Kickball Reigns

Went to GDA game recently Surf and Slammers, plenty of kickball to be had.
 
etc1217 said:
My DD's team (U17) plays possession ball but it still surprises me that a lot of the older teams still play kick ball and it's some times difficult for a team who plays possession to play against a kick ball team. It's sad but it does win games especially if you have a fast forward but it's not pretty and not fun to watch. The best exciting games to watch are teams that both play possession, now that's where you see true skill, patience and finesse.
Click to expand...

It's initially difficult for teams (mostly parents) but with time, the kids who who learn to value the ball may be probably are suited will inherently the ball ithe possession team players that has learned to value the ball
Chalklines said:
The point of playing is to win. At some point you need to let the horses loose and win a game now instead of 3 years down the line.

If it takes a "kick ball" to give the best player on the field an opportunity to score, why not and why not more often?
Click to expand...
You take this approach to development from the beginning and this greatly increases chance your ki
Chalklines said:
The point of playing is to win. At some point you need to let the horses loose and win a game now instead of 3 years down the line.

If it takes a "kick ball" to give the best player on the field an opportunity to score, why not and why not more often?
Click to expand...

This is called Route 1 and should be an option for all good possession teams.
 
MyDaughtersAKeeper said:
Don't over-engineer the game so that it isn't fun. Kids should have fun in practices. A good coach will set up games/drills that encourage possession. Kids want to play. Kids want to have fun. And they get over the wins & losses much faster than a lot of adults. If US Soccer wants more kids playing soccer, which should result in better play at the highest levels, then focus on the younger kids should be having fun. If done correctly the kids will stick with it and in the process learn how to play a more possession based game (assuming that possession is what is taught in practices). IMO
Click to expand...

Great Post
 
At what point/age group should you start simply playing what the defense gives you?

I think there are different types of kickball:
1) players that have no idea what they're doing and just kicking the ball to stop an attack.

2) players that intentionally kick the ball to an upfield player or to open space where they have an advantage.

Rarely will you see teams win using #1 because they just end up kicking the ball out of bounds and turn the ball over. However, with #2, of they're beating you that way, don't blame them, blame your coach for not teaching them how to play defense, blame your coach for putting your fastest and most skilled players at forward instead of on defense. Blame your defenders for playing too high. These are usually 50/50 balls where your defender should have a chance on it and should be winning and launching counters.

Our DD's previous coach was very focused on possession soccer and building out the back - which I genuinely appreciate and believe it is a critical skill to have. But he would yell at her for not passing to feet to her mids or keeper every time when the reality was that none of her teammates were open nor moving so a pass to feet would not work. the defense had already stacked the box and a pass back to keeper would've likely ended up getting stolen. So instead she looks upfield and sees the defenders were all playing way too high and drops it just ahead of the forward so she could easily run it down and get 1v1 with the keeper.

After a couple of plays like these the other coach started to tell his defenders to drop back, which opened up the midfield... making it easier to find passes inside and build up the play.

to be honest, I think it's pretty lame to be complaining about losing because the other team played "kickball" and your team played possession. It's a really poor excuse. Teams who play "kickball" in the #1 sense generally don't win against any type of talented team. And those who play only #2 and can't build out the back - if you lose to them, it's because your defenders are lacking (speed/skill/strength) and your offense is not winning the ball vs their defenders (who aren't skilled enough to control play out the back). If their defenders can't control the ball well enough to make a pass to feet, your fwds and mids should be able to easily steal the ball for a shot on goal, no?

Possession soccer/building out the back is amazing to watch, but again, you really have to be able to play what the defense is giving you, you can't be one dimensional.
 
Chalklines said:
The point of playing is to win. At some point you need to let the horses loose and win a game now instead of 3 years down the line.

If it takes a "kick ball" to give the best player on the field an opportunity to score, why not and why not more often?
Click to expand...
It depends on if you're taking a developmental approach to the game, or not. We don't concern ourselves with the "development" concept so much in baseball or basketball or football, it's true. Kids have leagues and they play to win games. I think with soccer, however, much of the discussion, and the reason for leagues such as DA and SCDSL, is to "develop" players so we can compete with the best in the world, as we do in those other sports. Kicking to the fast kid up top ensures that you don't develop offensive or tactical skills, because when that kid's older they won't be as clearly stronger and/or faster than the others and the tactical game will have lost out. The US will keep raising inferior soccer players, as we do now (at least the males, not the females).
 
growingpains said:
At what point/age group should you start simply playing what the defense gives you?

I think there are different types of kickball:
1) players that have no idea what they're doing and just kicking the ball to stop an attack.

2) players that intentionally kick the ball to an upfield player or to open space where they have an advantage.

Rarely will you see teams win using #1 because they just end up kicking the ball out of bounds and turn the ball over. However, with #2, of they're beating you that way, don't blame them, blame your coach for not teaching them how to play defense, blame your coach for putting your fastest and most skilled players at forward instead of on defense. Blame your defenders for playing too high. These are usually 50/50 balls where your defender should have a chance on it and should be winning and launching counters.

Our DD's previous coach was very focused on possession soccer and building out the back - which I genuinely appreciate and believe it is a critical skill to have. But he would yell at her for not passing to feet to her mids or keeper every time when the reality was that none of her teammates were open nor moving so a pass to feet would not work. the defense had already stacked the box and a pass back to keeper would've likely ended up getting stolen. So instead she looks upfield and sees the defenders were all playing way too high and drops it just ahead of the forward so she could easily run it down and get 1v1 with the keeper.

After a couple of plays like these the other coach started to tell his defenders to drop back, which opened up the midfield... making it easier to find passes inside and build up the play.

to be honest, I think it's pretty lame to be complaining about losing because the other team played "kickball" and your team played possession. It's a really poor excuse. Teams who play "kickball" in the #1 sense generally don't win against any type of talented team. And those who play only #2 and can't build out the back - if you lose to them, it's because your defenders are lacking (speed/skill/strength) and your offense is not winning the ball vs their defenders (who aren't skilled enough to control play out the back). If their defenders can't control the ball well enough to make a pass to feet, your fwds and mids should be able to easily steal the ball for a shot on goal, no?

Possession soccer/building out the back is amazing to watch, but again, you really have to be able to play what the defense is giving you, you can't be one dimensional.
Click to expand...


You make a lot of really great points. And in theory this is what the build up line should do. The buildup line forces the team on defense (D) to press high. That's why many of the coaches for the offensive team (O) go to the defender who passes it long to the CF or winger (your #2) in a formerly offside position.DYS team for example had a game where they went up by several points in the half to nothing doing this strategy until the opposite coach (D) realizes his defensive line should fall back and play to the build out line, leaving the middle open. Leaving the mid open then left the O team with lots of room to play a passing game, which was a thing of beauty, wowing formerly skeptical parents, even though the score held much more in check than it did the first half. The problem for the D team then, however, was that they couldn't adjust again...because they are 9 (for the most part)....which is another reason why the build up line doesn't work and why your point is great when it comes to the olders, but not when it comes to the youngers. Most at that age aren't that complex. Many are coming out of AYSO where your #1 is all they know. The expectation that they'll have to learn both forms of soccer, and be able to know when to apply one v. another, is asking a bit much, if you are talking about under 12s. The direct form is easier to learn....doesn't need a whole lot of explaining....which is why some coaches who are dedicated to possession based game focus on it near exclusively.
 
xav10 said:
It depends on if you're taking a developmental approach to the game, or not. We don't concern ourselves with the "development" concept so much in baseball or basketball or football, it's true. Kids have leagues and they play to win games. I think with soccer, however, much of the discussion, and the reason for leagues such as DA and SCDSL, is to "develop" players so we can compete with the best in the world, as we do in those other sports. Kicking to the fast kid up top ensures that you don't develop offensive or tactical skills, because when that kid's older they won't be as clearly stronger and/or faster than the others and the tactical game will have lost out. The US will keep raising inferior soccer players, as we do now (at least the males, not the females).
Click to expand...
The reason for DA is grabbing money from any and all involved.
 
growingpains said:
At what point/age group should you start simply playing what the defense gives you?

I think there are different types of kickball:
1) players that have no idea what they're doing and just kicking the ball to stop an attack.

2) players that intentionally kick the ball to an upfield player or to open space where they have an advantage.
Click to expand...
I guess there are a lot of different definitions of "kickball." I wouldn't place your #2 in that category. Some think kickball is any time you don't play possession building out from the back. But as you note, this is not always possible against skilled teams that press and control the middle.

"Kickball" to me and most coaches I know, is anytime there is no purpose and intended target. A short panic pass going to empty space or an opponent; a scared pass with no known target just to get it off your own feet; kicks wide out of bounds; long balls that are just a hope that someone will get to it; or the famous 30 yard boot by the center back to no one, that brings cheers from the parents: "great blast Johnny." Yes, these all drive me nuts and are not skilled soccer. But kicking it long, as you describe, to an intended target that is open, is not kickball in my mind. A long "boot" to switch fields to an open teammate is not kickball to me. A keeper sending a long ball with purpose to his own player is fine.

It seems lots of these discussions are about kids playing less than 11v11, and I agree teaching and playing build out possession is the best way to make better soccer players. If that means suppressing longer balls that can often be the easier play, I see the developmental benefits in these young players.
 
xav10 said:
It depends on if you're taking a developmental approach to the game, or not. We don't concern ourselves with the "development" concept so much in baseball or basketball or football, it's true. Kids have leagues and they play to win games. I think with soccer, however, much of the discussion, and the reason for leagues such as DA and SCDSL, is to "develop" players so we can compete with the best in the world, as we do in those other sports. Kicking to the fast kid up top ensures that you don't develop offensive or tactical skills, because when that kid's older they won't be as clearly stronger and/or faster than the others and the tactical game will have lost out. The US will keep raising inferior soccer players, as we do now (at least the males, not the females).
Click to expand...

I disagree. So much of the discussion is focused on possession because the bigs sell that garbage to an ignorant customer base who don't realize that the money clubs are actually referring to the customer's checkbook when they say they want possession. Never have I heard a more overused word in my life as the word possession in youth soccer here in the States.

When outside playing as a child (in a country south of the US), I can't remember one time in my life when someone (wouldn't be a coach as we rarely had someone coaching) said we had to play possession. Some things develop naturally in their proper time and order. On occasion, when I hear parents talking soccer and possession, I think that they do it, not because they understand the game, but because it makes them feel important or better about themselves.

Here is a thought...if there was some a-hole out there screaming at 8 year old Neymar, or at 8 year old Suarez, or at 8 year old Messi to play possession, or to play out of the back, where would they be today? Having also lived in Europe, I would argue the same is true there as well.

I am not advocating "kickball", on the contrary, I am a big fan of the possession type game but there is no one size fits all. Case in point, one could easily argue that Barca plays possession and RM plays a more direct game. Which is better? Which is more effective? Which team has had more success over the years? Or more recently? Like most things, one must be able to adapt and adjust.
 
xav10 said:
i must not have gotten the memo. 2 kids, 3 DA seasons so far, the first one I paid about $600 for the year, which was less than club soccer, paid nothing since.
Click to expand...
Typical lib, where do you think the money comes from? The lower levels of the club.
You are a nut.
 
El Clasico said:
I disagree. So much of the discussion is focused on possession because the bigs sell that garbage to an ignorant customer base who don't realize that the money clubs are actually referring to the customer's checkbook when they say they want possession. Never have I heard a more overused word in my life as the word possession in youth soccer here in the States.

When outside playing as a child (in a country south of the US), I can't remember one time in my life when someone (wouldn't be a coach as we rarely had someone coaching) said we had to play possession. Some things develop naturally in their proper time and order. On occasion, when I hear parents talking soccer and possession, I think that they do it, not because they understand the game, but because it makes them feel important or better about themselves.

Here is a thought...if there was some a-hole out there screaming at 8 year old Neymar, or at 8 year old Suarez, or at 8 year old Messi to play possession, or to play out of the back, where would they be today? Having also lived in Europe, I would argue the same is true there as well.

I am not advocating "kickball", on the contrary, I am a big fan of the possession type game but there is no one size fits all. Case in point, one could easily argue that Barca plays possession and RM plays a more direct game. Which is better? Which is more effective? Which team has had more success over the years? Or more recently? Like most things, one must be able to adapt and adjust.
Click to expand...
You say you disagree with my post about development, where I don't once mention the word "possession," and all you talk about is possession. I was responding to a post that says kicking it far to the forward is good if it helps you win and I said ok, but not if you want to develop good players. Sounds as if you actually agree with me.
 
El Clasico said:
I disagree. So much of the discussion is focused on possession because the bigs sell that garbage to an ignorant customer base who don't realize that the money clubs are actually referring to the customer's checkbook when they say they want possession. Never have I heard a more overused word in my life as the word possession in youth soccer here in the States.

When outside playing as a child (in a country south of the US), I can't remember one time in my life when someone (wouldn't be a coach as we rarely had someone coaching) said we had to play possession. Some things develop naturally in their proper time and order. On occasion, when I hear parents talking soccer and possession, I think that they do it, not because they understand the game, but because it makes them feel important or better about themselves.

Here is a thought...if there was some a-hole out there screaming at 8 year old Neymar, or at 8 year old Suarez, or at 8 year old Messi to play possession, or to play out of the back, where would they be today? Having also lived in Europe, I would argue the same is true there as well.

I am not advocating "kickball", on the contrary, I am a big fan of the possession type game but there is no one size fits all. Case in point, one could easily argue that Barca plays possession and RM plays a more direct game. Which is better? Which is more effective? Which team has had more success over the years? Or more recently? Like most things, one must be able to adapt and adjust.
Click to expand...
Lester City won the title playing direct. Kids like playing direct, parents like winning and the direct team usually wins in youth soccer u15 and under.
 
Sheriff Joe said:
Typical lib, where do you think the money comes from? The lower levels of the club.
You are a nut.
Click to expand...
I must have read your post wrong. I thought you said the point of the DA is to grab money. Maybe you intended to say that the point of some club teams is to grab money to feed their DA teams.
 
coachrefparent said:
I guess there are a lot of different definitions of "kickball." I wouldn't place your #2 in that category. Some think kickball is any time you don't play possession building out from the back. But as you note, this is not always possible against skilled teams that press and control the middle.

"Kickball" to me and most coaches I know, is anytime there is no purpose and intended target. A short panic pass going to empty space or an opponent; a scared pass with no known target just to get it off your own feet; kicks wide out of bounds; long balls that are just a hope that someone will get to it; or the famous 30 yard boot by the center back to no one, that brings cheers from the parents: "great blast Johnny." Yes, these all drive me nuts and are not skilled soccer. But kicking it long, as you describe, to an intended target that is open, is not kickball in my mind. A long "boot" to switch fields to an open teammate is not kickball to me. A keeper sending a long ball with purpose to his own player is fine.

It seems lots of these discussions are about kids playing less than 11v11, and I agree teaching and playing build out possession is the best way to make better soccer players. If that means suppressing longer balls that can often be the easier play, I see the developmental benefits in these young players.
Click to expand...


I agree, I would call the teams that just kick it up high with no intended target (but manage to keep inbounds) Kickball 1.5. Hehe.

And yes, that kind of play drives me nuts too - but, I guess my point is that even if the fwd is fast, it's no excuse for the defense getting beat and losing. All they have to do is not cheat up and they're at a much better advantage since they're facing the incoming ball instead of looking over their shoulder.

I would agree that only teaching the kids this is doing them a huge disservice. The calmness and controlled play is essential to next level play. Players need to develop a great, controlled first touch, be able to protect the ball from opponents, find their teammates, and deliver the ball - to feet or space as appropriate.
 
coachrefparent said:
While understanding the developmental points of possession and not booting the ball (which as noted by Makeaplay will result in a better winning team all around), this rings true. At what point are kids taught (developed) to win? Or does the "beautiful game" trump this?

It reminds me of a time I played my MIL in tennis, an avid player that had been playing for decades, and was tops in her club. I beat her easily despite not having picked up a racket in years. She claimed that the only reason I won was because I did not properly return the ball, and my shots were erratic (all true). But I followed the rules of tennis and won. (so called, ugly win.)
Just like the self-proclaimed elite clubs that complain when they are beaten by a team who doesn't play to their "beautiful game"/possession only standards.

Beyond development, the point of the game is to win. Imagine Aaron Rodgers being chastised for throwing all those (kickball) hail Marys to win games. I guess he wasn't developed well enough to know better.
Click to expand...
kinda how sweden beat the USWNT in the olympics. you can cry all day long like Nope Solo did but they played to win and they did.
 
growingpains said:
At what point/age group should you start simply playing what the defense gives you?

I think there are different types of kickball:
1) players that have no idea what they're doing and just kicking the ball to stop an attack.

2) players that intentionally kick the ball to an upfield player or to open space where they have an advantage.

Rarely will you see teams win using #1 because they just end up kicking the ball out of bounds and turn the ball over. However, with #2, of they're beating you that way, don't blame them, blame your coach for not teaching them how to play defense, blame your coach for putting your fastest and most skilled players at forward instead of on defense. Blame your defenders for playing too high. These are usually 50/50 balls where your defender should have a chance on it and should be winning and launching counters.

Our DD's previous coach was very focused on possession soccer and building out the back - which I genuinely appreciate and believe it is a critical skill to have. But he would yell at her for not passing to feet to her mids or keeper every time when the reality was that none of her teammates were open nor moving so a pass to feet would not work. the defense had already stacked the box and a pass back to keeper would've likely ended up getting stolen. So instead she looks upfield and sees the defenders were all playing way too high and drops it just ahead of the forward so she could easily run it down and get 1v1 with the keeper.

After a couple of plays like these the other coach started to tell his defenders to drop back, which opened up the midfield... making it easier to find passes inside and build up the play.

to be honest, I think it's pretty lame to be complaining about losing because the other team played "kickball" and your team played possession. It's a really poor excuse. Teams who play "kickball" in the #1 sense generally don't win against any type of talented team. And those who play only #2 and can't build out the back - if you lose to them, it's because your defenders are lacking (speed/skill/strength) and your offense is not winning the ball vs their defenders (who aren't skilled enough to control play out the back). If their defenders can't control the ball well enough to make a pass to feet, your fwds and mids should be able to easily steal the ball for a shot on goal, no?

Possession soccer/building out the back is amazing to watch, but again, you really have to be able to play what the defense is giving you, you can't be one dimensional.
Click to expand...
perfectly said. just like in football establish the run. when they stack the box go deep.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top