Club Selection

[MakeAPlay]

1. Winning High School team would lose to a top-level U15 team: Your assumption is that the high school coach must not be developing players because they would lose to a superb club team. That is not a fair comparison, any more than it would be to claim that the same superb U15 team must not be developing because it cannot beat a mid-table team from the Pac-12. Almost every high school team in America would lose to a superb U15 club team. My guess is that the high school coach is developing his players fine when judged against other high schools.

2. For your daughter to play on a team at that level means that she played on a team that would beat 90% of all teams at her age group. That is a well-developed team, and your daughter must be a well-developed player. The fact that her team does not win most of their games in Flight 1, or Premier League, or the Champions League, or whatever that level is named, does not equate with a "losing" team. In your daughter's case, she plays on a team that would win most all of its games against club teams by an overwhelming margin, which to me correlates with development.

She played on the same team for most of her club career so at some point there was development. She was a diamond in the rough when she got there in 5th or 6th grade and her coaches that she had there ALL had something to do with developing her. Let me be clear that they were a solid team. However, they weren't about wins and losses. I have had many conversations with her coaches over the years and I still speak to one of them routinely and it was always about taking the long view. Never sacrificing today for tomorrow. Not to mention they had the foresight to put her in the optimum position for her skill set and she now plays that position in college and internationally. If the coach had only been about winning I am 100% certain that she would be playing a different position.

 

[Daniel Miller]

She played on the same team for most of her club career so at some point there was development. She was a diamond in the rough when she got there in 5th or 6th grade and her coaches that she had there ALL had something to do with developing her. Let me be clear that they were a solid team. However, they weren't about wins and losses. I have had many conversations with her coaches over the years and I still speak to one of them routinely and it was always about taking the long view. Never sacrificing today for tomorrow. Not to mention they had the foresight to put her in the optimum position for her skill set and she now plays that position in college and internationally. If the coach had only been about winning I am 100% certain that she would be playing a different position.

Well done for the coach and for your daughter. I think you are reading something into my argument which does not exist. I am not "only about winning." I do not think that winning is the "only" thing, nor the "most important" thing. Nor do I believe that "all" winning teams are developing their players. All I am saying is that winning highly correlates with development.

 

[BarcaLover]

Now, you don't say, but let's try to put some context into this.
1. How many of the U10 players were still on the U14 ECNL team?
2. How much roster turnover took place over 4 years?

Kudos to your coach for having a system and sticking with it.

Great question. The core of the team, the big guns, stayed from U10 til college. It was a very special group. They did add a few players here and there, but the main contributors were there from Day 1.

 

[Daniel Miller]

Great question. The core of the team, the big guns, stayed from U10 til college. It was a very special group. They did add a few players here and there, but the main contributors were there from Day 1.

Well, at U10 they were playing 8 v. 8, and probably had 10 on the roster. As 1998s, they probably have 20 on the roster today. Although you did not say, I'm guessing that the "core" amounts to about 4 or 5 players still on from Day 1. I am speculating to be sure, but I would bet that you have roster turnover of about 5 per year, and also that a big part of the team's development comes via "roster development," meaning that really good players are attracted to the team because it has a winning record and/or an attractive style of play.

To me this highlights the problem of trying to determine how much "development" can be attributed to training, and how much through other over avenues. Good recruiters build up teams just as well as good trainers, and all players remaining on the team benefit in their individual development, because they compete against better players every practice. Surf and the Blues develop great teams and great players, but if we are honest it is more through roster development than training development. Yet the result is the same.

 

[MakeAPlay]

Well done for the coach and for your daughter. I think you are reading something into my argument which does not exist. I am not "only about winning." I do not think that winning is the "only" thing, nor the "most important" thing. Nor do I believe that "all" winning teams are developing their players. All I am saying is that winning highly correlates with development.

Fair enough. I would add that it highly correlates with development at the older ages not necessarily at the younger ages. Good luck to you and yours.

 

[BarcaLover]

Well, at U10 they were playing 8 v. 8, and probably had 10 on the roster. As 1998s, they probably have 20 on the roster today. Although you did not say, I'm guessing that the "core" amounts to about 4 or 5 players still on from Day 1. I am speculating to be sure, but I would bet that you have roster turnover of about 5 per year, and also that a big part of the team's development comes via "roster development," meaning that really good players are attracted to the team because it has a winning record and/or an attractive style of play.

The "core of players" I was referring to was about 10-11 girls from U11 on when they had a roster of 16-17. And trust me, I totally understand your point and what you are saying about how roster turnover can skew things. If a coach can recruit really well in the off season he can go from looking like an average coach to looking like Pep Guardiola the next season .

 

[Daniel Miller]

The "core of players" I was referring to was about 10-11 girls from U11 on when they had a roster of 16-17. And trust me, I totally understand your point and what you are saying about how roster turnover can skew things. If a coach can recruit really well in the off season he can go from looking like an average coach to looking like Pep Guardiola the next season .

Any coach who can keep 10 or 11 girls on a high-performing team from U11 through high school has done an amazing job. That takes more than good training. It takes motivation, team-building and good family politics. I stand head-bowed in respect.

 

[BarcaLover]

Any coach who can keep 10 or 11 girls on a high-performing team from U11 through high school has done an amazing job. That takes more than good training. It takes motivation, team-building and good family politics. I stand head-bowed in respect.

Totally agree. This coach is special. He grew up in Barcelona and learned all the training methods used at Barca and used them with this team.

The most important part was the parental "buy in" at the early ages. They trusted him and hoped he knew what he was doing .

This team is definitely the exception. They are the anomoly for sure.

If you want to see what they looked like playing go on youtube and look up "De Anza Force G98 Top Plays". If you like possession soccer, you'll love this team!