NoGoal
DA
The biggest misconception by club coaches is. Give me the most athletic player and I will turn them into soccer players.
Coaches - What do you look for?
- Thread starter Supermodel56
- Start date
Daniel Miller
SILVER ELITE
If you get that kid at U10, its not such a reach to believe you can turn an athlete into a soccer player. But if you get the kid at U14, it's too late by a couple of years. Tell him to study math and take up a musical instrument, because that's the only way he's getting into college.
NoGoal
DA
Some, but not every athletic player is a natural on the ball. Sure you can teach them to do skills on the ball, but once the whistle blows. It's a different story and rely on their size and speed.
Supermodel56
SILVER ELITE
Umm... if you read what I said, the average height on the USWNT is between 5'6"-5/8"... (excluding keepers). So yes, on average, they're slightly taller, but we're not talking super tall - either... Not like comparing football or basketball players to normal people. Not a single player over 6ft and you have several very good impact players 5'6 and under. Which again, size should be less important than skill, speed, and IQ.
Tobin Heath: 5'6"
Carly Lloyd: 5'8"
Alex Morgan: 5'7"
Crystal Dunn: 5'1"
Julie Johnston: 5'7"
Ali Long: 5'7"
Mallory Pugh: 5'5"
Kelly O'Hara: 5'5"
Christen Press: 5'7"
Becky Sauerbrunn: 5'7"
Just to name a few...
NoGoal
DA
I did reread your post, this is your quote "in fact, if you look at the USWNT, most of the players are average height between 5'6-5'8 and lean". How are they of average height if they are taller than 5'4"? You did not post the WNT's average height is 5'-6" to 5'-8".
Crystal Dunn and Meghan Klingenberg are the smallest players on the team at 5'1" and 5'2" respectively. Pugh is not 5'5", I say she is at most 5'4" and average height.
Supermodel56
SILVER ELITE
Not sure what your point is, mine is that it appears the girls that are that much bigger don't really have an advantage down the road... so perhaps at the youngers if coaches are just looking at size, it's really more a short term view vs developing players that have the more critical skills and traits to be successful over the long term.
In fact, it could be argued that even at the younger ages while size can play a role, speed, skill, and IQ play a larger factor in winning games - which means if coaches really are looking at size and strength first.... it's probably not the wisest move.
NoGoal
DA
I agree, quickness, speed, touch and IQ is important. I would even add aggression, determination and work rate. Unfortunately, it's a fact club coaches prefer to have BFS younger players, because they truly believe they can turn those players into soccer players by the time they are 16-18 yrs old.
MakeAPlay
DA
She is an amazing coach and mentor for young women. You are extremely lucky if your player gets to work with her.
coachrefparent
GOLD
1. Ball handling (receiving, dribbling, passing)
2. Aggressiveness (always moving, engaging, no fear)
3.Speed
A top player will be above average in all three phases, though maybe not the fastest.
Obviously these vary in emphasis if you are looking to fill different positions in your lineup.
2. Aggressiveness (always moving, engaging, no fear)
3.Speed
A top player will be above average in all three phases, though maybe not the fastest.
Obviously these vary in emphasis if you are looking to fill different positions in your lineup.
I look for a the kid that comes to tryouts and does a proper warm up on his/her own. Not the kid that shows up and starts striking balls into a net from 17 yards away with no pressure.
Are they getting themselves ready to perform? Ball skills, increase of speed as they warm up, stretching, grabbing another player and working together (passing, playing 1v1, hitting crosses and finishing).
Are they getting themselves ready to perform? Ball skills, increase of speed as they warm up, stretching, grabbing another player and working together (passing, playing 1v1, hitting crosses and finishing).
Daniel Miller
SILVER ELITE
In evaluating a prospect, I always look at four attributes in combination:
1. Transportation: For me, there are only two acceptable forms of transportation; something expensive, or something reliable. In the best of all worlds, the prospect arrives in a dependable Toyota, driven by his nanny.
2. Pocket Peep: The bulge in a parent's back pocket correlates with the size of a parent's wallet.
3. Friendliness: Is the mother sufficiently solicitous, in the penal sense of the word?
4. Inofficiousness: The only acceptable parental communication is "do I dip the card, or slide it?"
If four of the prior tests are passed, the prospect makes the team, and a discussion is scheduled regarding the extra training fees necessary to prepare him for ODP tryouts two years hence.
If three tests are passed, the parents are told that the prospect will be a starter at his chosen position.
If two tests are passed, the parents are told that their son will be placed on the "B team," but that I will surely call him up by mid season.
If only one test is passed, then the player is referred to our "Future Soccer Stars" program consisting of drills to decrease bedwetting. Unless the only test passed is Test #3. In which case the kid makes the team, with scholarship.
1. Transportation: For me, there are only two acceptable forms of transportation; something expensive, or something reliable. In the best of all worlds, the prospect arrives in a dependable Toyota, driven by his nanny.
2. Pocket Peep: The bulge in a parent's back pocket correlates with the size of a parent's wallet.
3. Friendliness: Is the mother sufficiently solicitous, in the penal sense of the word?
4. Inofficiousness: The only acceptable parental communication is "do I dip the card, or slide it?"
If four of the prior tests are passed, the prospect makes the team, and a discussion is scheduled regarding the extra training fees necessary to prepare him for ODP tryouts two years hence.
If three tests are passed, the parents are told that the prospect will be a starter at his chosen position.
If two tests are passed, the parents are told that their son will be placed on the "B team," but that I will surely call him up by mid season.
If only one test is passed, then the player is referred to our "Future Soccer Stars" program consisting of drills to decrease bedwetting. Unless the only test passed is Test #3. In which case the kid makes the team, with scholarship.
I'm going to put Surf on the spot. About 6-7 years ago, I was at a boys u-little try-out. There were maybe 30-ish players trying out for the A and B team. On the first two days, if I recall correctly they spent about 75% of the time on technical related drills. It included a group-wide passing/dribbling drill where there were about 7-8 stations that were all interconnected. You had 3-4 kids on each station and it was impossible to memorize or hear from the coach what each station required. So the players would not only have to focus on their station but look at the upcoming station to see what to do next. It required focus, concentration, and communicating with people around them. It was a fantastic drill to see which players were capable of thinking on their feet while maintaining their technique and focus. They didn't start doing scrimmages extensively until the last day of try-outs. I thought it was a very well-run 3 day try-out that gave a good sense of a player in various aspects given the short timeframe.
Flash-forward 4-5 years and the Surf try-outs devolved into 15 minutes of technical drills, which were basically just warm-ups, and then jumped into scrimmages for the next 3 days. It basically just highlighted the big and/or aggressive player, and the ball dominate players. It seemed almost impossible to systematically identify players who possessed a superior game i.q, focus, or tactical awareness. The numbers at the try-outs had also swelled to over 80 players.
Surf isn't alone, at many of the clubs the try-outs turned into huge cattle calls and the coaches job is simply herd them into a "B", "C", or "D" team cow pen. The "A" team players are now identified and recruit far earlier, so the A teams are usually set before the try-outs start unless some wonder-kid shows up. I've noticed over the years that at the younger ages, the A teams usually have the best wingers and forwards because ball dominate players are usually the easiest to identify at cattle calls. But many B teams end up having a surprisingly strong center mids or intelligent defenders. Those type of players don't always pop immediately during cattle call scrimmages. How many B teams have you seen that had a strong defense but just didn't have any firepower up front? This is partly the reason. It's also why you often see A teams where their starting line is basically 11 forwards and wingers.
I would love if Surf and other major clubs went back to adding complex technical drills to the try-out curriculum and just spent more of the try-out days getting a fuller sense of a player. if they did that, they might have less buyer's remorse and less of having 3-4 kids playing less than 30% of the game for almost the entire season. Then again, the business model has now changed, so large cattle calls are probably hear to stay for the foreseeable future.
If they did that, that would require them to do actual work and use some thinking process. Oh no!!!
ESPNANALYST
SILVER ELITE
This is the most eloquent, objective and precise representation of a Surf tryout I have ever read. Kudos.
Still the same scrimmage baby scrimmage. To be fair it's like that at all the bigs
Yep, we had this same experience. About 60 kids and just scrimmages for tryouts. Teams were most definitely set--not sure why clubs do this--seems like a big waste of time.
My kid has tons of 1 and 3, but what is the best way to improve #2, aggressiveness? I see it in spurts, but not all the time. What is weird is she is super aggressive when playing keeper, but not in the field.
seems that quite a few clubs also prefer the "scrimmage" as their go to training session once teams are formed.
I watched a boys 03 or 04 team (not saying which club) play the same short sided game for 90 minutes a few weeks ago.
And by "short sided"- it was 7v7 plus a keeper.
rainbow_unicorn
PREMIER
It's easy for us to be on the sidelines and critique coaches/clubs. But if you were a coach trying to pick the best team in one hour, what would you do to select the best players? Would you rather take a kid who is great technically but crumbles and is non-existent during a game? Or would you rather take the unorthodox looking kid with the herky-jerky moves who seems to be dominant during games? Short-sided scrimmages are the best way to see how kids will actually measure up during a game.
rainbow_unicorn
PREMIER
Agressiveness can be taught but takes some time to develop...it is 100% mental. I think the only thing that you can do is remind them before the game that it might be the one thing that you want them to work on that day (going in hard, dispossession, etc.).
Also, keep in mind that playing agressively takes a lot of energy. That one agressive scrum to win back the ball may sap a player's energy where they can't make a good offensive run for the next five minutes.
Perhaps its because what they are looking for different things, just as all college ID camps are mostly scrimmages. When kids are U-little, they are looking for skill levels more than anything. When they reach U13+ they are looking for soccer IQ, creativity and yes, aggressiveness and how dominant can the player be on the field. Skills and techniques are compulsory at these ages. The level of competencies will play a part in players ability to perform in scrimmages.
Just to be clear, I am not defending any club, big or small. Just trying to share some insight into what happens as kids get older and what they will face, since so many of parents that post here are younger age group parents. Clearly, many of you have older kids that have gone through this but I'm not seen those comments thus far on this particular thought.
The short sided is preferred initially to see faster plays and see more skills. Full size field is preferred to see soccer IQ and tactical knowledge of the game. Movements off the ball for any given position can only be seen on the full field. And scrimmage is the most efficient way to create game situation to evaluate how players make decisions and perform during tryouts and ID camps.
Just my take on this discussion....