AYSO and club don't conflict. If your kid values friendship more than winning, if your goal for her is not to be a pro player or to help her get into college, AYSO's everyone-plays philosophy offers a great option. And makes all the financial sense in the world. If, however, you think she has what it takes to go to be competitive, club is an expensive, but nonetheless better option. Bragging right should never be a consideration. You're right that right around U10/11 is the time to make a decision.
Guarantee to play 50% and small rosters?
- Thread starter Deadpoolscores!
- Start date
Daniel Miller
SILVER ELITE
That is an interesting take, Laced, and one worthy of debate. Personally, I value team play over individual play. These are my reasons. First, soccer is a "team" sport. Teams perform better when all players are involved. Players have more fun when all players are involved. Team spirit and team retention is higher when players bond as a team. Having a "team first" mentality improves lifelong cooperative skills and develops social intelligence.
If you have one of those 1 in 100 kids who outpaces his opponents by miles, then my suggestion is to put him on an older team. I think he will improve his game by competing against older players to a far greater extent than he would by just running over and around kids who cannot keep up.
Consider what you are looking for in the long term. The US Men's National Team adds about 10 players to its roster pool every year. Not all of them play. For the 2013/2014 season, USSF says that 3,055,148 kids played, not counting AYSO and non-affiliated programs, about 52% of which were boys. If your son is, say, a 2005 player, he is in a USSF pool of about 250,000 boys. His odds of making a USMNT roster pool for a 2005 player is 1 in 25,000. Statistically, after rounding, that is 0%.
For most families, the "team concept" values obtained by playing on "team oriented" teams will have a far greater impact on a player than being the most-dominant player at age 11. Perhaps that is why some of us backward Americans believe "team-first" is a better approach than "train the star, not the team."
Finally, I can't accept your basketball analogy. In the NBA, you may have a point about it being a "star's league." The NBA alters the rules to help increase offense, and therefore creates "stars" as a matter of policy. In college and all lower levels, most championship teams play a "team-oriented" style. Look at the UCLA teams in the 60s and 70s, and the Indiana teams in the 70s and 80s. Look at the North Carolina and Duke teams since the 80s. All these teams played zone defenses and motion-style offenses. (True, though, they also had a lot of star talent.)
You mentioned a lot of things. Your reasoning is a bit circular. Teams perform "better" because you assign greater value to teams winning. Kids have more fun when they juke an opponent. Kids, or adults for that matter, forget scores in a week or two, but they, and us adults as well, sure will forever talk about the time when we megged someone. Goals is only one way to keep score.
If you think long term, you cannot take your team's wins to scouts or tryouts. What you can bring is your comfort on the ball. Let me give you a specific example. When a defender has the ball facing his own goal with two forwards on his back, what does our coach always tell the player to do? Kick it out of bounds. It's the safest play for the team, but the kid is deprived of a chance to learn to get out of the jam by turning, but dribbling out of the jam, in a real-game pressure situation. If I were to coach a team one day, I'll tell my players to never kick the ball out of bounds in that situation. If you lose the ball and the opponent scores, let it pain you. Let it motivate you at the next practice to learn to feint and turn. To learn to dribble past not one but two opponents. To learn to look up and see passing options. The goal would never bother me as a coach. The option to kick it out of bounds is always there at age 9 or 19. You don't need me to teach you that.
As to the basketball analogy, characterization is meaningless unless we have the same basis for comparison. Compared with Euro style of basketball, the American way is always more individualistic. More dribbling. More dunks. More crossovers. They don't develop these skills because they want to pass, pass, pass for fear of losing possession. What they fail to do, at a very young age, is to learn the individual skills that give them swagger.
Any mandate that states that each player play the same amounts of minutes is certain to fail. The AYSO Challange (AYSO United) program should be very sucessful, but not because its 50% Garanteed policy. When the bullets start flying, trust me that 50% deal will go out the window for most teams. Yes, you will not see situations like on Too many "Club" teams where little johnny rarely plays, and in fact is only on the team to offfset the coaches/club fees. Many of the better coaches/teams (not a function of flight/level/got soccer) do give all their players ample playing time. Even within the AYSO environment, coaches unfortunatly bend their own "Everyone Plays" rules. That said many of these teams will be very sucessful. They will see a return of many players "lost" to club soccer. You will also see some players will play 85-100% of the time, and other players that may actually play apx 25-50%, be it by self exclussion or otherwise. In addition, once this program picks up and you begin to see many elite AYSO United teams, be it nationl league or National cup/olders they will then enter a world where subs are very limited. This will be a hinderance to AYSO United teams that want have a 50% play rate for all players, and maintain competiveness. But trust me you will see these teams at very high levels in csl and scdsl. And guess what then? They will bitch and moan about DA, ECNL, and under teams stealing "their" players. And the world turns...
Daniel Miller
SILVER ELITE
Your emphasis is on the individual player. You believe the individual's development is paramount to the team's development. I can't disagree that individual development is an essential goal for any coach. But in my opinion, a coach's primary responsibility is to the team, and the individual player serves the team. Having a kid just trying to juke everybody on the other team may prove that the player has great skills, but it rarely improves the team as a whole, destroys any notion of team concept, and may take away from the development of others on the team.
Let's consider your example of the defender being pressed from behind while facing his own net. You want the defender to turn the ball into pressure so he can practice juking one or two players at a time, as that would improve his individual development. In other words, you are willing to put the whole team at risk of giving up a goal so your little superstar can remember how he megged somebody in his defensive third. If he gets away with it, then great, but he is more likely to lose the ball, give up a goal, and bring down the spirit of the entire team. His teammates know that little Joey is a ballhog who never passes, so they have to stop playing to watch little Joey show off. Trust me on this. The rest of his teammates are going to get sick of your little Joey's antics very quickly.
My solution would be to make an easy pass to the keeper, who then passes to another player on one wing or another. This is nearly as safe as kicking the ball out of bounds, eliminates the risk of turning the ball into pressure, initiates an attack from the back, and involves at least three players on your team. And it looks really good.
Do I really have to stipulate that passing back to the keeper is not an option?
Just a Parent
SILVER ELITE
I would not join because of the 50% guarantee. I'm a believer in players earning their spots.
You guys get hung up on the 50% playing time piece. These teams will follow the same substitution rules as the league they play in (CSL or SCDSL).
The 50% playing time is a philosophy that they'll want coaches to abide by. Nobody is going to be sitting on the sidelines with a stop watch to measure every kids playing time.
Some kids will play a full game. Some may only play 25 out of 60 minutes.
The theory is that theses teams won't have an 18 player roster with 4 kids riding the bench.
Players will still need to earn their playing time.
Coaches could bench a kid. And if a parent complains, there might be a consequence with whoever is running AYSO United. But hopefully the coach is communicating with the parents on why Jimmy only plays 10 minutes last week.
The 50% playing time is a philosophy that they'll want coaches to abide by. Nobody is going to be sitting on the sidelines with a stop watch to measure every kids playing time.
Some kids will play a full game. Some may only play 25 out of 60 minutes.
The theory is that theses teams won't have an 18 player roster with 4 kids riding the bench.
Players will still need to earn their playing time.
Coaches could bench a kid. And if a parent complains, there might be a consequence with whoever is running AYSO United. But hopefully the coach is communicating with the parents on why Jimmy only plays 10 minutes last week.
With two "forwards" pressing from behind, it was kind of difficult to imagine the keeper not being an option.
So the keeper is covered, occupied, asleep, has two left feet, or something, two forwards are pressing from behind, and you don't have any other defensive players around to pass to, and the smart play is to beat these two forwards by turning into pressure without losing the ball and giving up a possible goal? Interesting strategy. Now you could try dribbling it to the sideline and beat one of the players, with worst case being you kick the ball out of bounds on the attempt.
If you aren't getting 50% playing time your skills aren't up to the level of the other kids on that team or your on a team with too many players. In either case, you need to find a new team. While Laced may be a little black and white, I generally tend to agree with him on the issues regarding team vs player. It drives me crazy when I see a kid just by default kick the ball out when chasing a ball down while being pressured in their defensive end. This "when in doubt, kick it out" mentality instilled by some coaches is so counter-productive to an individual kids development. Confidence is a huge part of being a great athlete. When a coach tells a kid to kick it out, what message does that send a kid? It tells the kid that the coach doesn't believe the kid has the skills to take on the other players or doesn't trust the kid take a touch into space and let the player decide what action to take (whether it be kick it out, pass back to keeper, or take on the player). It harms a kids confidence and takes his individual decision making skills away, two things which are so important in soccer. The same message is sent when yelling at a kid to "pass, pass, pass".
While teaching team concepts is valuable, it is more important to develop individual skills and decision making particularly at the younger ages. Everyone prefers winning over losing, its a lot more fun. However, at the end of day my priority is for my child to develop each year. I'm not saying that my kid should have carte blanche to dribble all over the field or his development should take precedent over other kids development. Their are limits but the scale should always favor individual development.
While teaching team concepts is valuable, it is more important to develop individual skills and decision making particularly at the younger ages. Everyone prefers winning over losing, its a lot more fun. However, at the end of day my priority is for my child to develop each year. I'm not saying that my kid should have carte blanche to dribble all over the field or his development should take precedent over other kids development. Their are limits but the scale should always favor individual development.
Haha. If it's difficult to imagine, pay attention at the next game. In almost every game, a defender is caught in that situation. And incidentally, focus on individual development doesn't mean a player should dribble, dribble, dribble. It's a concept and philosophy that team success comes from individual excellence.
jrcaesar
SILVER ELITE
Well-coached defenders use their individual excellence to confidently play it to the keeper.
I guess I need make my point clearer. It is not about what the best option is. It's about how to take advantage of every teaching moment to give players to the most options tomorrow. If all a coach cares about is winning, the safest option is to kick it out of bounds when passing back to the keeper is not an option. Effectively the coach limits his players options to two: passing back the keeper or kicking it out of bounds. He deprives his player of a chance to learn a third option: dribbling out of the jam himself. Or passing to another teammate. More generally, he deprives his players of a chance to develop comfort on the ball, which endures confidence in such pressure situations. I once even saw a coach instructing his player to kick a FK directly out of bounds, because the game was tied with 2 minutes left and he didn't want to risk losing. That's why a lot of defenders in youth soccer don't have the requisite ball skills to make it to the next level. The higher level you go, the more converted defenders you see.
We have more youth players than Germany and England combined. Yet, we struggle to qualify for WC and have never been a contender. This winning-today mentality is a main reason.
I agree that winning today doesn't help us. But soccer is about passing. Passing involves more than one player. The problem with U.S. soccer is that we do not value passing. You suggest even the defenders should be trying to dribble through like Messi. But without defenders who can pass to midfielders who can pass to wingers, who pass to Messi... He would never get the ball!!!
It is not only dribbling through and shooting that is necessary. Until we learn that soccer is s team sport involving a series of passes which are as important as the finishes provided by strikers, we will not be competitive with other countries that get it.
It is not only dribbling through and shooting that is necessary. Until we learn that soccer is s team sport involving a series of passes which are as important as the finishes provided by strikers, we will not be competitive with other countries that get it.
Just a Parent
SILVER ELITE
Other countries "that get it" emphasize individual skill and creativity for youth. They give young children freedom to play and enjoy the game without adult interference. They know that without good technical abilities passing is useless.
I suggested the defenders learn the skills to have the option to dribble. We don't value passing in the US? What we don't value or appreciate is that it takes good techniques, composure and high soccer IQ to make good passes. Good passing is an individual skill that takes more than a desire. It takes comfort on the ball and composure under pressure to look up and survey the field. It takes proper striking technique to pass the ball accurately, to have the right curve so it arrives at the right angle for the receiver, to make it properly weighted so it arrives fast so the defender cannot recover. It takes soccer smarts to see paths you don't even know exist, to know that if he dribbles one yard to the left, he's going to drag the defender on his teammate to a certain direction to get his teammate open. It takes timing and precision and foresight and comfort on the ball to put a defender in a constant dilemma to guard him or cover another forward that's on an offball run. For a defender to pass when facing his own goal, he has to learn to turn on the ball first. He has to keep the forwards on his back honest with the threat of dribbling. Kicking the ball out of bounds as the only option is not going to help him learn to pass. Or dribble. Or improve. What it does help is to avoid getting scored on. It does help his team preserve a meaningless win, which he won't remember in a few weeks.