that played club field soccer til they were 16 or 17 and quit, but not due to this burnout everyone mentions. They did the math and figured out that they were not going to play college soccer and were tired of spending so much time on soccer and not advancing. You reach an age where your time may be better spent academically or on something else. This is not burn out! This is reality and it hits others even younger.

Once they reach high school, they either make club teams or the high school team. NOT ALL THE GIRLS WILL! They do their math even earlier in age if they don't make either. Sure, the clubs have 3 maybe more flights now to gain more customers, but again, if the kids are spending 15 hours a week and not going to advance or graduate in the sport, reality sets in. THIS IS NOT BURNOUT! Now, for those that do burnout. They can and will regardless in many cases. Not everyone can handle the pressure and not everyone will make the team. These are just my opinions and life experiences I have noticed.

I think the parents need to see what works for their child and their child's psyche and passion is different than my childs. The bottom line is it gets more competitive and harder to keep advancing with the sport as they age. They have the psyche and skills to make it or they don't. It seems to me that some are more worried about burning out than advancing and building incredible skills that can be wasted with burning out. Let my child and her "joysticking" build something that is incredible enough to worry about getting burned out from first is my opinion. I'm not looking for a very expensive, time consuming hobby for my girl. I'd rather her do amazing in her education/work skills if she is not going to advance with the sport.

Also, isn't it weird how our kids are in school for an incredible amount of time, but noone worries about burning them out educationally??
 
SoccerJones said:
because thats the american mentality...speed and athleticism always trumps technical skill especially at the younger levels.
Click to expand...
You can't "teach" speed, size and athleticism. You CAN "teach" the technical skills. If two players are equal in ability, I think most would take the bigger/stronger player over the smaller/less physical player.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top