LA TIMES: Is youth soccer training to blame for American team failure to make WC?

[Grace T.]

I also think the Coerver drills are most useful in futsal and the women’s game, not so much the men’s game. Almost all of these Coerver fast footwork drills can’t be done at full speed, and they are easier to do without error when wearing futsal shoes, the studs on cleats make the moves harder. You are not running full speed very much in futsal, and you have to move the ball at crazy angles in tight spaces, so the Coerver moves work really well in futsal. The slower speed of the women’s game also made it easier to do Coerver moves, the slower you run it’s easier to do the move. Plus, unless the female player is built like a slim boy, the women’s change of direction, TBH, is brutally slow. Because these Coerver moves are usually change of direction moves, they are highly effective in tripping up the girls.
.

I think you are absolutely right that the effectiveness of the Coerver moves depend on the speed of the player. I think it's therefore easier for girls to do the moves than boys, but that doesn't mean the moves are more effective for girls. Indeed, many of the moves are named after the male players that made them famous-- whether the Ronaldo chop, the Maradona spin, or the Messi fake.

The problem with Coerver is that while it's really great at improving ball handling, it doesn't do a great job at some of the other skills. If you look at their pyramid of skills, ball mastery (where much of the basic Coerver course is devoted) occupies the huge space at the bottom of the pyramid, below receiving/first touch (which others routinely say is the most critical skill). They do give proper nods to the passing game, but the bias is clearly that if the player is able they should try to beat the opposition, rather than back or short pass it. It's very different from the tiki-taka system. Also, the teaching materials aren't all created equally (the finishing, for example, is much weaker than the ball moves section and I don't remember seeing anything on off ball movement). I've been through the goalkeeping course. I wasn't impressed..it was like they were trying to build a goalkeeping philosophy to cram into a pyramid rather than generate a comprehensive new philosophy. If we ever do get a national curriculum Coerver has its place, particularly in the early ages, but it's not a silver bullet.

My son had great success with Coerver at the U8 in AYSO...with just a handful of moves routinely able to beat slower players who didn't know about the moves. I see that less in the youngers for club, particularly on the smaller fields with less room...the emphasis is more on the passing game or run and boot soccer (I've seen both types of coaches yell at the player for trying to beat an opponent on the dribble when a passing or running option was available). And then it's not always taught correctly....it's not enough to learn the move but you have to know which moves are appropriate for what circumstances....I remember once seeing a Coerver trained striker try to beat a younger keeper on the one v one with the roulette....keeper smoothered on the one v one and the striker went flying into the goal....a toe poke or the chip would have been better options (or even a rollover towards center if the keeper has left the far post open and hesitates).

 

[JJP]

I think you are absolutely right that the effectiveness of the Coerver moves depend on the speed of the player. I think it's therefore easier for girls to do the moves than boys, but that doesn't mean the moves are more effective for girls. Indeed, many of the moves are named after the male players that made them famous-- whether the Ronaldo chop, the Maradona spin, or the Messi fake.

Both the top boys and top girls can do the coerver moves, what I’m saying is that a huge percentage of the Coerver moves, which will work vs. girls, will not work vs. boys. That is because as girls mature, their ability to change direction gets much worse, whereas the boys are able to come to a full stop,and change direction extremely fast. I saw my son and another stud academy player (my son was in 7th grade, his friend was in 8th grade) do the whole litany of coerver moves vs scholarshipped college girls breaking their ankles for half hour straight before they got tired and the bigger girls used their size and weight to hip slam or shoulder them off the ball.

The reason is that as the girls mature, their hips get wider and causes their knees to angle in making them a little knock kneed, so they can’t plant hard and push off to change direction. Whereas boys will jam their foot into the turf and smash their full weight onto the knee and ankle, flex their knee, and explode off their planted foot to change direction, the girls can’t do that. They have to take 2 or 3 little steps when they are running fast to change directions, they can’t just plant and move because their knee can’t take the pressure. Plus they carry extra weight on their hips and chest which keep moving in the original direction the girl was traveling, so the weight shift needed to smoothly change direction is just not possible for mature girls.

That’s why I say the Coerver moves are more effective for the women’s game. The attacking player has a greater advantage due to the women having limited change of direction, so the Coerver moves are more effective.

The problem with Coerver is that while it's really great at improving ball handling, it doesn't do a great job at some of the other skills. If you look at their pyramid of skills, ball mastery (where much of the basic Coerver course is devoted) occupies the huge space at the bottom of the pyramid, below receiving/first touch (which others routinely say is the most critical skill). They do give proper nods to the passing game, but the bias is clearly that if the player is able they should try to beat the opposition, rather than back or short pass it. It's very different from the tiki-taka system. Also, the teaching materials aren't all created equally (the finishing, for example, is much weaker than the ball moves section and I don't remember seeing anything on off ball movement). I've been through the goalkeeping course. I wasn't impressed..it was like they were trying to build a goalkeeping philosophy to cram into a pyramid rather than generate a comprehensive new philosophy. If we ever do get a national curriculum Coerver has its place, particularly in the early ages, but it's not a silver bullet.

I agree with you. A parent can train basic coerver moves, but without greater expertise and more bodies to run passing drills, training your own kids in passing/receiving, except for the most rudimentary basics, is not possible. There is a need for good coaches and top notch academies. My point is, kids should go into academy having mastered their 1v1 and coerver skills, by practice on their own, and playing small sided games. Otherwise, IMO those kids are wasting their time in academy.

My son had great success with Coerver at the U8 in AYSO...with just a handful of moves routinely able to beat slower players who didn't know about the moves. I see that less in the youngers for club, particularly on the smaller fields with less room...the emphasis is more on the passing game or run and boot soccer (I've seen both types of coaches yell at the player for trying to beat an opponent on the dribble when a passing or running option was available). And then it's not always taught correctly....it's not enough to learn the move but you have to know which moves are appropriate for what circumstances...

Yea I agree, coerver is a first step and then you need good coaching to teach them how to combine coerver moves with pass/receive, good shape, give and go, etc. It’s a critical first step, but just a first step.

 

[JJP]

Your question of will it work in the US is a good one. Unfortunately, most American parents just want to pay the money to drop their kid off with a coach to teach them soccer for 3-6 hours a week. They would rather delegate the authority and pay someone than do it themselves. Ironically, its probably some of the same parents that are complaining on another thread about how Club soccer is a scam. While I don't care for the sales tactics and BS that many clubs/coaches spew, you can't expect even a great coach to turn your kid into a World Cup player with only a few hours of training a week. If we want our kids to play at the highest level, we as parents need to take more ownership in our kids training. While training your own kid is way easier said then done you can still encourage your child to get touches at home, play with other kids in the backyard, etc.

Agree 100%. But it is difficult training your own kid, so I don’t blame parents who want someone else to do it. The issue is, I’m not sure you can even pay someone else to do it. It takes a certain amount of “Tiger Mom” parenting to get the kid to do a lot of Coerver drilling in my experience, and only a parent can really do that.

 

[Not_that_Serious]

I don't know..but seeing men that are 6'7" and have the quickness they do plus their jumping ability.. I am pretty sure they could at least be great defenders or holding mids. They have cardio for days too. But I agree about Hockey or any non lineman in the NFL, and I would even say most MLB player's except for pitchers, first basemen and Albert Pujols would great too. Haha.

It's a shame too..Our best female athlete's have been playing since they were toddlers and look at our USWNT and their success (until Jill Ellis started going coo coo that is!)

Thats no our biggest issue. The problem is training. If kids at Rec level where trained like club kids, the amount of kids that would remain in the system would increase - they'd have confidence and ability to play. when kids are competent in what they do, they have more fun. The more kids we have that are competent doing the basic things, the better the competition will be at rec level. Better competition means better development. With more competition at bottom level, these kids will flow into higher level programs - Signature/Plus. As our rec levels increase in quality, the levels above it will benefit. To use the other major sport references, kids should know how to field/catch a ball, properly throw a ball and properly swing a bat - then they can move into situational play. more kids knowing how to do these things make games better. One key component missing in these discussions are Clubs dont usually have rec programs - i can probably count the number that do, in So Cal, on one hand. So Clubs have no investment at that level and just want to pluck kids up to make $.

 

[Grace T.]

Thats no our biggest issue. The problem is training. If kids at Rec level where trained like club kids, the amount of kids that would remain in the system would increase - they'd have confidence and ability to play. when kids are competent in what they do, they have more fun. The more kids we have that are competent doing the basic things, the better the competition will be at rec level. Better competition means better development. With more competition at bottom level, these kids will flow into higher level programs - Signature/Plus. As our rec levels increase in quality, the levels above it will benefit. To use the other major sport references, kids should know how to field/catch a ball, properly throw a ball and properly swing a bat - then they can move into situational play. more kids knowing how to do these things make games better. One key component missing in these discussions are Clubs dont usually have rec programs - i can probably count the number that do, in So Cal, on one hand. So Clubs have no investment at that level and just want to pluck kids up to make $.

Agree, but there's a reason most clubs don't have a rec program: if you want professional coaches you'd have to pay them, which essentially means the same expense as club, only with fewer players (5-7 on a team) bearing the salary. Otherwise, you have to rely on volunteers, and we have AYSO for that. And the main problem being with AYSO volunteers is that the parents didn't play, and since your coach is picked at random, you never know what you are going to get unless you volunteer yourself. Their curriculum is actually pretty good and focuses on the basics, though it's come under criticism for using too many lines and too much skill-based education, instead of the let them play philosophy of US Soccer. RealSoCal, for example, has the WVSL affiliated with it, but that program is also volunteer based. Simi Premier has one too. I've reffed a few of the games at both...about the same quality of AYSO (biggest difference is a little more flexibility in forming teams, which means some of the teams are more lopsided, while AYSO leans more towards randomized equal teams though one gifted kid can easily throw off that balance). This all changes though as the kids to have come up in the late 90s and 00s begin to have kids of their own that are playing age, and will be very different once the current crop has kids. European rec soccer works in large part because it has parents that played.

 

[LASTMAN14]

Got this article/interview from Goal Nation. Interesting perspectives on soccer in US.
http://mailchi.mp/a947299e7bac/jbbmi4eni8-1191785?e=6f8c858048

 

[smellycleats]

The main problem is our country's greatest athletes are not playing soccer. Pick any running back in the NFL, or or just about any NBA player and teach them good fundamental soccer from the same age they learned their current sport, and we would be a force to be reckoned with, if not the absolute #1 team in the world.

Might be true on the men’s side but not on the women’s side. Best American female athletes play soccer.

 

[Soccer43]

interesting articles - I especially liked this quote from Brian Smith:

"Replace national team players who are entitled and comfortable, with fighters who love the country and live and love what it means to win for the United States of America!


I’ll take a kid with work ethic, vision, and a desire to scrap for his country over a gifted or talented athlete who isn’t sure where they come from or what they’re playing for."

 

[Not_that_Serious]

Agree, but there's a reason most clubs don't have a rec program: if you want professional coaches you'd have to pay them, which essentially means the same expense as club, only with fewer players (5-7 on a team) bearing the salary. Otherwise, you have to rely on volunteers, and we have AYSO for that. And the main problem being with AYSO volunteers is that the parents didn't play, and since your coach is picked at random, you never know what you are going to get unless you volunteer yourself. Their curriculum is actually pretty good and focuses on the basics, though it's come under criticism for using too many lines and too much skill-based education, instead of the let them play philosophy of US Soccer. RealSoCal, for example, has the WVSL affiliated with it, but that program is also volunteer based. Simi Premier has one too. I've reffed a few of the games at both...about the same quality of AYSO (biggest difference is a little more flexibility in forming teams, which means some of the teams are more lopsided, while AYSO leans more towards randomized equal teams though one gifted kid can easily throw off that balance). This all changes though as the kids to have come up in the late 90s and 00s begin to have kids of their own that are playing age, and will be very different once the current crop has kids. European rec soccer works in large part because it has parents that played.

Aldo Clubs need field space and rent - money. LAGOC just started program lil ones to rec to midlevel to club. The correct path/gateway. You dont need pro coaching at lil ages - just a system parents/volunteers get versed in. USSF could do a mass push to get thousands and thousands to F/D levels but doesnt make them $. It would in long run but they want quick ROI. MX based teams in so cal tend to get good training, as well as bad habits, because coaches have played. The key is in other countries is the fact clubs are community based - via school or local academy. Imo system needs to be built out this way. Would help with club fees, get more kids inolved (many cities stip % scholarship players) and clubs would have to be more ethical in business practices. You can also get more people involved to get sponsored training. Yes you would still get people who might not have played, but dont need that at under 8-9 years of age - just passionate educated people with ONE method of training for that club. MLS/USSF has skated, for decades now, with putting cost on parents. Now they have money, time to tweak the system and require all clubs to build from rec up as well

 

[GoldenFjord]

Our main problem? Not even close. This a massive over-simplification. Iceland, a country with a population of 332k, qualified in Europe. The US, a country with a population of 323M, failed to qualify in CONCACAF. This has very little do to with the “best” athletes picking other sports. It has to do with the lack of a soccer culture and identity in this country. It has to do with the poor identification and development of talent in this country. There are so many shortfalls in the system, from culture to league structure. Not enough time to get neck deep here, but you should know that you are way off base.

The kicker for the Raiders was an incredible soccer player. He switched in high school because no one cared about soccer. Probably didn't hurt that kicking is stupidly easy in comparison.