Is club soccer a waste of time/money for youngers (under 10 yo)?

[Emma]

What I have observed with flight 1 is kids' level are more even. You can have multiple kids that are good enough to play striker/forward. Who ends up getting the position has something to do with team politics and whose parent kiss up to the coach more.

This is not true on most teams. It depends on the coach. The kids with a nose for the goal, and isn't great at defending, will generally be the striker. Kids have different personalities and like to do different things. Not all great soccer players make great strikers. Good coaches know their kids personalities over time and will place them where appropriate for the team and the player's development.

If your child loves playing a certain position and wants to control that, then play on lower flight.

 

[Jamisfoes]

This is not true on most teams. It depends on the coach. The kids with a nose for the goal, and isn't great at defending, will generally be the striker. Kids have different personalities and like to do different things. Not all great soccer players make great strikers. Good coaches know their kids personalities over time and will place them where appropriate for the team and the player's development.

If your child loves playing a certain position and wants to control that, then play on lower flight.

I disagree. Strikers are the most athletic kids. They can play any position and be successful.

 

[crush]

What I have observed with flight 1 is kids' level are more even. You can have multiple kids that are good enough to play striker/forward. Who ends up getting the position has something to do with team politics and whose parent kiss up to the coach more.

Oh boy, that reminds me of story long ago out in Lake Elsinore. We had three parents who said their kid plays CM or their living to Temecula United. Coach promised all three parents their kid would play CM. Back then it was 7 v 7 and just one CM. Oh God, what a nightmare of a season. Plus, one of the dads challenged me to a fight in the parking lot after our teams State Cup shellacking. The coaches love ass kissers and those who turn their cheek, that's all I can say about that. Pay to play is good for the coach, trust me.....lol

 

[Emma]

I disagree. Strikers are the most athletic kids. They can play any position and be successful.

We will have to agree to disagree then. Messi would not been a great center back or outside back. Ronaldo wouldn't have been a good 10, but maybe centerback.

You can be the most athletic and be successful at any position, but if you don't have a nose for the goal, then you can't be a striker.
If you are athletic, have a nose for the goal but make bad decisions when cutting off attackers, then you can't play Center back.
If you're athletic but not a fantastic passer and see where the runs and spaces are on the whole field, then you're not going to be a great midfielder.

I've seen plenty of fantastic forwards that aren't fantastic as midfielders or center backs. Can they play it based on their athletic abilities? Yes. Are they going to be as good as an athletic person with all the attributes needed for that particular position? NO.

On a top team, a few players will be able to play multiple position but not all of them.

 

[crush]

This is not true on most teams. It depends on the coach. The kids with a nose for the goal, and isn't great at defending, will generally be the striker. Kids have different personalities and like to do different things. Not all great soccer players make great strikers. Good coaches know their kids personalities over time and will place them where appropriate for the team and the player's development.

If your child loves playing a certain position and wants to control that, then play on lower flight.

What flight are you playing in? I mean, your kid, but you get the point, Tier 1 Strikers have to play defense and offense all game or they sit on the bench. Defense is trying to steal the ball from the defenders or GK. Also fight for the ball when you get it taken from you and not act like that should never happen. On top of that, YNT coaches will take a top Striker and put them on defense.

 

[Emma]

What flight are you playing in? I mean, your kid, but you get the point, Tier 1 Strikers have to play defense and offense all game or they sit on the bench. Defense is trying to steal the ball from the defenders or GK. Also fight for the ball when you get it taken from you and not act like that should never happen. On top of that, YNT coaches will take a top Striker and put them on defense.

We're referring to top teams and your point about YNT is consistent with what I'm saying, a striker on one team may be better suited for a different position on a better team, because someone else has a better nose for the goal.

Defending as a CB is very different than defending as a forward or as a midfielder. It's more than just fighting to get the ball or pressing- it's reading how the play is likely to unfold and cutting off the angle so a shot is hard to take or easy for the goalie to defend against. It's the ability to command the back line and force everyone to step up when necessary. It's working with the midfields to cut off all the possible scenarios coming at them. Not all strikers have this ability. I know many strikers that couldn't do this if they tried but are phenomenal at finding a way to get the ball behind the net with all their body parts.

 

[crush]

We're referring to top teams and your point about YNT is consistent with what I'm saying, a striker on one team may be better suited for a different position on a better team, because someone else has a better nose for the goal.

Defending as a CB is very different than defending as a forward or as a midfielder. It's more than just fighting to get the ball or pressing- it's reading how the play is likely to unfold and cutting off the angle so a shot is hard to take or easy for the goalie to defend against. It's the ability to command the back line and force everyone to step up when necessary. It's working with the midfields to cut off all the possible scenarios coming at them. Not all strikers have this ability. I know many strikers that couldn't do this if they tried but are phenomenal at finding a way to get the ball behind the net with all their body parts.

Ok, I see your point and I agree 100%.

 

[Edouble]

Regarding size, I was expressing to another soccer parent that my kid has a hard time playing against bigger kids. Not that he can’t, just that it’s harder. The bigger kid might be able to knock him off the ball so my kid has scramble to try to get it back or prevent a pass. Or he might lose in the air challenges. This parent’s opinion is that size doesn’t and shouldn’t matter and was pressing me to explain more. Of course, he has a bigger kid. I’m thinking sure, easy for you to say. Your kid doesn’t have someone at least 5-7 inches taller and 50 pounds heavier going after him. He did concede that the top teams seem to be filled with bigger kids and size can mean more attention from coaches and being tracked earlier.

My son is in the same boat right now, great technical skill but just lacks the size to keep up in flight 1. Even worse is if he makes a few mistakes and loses the ball, he gets benched while other bigger kids in the team have more room for error. He's barely 9 so he also understands he will grow and all he can do is continue to work on his technique. I feel like I'm just paying for club so that he plays against better and bigger players so that it helps him adapt later on. Thankfully we train outside of club and he plays futsal where he excels more in.

 

[NorCalDad]

I disagree. Strikers are the most athletic kids. They can play any position and be successful.

Totally different from what I've seen play out. I've seen a lot of coaches hide players at the 9 because those players don't have the skill necessary to play more complex roles (CB, 8 and 6). You pretty much just need to run fast and have a reasonable shot. Now if you're talking false 9 or something more complex, then yeah you need to be more competent.

 

[Jamisfoes]

Totally different from what I've seen play out. I've seen a lot of coaches hide players at the 9 because those players don't have the skill necessary to play more complex roles (CB, 8 and 6). You pretty much just need to run fast and have a reasonable shot. Now if you're talking false 9 or something more complex, then yeah you need to be more competent.

We are talking about starting strikers, not bench player coach put in as a third striker because they can't be trusted in the back field.
I have a problem with Emma's statement that "The kids with a nose for the goal, and isn't great at defending, will generally be the striker." That is not true at all especially in the youngers. Kids who are most athletic and most skilled become strikers. Everyone of them can excel in defense just as well.

 

[NorCalDad]

We are talking about starting strikers, not bench player coach put in as a third striker because they can't be trusted in the back field.
I have a problem with Emma's statement that "The kids with a nose for the goal, and isn't great at defending, will generally be the striker." That is not true at all especially in the youngers. Kids who are most athletic and most skilled become strikers. Everyone of them can excel in defense just as well.

Yeah, that just doesn't align with what I've seen. I'm mostly talking about youngers for what it's worth. As they get older, everyone is skilled on the field. I think this perception is highly dependent on the style of play the kids are playing. In a more possession based approach you will see some of the most skilled players in the midfield. If the team plays more directly you probably won't see the same thing.

 

[Emma]

We are talking about starting strikers, not bench player coach put in as a third striker because they can't be trusted in the back field.
I have a problem with Emma's statement that "The kids with a nose for the goal, and isn't great at defending, will generally be the striker." That is not true at all especially in the youngers. Kids who are most athletic and most skilled become strikers. Everyone of them can excel in defense just as well.

I use the word generally because there are definitely exceptions. There are a few excellent strikers, but definitely not "all", who are also excellent defenders.

Soccer is fun because there's more to it than just athleticism. The biggest, fastest, strongest players don't always end up successful. There's decision making, calmness, quickness, agility, peripheral vision, planning, communication, grit and hard work.

 

[crush]

I use the word generally because there are definitely exceptions. There are a few excellent strikers, but definitely not "all", who are also excellent defenders.

Soccer is fun because there's more to it than just athleticism. The biggest, fastest, strongest players don't always end up successful. There's decision making, calmness, quickness, agility, peripheral vision, planning, communication, grit and hard work.

I sense some Striker Envy Emma, no?

 

[paytoplay]

Parents intimately involved in their kids level of play (vs the clubs or teams defining) is the rub with American Youth Soccer + actually any youth sport in the US.

I know of multiple situations where parents have just given up on playing the social games needed sometimes to get on or play with XYZ club. If you're new to the situation what you don't see is that there's all kinds of ways exploit the situation. Coaches, Parents, and Clubs are all doing it at the same time. This is why we as a nation can't field a good national team on the mens side. Focus is 60% playing and 40% everything else that goes along with getting on XYZ team to get noticed. In other countries parent influence doesn't exist. Players get thrown into the club meat grinder + talent rises to the top.

Agree with this.

And the original question: if “club soccer is really necessary or even the best route for developmental purposes at the younger ages?”

Club is necessary for one reason: that’s where the players are. Not in rec. Not playing (free) pick up ball at the local rec center or loosely organized on the streets and beaches. The players, resources, and time is all locked up in the Pay to Play Club System. And the club is the gatekeeper—no pay, no play. The clubs have hijacked the youth sport in USA.
You can argue what value the clubs bring to developing our youth players, but my opinion is that clubs are a parasite. It’s the players individually, their interaction with each other, and mom and dad’s money buying private training and access that develop the player. It’s unfortunate. There are better systems out there, but this is our hell.

 

[espola]

I use the word generally because there are definitely exceptions. There are a few excellent strikers, but definitely not "all", who are also excellent defenders.

Soccer is fun because there's more to it than just athleticism. The biggest, fastest, strongest players don't always end up successful. There's decision making, calmness, quickness, agility, peripheral vision, planning, communication, grit and hard work.

I have seen this from the opposite perspective when I was coaching indoor teams in a league where every player has minimum playing time. If I had to put in a weak player, I put him up front where he couldn't hurt us.

 

[Emma]

I have seen this from the opposite perspective when I was coaching indoor teams in a league where every player has minimum playing time. If I had to put in a weak player, I put him up front where he couldn't hurt us.

I've seen a lot of this but a lot of parents think their kid must be excellent if they're playing the 9. I'm just referring to excellent strikers, not players who can't/won't defend at all or make very bad decisions such as pass back to the goalie when there are 2 very fast forwards pressing the goalie.

 

[crush]

Agree with this.

And the original question: if “club soccer is really necessary or even the best route for developmental purposes at the younger ages?”

Club is necessary for one reason: that’s where the players are. Not in rec. Not playing (free) pick up ball at the local rec center or loosely organized on the streets and beaches. The players, resources, and time is all locked up in the Pay to Play Club System. And the club is the gatekeeper—no pay, no play. The clubs have hijacked the youth sport in USA.
You can argue what value the clubs bring to developing our youth players, but my opinion is that clubs are a parasite. It’s the players individually, their interaction with each other, and mom and dad’s money buying private training and access that develop the player. It’s unfortunate. There are better systems out there, but this is our hell.

You just nailed it!!!!

 

[crush]

I have seen this from the opposite perspective when I was coaching indoor teams in a league where every player has minimum playing time. If I had to put in a weak player, I put him up front where he couldn't hurt us.

But was he fast? Damn you soccer coaches are harsh. What really happens is the coaches lie ((not all) and they tell the parent they can develop a "weak" player as you call them coach. "If you do privates with me, you will not be weak." I see what Emma is trying to say. The slow big players have to play defense and go for jump balls and get hurt. The fast players like my dd got all the goals and the glory that came with it. If you had to get a "weak" player in the game like the GDA did with the 25%ters, then you put those players up top. I get it, trust me and that is what the coaches did now that I think about it. No "weak" player ever went on defense.

 

[Grace T.]

Agree with this.

And the original question: if “club soccer is really necessary or even the best route for developmental purposes at the younger ages?”

Club is necessary for one reason: that’s where the players are. Not in rec. Not playing (free) pick up ball at the local rec center or loosely organized on the streets and beaches. The players, resources, and time is all locked up in the Pay to Play Club System. And the club is the gatekeeper—no pay, no play. The clubs have hijacked the youth sport in USA.
You can argue what value the clubs bring to developing our youth players, but my opinion is that clubs are a parasite. It’s the players individually, their interaction with each other, and mom and dad’s money buying private training and access that develop the player. It’s unfortunate. There are better systems out there, but this is our hell.

Your anger is misplaced. Club and pay to play is not the villain in all this. It is just a symptom. The real problem is the college admissions systems which distorts everything else. Club soccer is just a business which developed to get players looks and to get players better training opportunities than were offered in the old AYSO system. From there it's a prisoner's dilemma, because if little Billy is doing club soccer and little Danny is only doing AYSO, little Danny doesn't have the opportunity to get the college looks which may or may not develop in the future, because the college coaches only bother to look at the top tiers.

It's not just limited to soccer because otherwise Kumon, Mathnaseum, and CLC wouldn't exist. You wouldn't have the band and debate competitive culture. You wouldn't have cheer camp, band camp and dance camp. You wouldn't have the Lori Loughlin's of the world cheating on SATs and trying to get fake college commitments. You wouldn't have all the top students in high school running around trying to make fake charities. What's worse is its inequitable because it's the upper middle class that has the money to spend on club sports and activities...the rich can always buy a building or use their influence....and the poor don't have the resources to keep up and struggle to even drive to the activities. It's also why there's the huge drop off in soccer participation. Because as kids advance in age, for many they realize they don't have the drive or the talent to make the top tier, so they focus their energies on other things as they get older where they can made a splash (even if it's just their social lives).

If you want to change the system, direct your anger to what the colleges have set up. It bleeds into other aspects of our society, which are directly and indirectly related to the "meritocracy" we built up and the way we built it.

 

[crush]

I have seen this from the opposite perspective when I was coaching indoor teams in a league where every player has minimum playing time. If I had to put in a weak player, I put him up front where he couldn't hurt us.

How do you define a "weak" player coach espola? I can't imagine bringing my son to you for evaluation to make your team but I figure I should ask. Do you look at dad's car he drives and the bumper stickers? Check Social Media account first to determine who is weak and who is strong player? My dd had a coach that took her from a Striker to #11 and it made her the player she is today. She can use her left and I thank him for that. Yes, she scored less goals but the team won it all. One Arsenal coach told her coach right in front me, of how impressed he was of how much my dd game changed with playing possession and is now a well rounded stud. He had no idea I was her dad and I was full of pride. He walked away and then coach told me how proud he was of my dd accomplishments the last 18 months and she will get what she deserves. No one did what she did in three years. No one!!!

 

[jojon]

Your anger is misplaced. Club and pay to play is not the villain in all this. It is just a symptom. The real problem is the college admissions systems which distorts everything else. Club soccer is just a business which developed to get players looks and to get players better training opportunities than were offered in the old AYSO system. From there it's a prisoner's dilemma, because if little Billy is doing club soccer and little Danny is only doing AYSO, little Danny doesn't have the opportunity to get the college looks which may or may not develop in the future, because the college coaches only bother to look at the top tiers.

It's not just limited to soccer because otherwise Kumon, Mathnaseum, and CLC wouldn't exist. You wouldn't have the band and debate competitive culture. You wouldn't have cheer camp, band camp and dance camp. You wouldn't have the Lori Loughlin's of the world cheating on SATs and trying to get fake college commitments. You wouldn't have all the top students in high school running around trying to make fake charities. What's worse is its inequitable because it's the upper middle class that has the money to spend on club sports and activities...the rich can always buy a building or use their influence....and the poor don't have the resources to keep up and struggle to even drive to the activities. It's also why there's the huge drop off in soccer participation. Because as kids advance in age, for many they realize they don't have the drive or the talent to make the top tier, so they focus their energies on other things as they get older where they can made a splash (even if it's just their social lives).

If you want to change the system, direct your anger to what the colleges have set up. It bleeds into other aspects of our society, which are directly and indirectly related to the "meritocracy" we built up and the way we built it.

I see that a lot of parents on this forum is so fixated on college admission. From that perspective, I can see your point. However, I think majority of parents are just trying to maximize their child's potential, whatever it is.
It is very likely that even if soccer does not exist in college sport, soccer clubs would still exist.