Learning from our U-Littles

[MWN]

@toucan, child psychologists understand there is an age range where kids become competitive, which is basically between 8-10. After 10, almost every kid is as competitive as you write and understands the correlation between practice and success on the pitch (U12). Just like academics, we will have prodigies where competition clicks on at 5. Our problem from a national perspective is Soccer is the number 5 sport from a popularity standpoint and we don't have generations of fans. Dad and sons tend to throw around a football or baseball and not kick the soccer ball. If we are driving kids from the sport at age 9 and 10 because its not fun then we ultimately lose and retard the acceptance of the sport. So the question becomes do we set the "competitive" level at age 10 or 11, knowing that there will be a few kids that are frustrated or do we allow parents and Youth Affiliates to go against the program.

I appreciate what you are saying and don't disagree with a lot of it. Having coached 8 and 9 year olds, I always had 2-3 kids that cried when we lost and 7-8 kids that only cared what the after-game snack was. That said, of those 11 to 12 players, I had 10 parents that cared deeply what the score was even though many of their kids didn't. Generally, I think we need to set standards and if we are going to deviate, make sure that deviation from the standards are based on sound rationale.

When Klinsman and the USSF adopted these PDI's it did so by examining what was working in Countries like Germany and Belgium. It relied on the advice of DoublePASS (Belgian Co.), which gained extensive notoriety and is credited with turning around Germany's National program, which adheres to similar competitive concepts as the USSF adopted, so its not just Belgium. Most European countries don't put 9 year olds in competitive leagues/games, but focus on the fun and development aspect. (see, https://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/may/23/germany-bust-boom-talent - "We believe it is not good for a nine-year-old to play [regularly] for a professional football club because it changes the reasons why he plays football," says Sebastian Neuf, a member of the football school's management.)

In sum, I tend to agree that the USSF's PDI instructing Youth Affiliates to make changes designed to keep the game fun and develop individual skill through the U11 stage is sound and similar to what many European countries do (especially the ones that tend to kick our butts on a regular basis).

 

[SoccerFan4Life]

Let us praise whichever Lord we pray to that Calsouth does not mandate all of its "u-little" rules to all tournaments and in all leagues.

• Americans are competitive.
• Americans love winners and will not tolerate losers. ]

Toucan, I agree with not making it mandatory. I disagree with your statement of not tolerating losers. As a parent of a u little, I could care less if the team wins it all. Most Kids could care less. They just want to play and have fun. I want my child to learn and develop her game.

This is the problem with our parents. Parents get so intense that they suck the life from these kids. My biggest problem with club sports is when I see a parent berating a kid or a ref because of a bad call or a bad play. why do u-little kids quit soccer? They cannot stand getting yelled at by coaches and parents. let them relax and develop.

 

[seesnake]

"I believe in a free market allowing for leagues to determine what works for them. I don't want some Belgiphile mandating his preferred system or style of play to me or my league."


The problem with this is that it caters to parents- many of whom have not the slightest idea of what quality soccer is supposed to look like, how it is most likely to develop in very young players, how to periodize rest, or the development psychology of young children- are the ones that will create the market so they may force a poor model on a club or league. Then again, it is the job of the clubs and leagues to educate their market base....

 

[MWN]

The problem with this is that it caters to parents- many of whom have not the slightest idea of what quality soccer is supposed to look like, how it is most likely to develop in very young players, how to periodize rest, or the development psychology of young children- are the ones that will create the market so they may force a poor model on a club or league. Then again, it is the job of the clubs and leagues to educate their market base....

On this note, the USSF is attacking the "coach" education problem through its new Grass Roots Coaching Licenses that all competitive coaches will need to complete. The F and E Licenses are now gone, and the all youth coaches will need to complete the free "grassroots coaching" courses, which will reinforce the play-practice-play goals.

 

[Grace T.]

On this note, the USSF is attacking the "coach" education problem through its new Grass Roots Coaching Licenses that all competitive coaches will need to complete. The F and E Licenses are now gone, and the all youth coaches will need to complete the free "grassroots coaching" courses, which will reinforce the play-practice-play goals.

If they are going to be in the licensing biz, it seems to me that one reform they could make is a continuing education requirement. Lawyers, doctors, accountants, teachers all have them. They aren't perfect...lots of CE is worthless and gives makework that people just give lip service to. Supposedly, the argument is that soccer doesn't need to do that because the coaches are supposed to all be working their way up to an A. But the time and money required to get to an A makes that a challenge for a lot of coaches, particularly if they have day jobs too. One of my biggest gripes is that a lot of non-goalkeeper coaches are teaching really old methods still (like bending down on your knee to pick a ground ball or having the keeper sit back on the line or the keeper should punt thing) or don't know what to do with their goalkeepers and the licensing courses (at least through the D) don't cover much by way of goalkeeping...the CE's could focus on particular topics like team communication, goalkeeping, game tactics, Coerver-type drilling.

 

[Lambchop]

Let us praise whichever Lord we pray to that Calsouth does not mandate all of its "u-little" rules to all tournaments and in all leagues. Rigid "there is only one way to skin a cat" thinking is what kills innovation and development in science, business, government, and yes ... soccer. Whatever USSF thinks is the "one and only" way of teaching and training today will be cast aside in a couple of years for whatever "newer and shinier" philosophy becomes popular at the time.

The current USSF philosophy is basically a ripoff of what seems to have worked well in Belgium, and nowhere else. A couple of knuckleheads at USSF decided that if it works there, it will work in the USA, nothwithstanding that the guidelines and rule-changes were never tested here. Instead, they were just rammed down everybody's throat. They never thought to ask, but nobody in the USA wants to become Belgian. It's a nice little country, and every European conqueror since Julius Caesar must have thought so, because Belgium has lost every war in its history. I don't want to adopt the philosophy of a country whose only military defense plan is to open its dikes to make its ground soggy.

Americans would like to develop our own brand and culture in soccer, using American values as the foundation therefore. What are relevant American value

• Americans are competitive.
• Americans love winners and will not tolerate losers.
• Americans are Darwinian in that they will use different strategies to win, believing the the strongest and best strategies will survive, while the weakest should be allowed to wither away.
• Americans believe that it is the marketplace, and not some ninny sitting in a Calsouth office, who should decide what works and what doesn't.

Let tournaments and events choose their own rules. If they are good, the marketplace will respond and the tournaments will flourish. If not, they will wither.

You do understand that we have been doing it the "American" way for the last 35 years? And how has that worked out? "Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything."

 

[El Clasico]

You do understand that we have been doing it the "American" way for the last 35 years? And how has that worked out? "Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything."

I believe it is more growing pains than anything else. I am simply amazed by the sheer number of imbeciles at the practices, on the sidelines and at the games who have ZERO experience themselves in the sport, particularly the moms THAT have no experience in any sport preaching to anyone who will listen, what the US needs to do. Once these idiots age out and the next generation of parents with actual playing experience comes along, you may finally see real change.

As for the "American" way comment, the answer is NO!! Upon arrival 25 years ago, I noticed that there was no style of play. It seemed that everyone was just winging it and different groups and regions were all trying to copy different styles based on what they thought was best or possibly based on their own roots. It wasn't until 10 years ago that US Soccer came in and tried to dictate a National style of play and you are correct, that has been a complete disaster. The men have gone from Good (not very good or great) to downright awful. No world cup, not Olympics last two cycles. I still hear people talk about how good they are and those are the people we need to get rid of. They are the cancer that is American soccer. Now we see GDA and the women's side headed in the same direction and parents still line up their kids to lead them to the GDA slaughter house. In 24 months, the USWNT will have trouble staying in the top 10 in the world rankings. I predict that they won't win more than one world cup in the next 10 cycles. The YNT just lost to Mexico for the first time in history and I predict that going forward, we will lose more than we win.

The US needs to embrace their own style. Use what they have always had which is size, speed and athleticism and build on that, which is not to say rely on that. Use your strengths and then incorporate the technical and tactical aspects of the possession game and make no mistake, I do not mean to say that size is everything. No sir, not at all. Open the doors to more diverse players by style and background. Maybe purge out some of the wealthy suburban players that are only there because they write checks that don't bounce and replace them with players of less means but much more passion and flair.

Lastly, get rid of all the a** kissers that volunteer at all levels, but mostly at the top that tow the company line rather than see for themselves that maybe something should be changed. You can see who they are on the fields and on the boards here. It's the people that always feel the need to defend the stupid rules and regulations that Cal south and leagues implement. I came here from a much smaller country that beats the US team and we don't have any of the silly rules that they have here. Most kids before 13 or 14 don't even have coaches, let alone high dollar ones but you still refuse to think outside of the box.

 

[Grace T.]

I believe it is more growing pains than anything else. I am simply amazed by the sheer number of imbeciles at the practices, on the sidelines and at the games who have ZERO experience themselves in the sport, particularly the moms THAT have no experience in any sport preaching to anyone who will listen, what the US needs to do. Once these idiots age out and the next generation of parents with actual playing experience comes along, you may finally see real change.

You say some stuff I agree with and some stuff I don't. But on the whole we moms have more experience than the dads in the sport. Remember in the 80s and 90s soccer was consider a "girl's sport"...while I knew lots of girl's in the burbs playing soccer there were very few boys doing it (anyone remember the film "Lady Bugs"). From my AYSO volunteer days, the women coaches generally had some experience (even if just a little) playing. The dads might have broader coaching experience (across multiple sports), but a lot of what they were trying to apply was from American football (I've told the story before about how one coach tried to get the kids into a three point stance to rush across the build out line in the U7 level). I reffed both my kids in AYSO and it was always the dads that came in with the killer winner-take-all attitude....rarely had problems in the girl's games...sure the mom coaches could be obnoxious too in yelling instructions at the kids but it usually contained more by way of direction. All stereotypes, but given how prevalent the sport was among girls v. boys in the 80s and 90s, I think the "particularly the moms" comment isn't well grounded in fact.

 

[MWN]

If they are going to be in the licensing biz, it seems to me that one reform they could make is a continuing education requirement. Lawyers, doctors, accountants, teachers all have them. They aren't perfect...lots of CE is worthless and gives makework that people just give lip service to. Supposedly, the argument is that soccer doesn't need to do that because the coaches are supposed to all be working their way up to an A. But the time and money required to get to an A makes that a challenge for a lot of coaches, particularly if they have day jobs too. One of my biggest gripes is that a lot of non-goalkeeper coaches are teaching really old methods still (like bending down on your knee to pick a ground ball or having the keeper sit back on the line or the keeper should punt thing) or don't know what to do with their goalkeepers and the licensing courses (at least through the D) don't cover much by way of goalkeeping...the CE's could focus on particular topics like team communication, goalkeeping, game tactics, Coerver-type drilling.

There is no question that GK coaching from a USSF perspective is lacking and they basically left it to the NSCAA to fill that gap. I'm very curious to see what the new grassroots programs will emphasize on the GK front (my son is a 03 GK). That said, I highly recommend the NSCAA GK coaching videos if you have not seen them.

 

[timbuck]

The coaching education isn’t terrible. It’s the coaches that don’t follow any of it that are the problem.
I’ve nevrr heard any coaching class talk about have a u10 team play with a deep lying sweeper.
And we have the build out line and no punting for younger players. But as soon as the cross into the next age group everyone is whacking the ball down the field as hard and as far as possible.

 

[Grace T.]

There is no question that GK coaching from a USSF perspective is lacking and they basically left it to the NSCAA to fill that gap. I'm very curious to see what the new grassroots programs will emphasize on the GK front (my son is a 03 GK). That said, I highly recommend the NSCAA GK coaching videos if you have not seen them.

I have them. They are good. Wanted to take some of the live classes when I was still coaching my son in GK but they were mostly in the South and East Coast. They are a great introduction, but they miss some of the subtleties such as corrections to look for. For example, my son while solid on the low balls and good on the high balls or direct hits, was struggling on mid height balls for which short aerial collapsing dives were required (he hasn't been introduced yet to the high dive)...the trainer noted he was falling a hair too early probably from nerves during the game...problem fixed after a few practice sessions....his coach, let alone myself, would never have noticed that. Several goalkeeper coaches had missed it too.

The coaching education isn’t terrible. It’s the coaches that don’t follow any of it that are the problem.
I’ve nevrr heard any coaching class talk about have a u10 team play with a deep lying sweeper.
And we have the build out line and no punting for younger players. But as soon as the cross into the next age group everyone is whacking the ball down the field as hard and as far as possible.

This is a problem of the coach not having been shown the data and educated. The data that's been done now in a few studies shows that punting into a 50/50 situation is a horrible idea and leads to turnovers and counterattacks. The only time it gives you an advantage is if you have a goalkeeper that not only has excellent punting technique and excellent aim, but also a striker that can 1) control the aerial, 2) is fast 3) can turn it quickly, 4) can stay in an onside position (that's partially a flaw in ref education too....a goalkeeper punt to a striker in an offside position is still a turnover but a lot of refs don't call it) and 5) has an opposing coach that doesn't know how to counter (a high defensive line). Short of that, the punt is only really effective to force a team that has a high press and a goalkeeper that floats up to fall back and relieve pressure on the high press....the goalkeeper should vary between a long and short in that situation to keep the other side guessing. Also a very limited exception: short field and you have a goalkeeper that can actually score off the punt because the opposite goalkeeper is pressing high and playing in a Neuer sweeper keeper style. Coaches if they had the data would be ridiculous to go back to the old way of doing it....many do it because the refs don't enforce the rule....part of the problem with the build out line and CalSouth was that it wasn't accompanied with sufficient training to either coaches or refs to explain why (the refs had problems enforcing it even consistently).

 

[watfly]

I few thoughts....First, I'm less curious about what other countries are doing to create world class soccer players and more curious about what other countries are doing to create world class athletes in American dominated sports like basketball. In the last couple of decades the % of foreign born players in the NBA has grown from negligible to over 25%. How did this happen? Did other countries follow an American model to create these players or did they adapt a model that fit their culture. Maybe this analysis wouldn't bear fruit but I am curious because whatever US Soccer is doing now to create world class players is clearly not working.

As far as the PDI's go they are well-intentioned, but ill-conceived. I'm sure they looked good on the whiteboard but are of limited value in reality. Take the build out line for example. It's great to encourage playing out the back but legislating it only provides short term benefits, if any. It needs to be taught, not legislated to have any real long term benefit. The ineffectiveness of the BOL was only compounded by the fact that many refs are still struggling with the application of the BOL over a year after it has been implemented. Some of the ref's interpretations completely defeated the intent to encourage building out the back. Not to mention the coaches that just figured out how to bomb the ball forward within the confines of the BOL rule. Small field and small sided games are a great idea but instead of creating all these rules and postage stamp field sizes, US Soccer could of just said "play more futsal". I don't blame organizations for ignoring some of the fields sizes implemented by US Soccer. Anyone that saw the 7v7 games at Surf Cup the last two years with the US Soccer regulation fields realized that these postage stamp fields mainly just encouraged shot taking from anywhere on the field. IMHO US Soccer needs to do less legislating of and more investing in soccer (like making advanced coaching training more accessible and less costly, DA is still a largely a pay-to-play model, etc).

Finally, I'm kind of tired of the statement "as long as they're having fun". I'm being a bit facetious but "fun" is overrated, I prefer a passion for the sport. Passion will get you through those tough and demanding practices, fun won't. Yes, there has to be some element of having fun but for highly competitive kids that's not going to cut it. Soccer also has to be challenging and rewarding, among other things. My son's team had a lot of fun this year, I've never seen a group of kids bond as friends more quickly. However, some of that fun came at the expense of focus. At times, it bothered my son as it made practices less productive. Even our coach commented that it was a tough sometimes to balance the free spirited, fun loving nature of the kids with productive soccer training.

 

[Lambchop]

I believe it is more growing pains than anything else. I am simply amazed by the sheer number of imbeciles at the practices, on the sidelines and at the games who have ZERO experience themselves in the sport, particularly the moms THAT have no experience in any sport preaching to anyone who will listen, what the US needs to do. Once these idiots age out and the next generation of parents with actual playing experience comes along, you may finally see real change.

As for the "American" way comment, the answer is NO!! Upon arrival 25 years ago, I noticed that there was no style of play. It seemed that everyone was just winging it and different groups and regions were all trying to copy different styles based on what they thought was best or possibly based on their own roots. It wasn't until 10 years ago that US Soccer came in and tried to dictate a National style of play and you are correct, that has been a complete disaster. The men have gone from Good (not very good or great) to downright awful. No world cup, not Olympics last two cycles. I still hear people talk about how good they are and those are the people we need to get rid of. They are the cancer that is American soccer. Now we see GDA and the women's side headed in the same direction and parents still line up their kids to lead them to the GDA slaughter house. In 24 months, the USWNT will have trouble staying in the top 10 in the world rankings. I predict that they won't win more than one world cup in the next 10 cycles. The YNT just lost to Mexico for the first time in history and I predict that going forward, we will lose more than we win.

The US needs to embrace their own style. Use what they have always had which is size, speed and athleticism and build on that, which is not to say rely on that. Use your strengths and then incorporate the technical and tactical aspects of the possession game and make no mistake, I do not mean to say that size is everything. No sir, not at all. Open the doors to more diverse players by style and background. Maybe purge out some of the wealthy suburban players that are only there because they write checks that don't bounce and replace them with players of less means but much more passion and flair.

Lastly, get rid of all the a** kissers that volunteer at all levels, but mostly at the top that tow the company line rather than see for themselves that maybe something should be changed. You can see who they are on the fields and on the boards here. It's the people that always feel the need to defend the stupid rules and regulations that Cal south and leagues implement. I came here from a much smaller country that beats the US team and we don't have any of the silly rules that they have here. Most kids before 13 or 14 don't even have coaches, let alone high dollar ones but you still refuse to think outside of the box.

Your comment is so off on the "wealthy suburban players" it isn't even funny. I work two jobs so that my kids can play and so that I don't bounce checks. At one point I worked three jobs because I am a single parent. Maybe if some of the parents of those who can't afford to pay would pick up an extra job or two, they could afford it too. But I guess it is easier to sit back and complain, oh poor me, I can't afford it. By the way, my kids have plenty of passion and you can usually find them in the street, yard or house kicking the ball around for fun when they aren't at school or practice. So many stupid assumptions.

 

[Mystery Train]

The data that's been done now in a few studies shows that punting into a 50/50 situation is a horrible idea and leads to turnovers and counterattacks.

True. I would add, however, one more reason coaches fall back on demanding the GK to punt the hell out of the ball: If both teams basically suck at connecting passes, punting deep means that even if you lose the 50/50 ball off the punt, the other team is going to turn it right back over to you, but in their defensive half instead of yours. It's lazy coaching and downright awful to watch, but it will win games when the passing and possession skills aren't there. This is true for most AYSO games and 100% of the HS soccer games I watched this year. Unfortunately, it seems to be the M.O. for most of the college soccer world, too.

 

[Grace T.]

I few thoughts....First, I'm less curious about what other countries are doing to create world class soccer players and more curious about what other countries are doing to create world class athletes in American dominated sports like basketball. In the last couple of decades the % of foreign born players in the NBA has grown from negligible to over 25%. How did this happen? Did other countries follow an American model to create these players or did they adapt a model that fit their culture. Maybe this analysis wouldn't bear fruit but I am curious because whatever US Soccer is doing now to create world class players is clearly not working.

.

I'm not an expert but I can answer a bit what Italy does. In Italy, youth basketball is organized largely the same way as soccer. The professional adult leagues have promotion and relegation and are organized in a pyramid of leagues, and have affiliated academies, like with soccer. There is also some pay-to-play there too, particularly over the last 20 years or so, to bring over American coaches, because the academy system isn't very deep. They also, like with soccer, have a very extensive rec program, and particularly many beach towns have made investments in basketball courts to be played over the summer when the soccer season is down They play on postage sized basketball courts too (3 v 3 in the early years). Side editorial: the postage size soccer courts in Italy have more to do with real estate space than anything else....they have fewer larger fields than we do and those are generally kept pristine and under lock and key....you can't show up with buddies and just scrimmage on them.

I remember reading an article with Kobe Bryant a while back (who actually spent a significant amount of time in Italy as a kid learning basketball). He said that the training in Italy emphasized technique a lot more than athleticism (which I take with a grain of salt since he was already very athletic). He criticized AAU ball for emphasizing athleticism over technique.

 

[Grace T.]

True. I would add, however, one more reason coaches fall back on demanding the GK to punt the hell out of the ball: If both teams basically suck at connecting passes, punting deep means that even if you lose the 50/50 ball off the punt, the other team is going to turn it right back over to you, but in their defensive half instead of yours. It's lazy coaching and downright awful to watch, but it will win games when the passing and possession skills aren't there. This is true for most AYSO games and 100% of the HS soccer games I watched this year. Unfortunately, it seems to be the M.O. for most of the college soccer world, too.

Fair. On the bronze level, though, I've seen teams that tried this get slammed by teams that can actually pass. And I would hope that at least by U11 for teams playing in silver or above, connecting a pass isn't less than a 50/50 proposition, but I could be wrong......

 

[El Clasico]

Your comment is so off on the "wealthy suburban players" it isn't even funny. I work two jobs so that my kids can play and so that I don't bounce checks. At one point I worked three jobs because I am a single parent. Maybe if some of the parents of those who can't afford to pay would pick up an extra job or two, they could afford it too. But I guess it is easier to sit back and complain, oh poor me, I can't afford it. By the way, my kids have plenty of passion and you can usually find them in the street, yard or house kicking the ball around for fun when they aren't at school or practice. So many stupid assumptions.

Thanks for helping me make my point about the clueless soccer moms yapping on the sidelines. If your kids aren't "wealthy suburban players", why would you, as a random poster, feel the need to let other anonymous posters know that you are a single mom who works two or three jobs so your kids could play club soccer demonstrating your life priorities? Why do we care? Why do you care? Why do you feel the need to lash out if this doesn't apply to you? Some of those parents who "can't afford it" usually just play Sunday leagues and spend time with their kids rather than take on a second or third job. Their priorities are just different than yours. Generally, the ones playing club are because some track suit scouted the mex league games and told them not to worry, we can get other chumps to pony up so your kid can play club. Sorry, that you get the sharp end of the stick but life isn't fair and you should already know that by now. Lastly, nobody is disputing that latchkey kids can usually be found in the streets.

 

[Lambchop]

Thanks for helping me make my point about the clueless soccer moms yapping on the sidelines. If your kids aren't "wealthy suburban players", why would you, as a random poster, feel the need to let other anonymous posters know that you are a single mom who works two or three jobs so your kids could play club soccer demonstrating your life priorities? Why do we care? Why do you care? Why do you feel the need to lash out if this doesn't apply to you? Some of those parents who "can't afford it" usually just play Sunday leagues and spend time with their kids rather than take on a second or third job. Their priorities are just different than yours. Generally, the ones playing club are because some track suit scouted the mex league games and told them not to worry, we can get other chumps to pony up so your kid can play club. Sorry, that you get the sharp end of the stick but life isn't fair and you should already know that by now. Lastly, nobody is disputing that latchkey kids can usually be found in the streets.

My kids have actually played the so called "Sunday" league that is when players actually care enough to show up or aren't on vacation as they say. The reason I made the comment is because you made so many generalizations it is pathetic. My life priorities are my children I wonder if your children are your priority. If you only knew, but alas you sound like some macho dad know it all.

 

[Denied]

My daughter, who is 21 and playing soccer in college, sent me a text to inform me that she is now a coach for a boys U8 soccer team. This is right up her alley because she plans on teaching. She asked me for advice, the only thing I told her was make practice fun.

 

[outside!]

My daughter, who is 21 and playing soccer in college, sent me a text to inform me that she is now a coach for a boys U8 soccer team. This is right up her alley because she plans on teaching. She asked me for advice, the only thing I told her was make practice fun.

More scrimmage, less drills. Let the kids run the scrimmage, pull players aside for quick 0ne-on-one tips.

 

[Messi>CR7]

My daughter, who is 21 and playing soccer in college, sent me a text to inform me that she is now a coach for a boys U8 soccer team. This is right up her alley because she plans on teaching. She asked me for advice, the only thing I told her was make practice fun.

U8 means they're six turning seven, right? Hand out candies at the end of every practice.

If she has a small budget , go to Dollar Tree store and buy some cheap super hero craps. Hand them out to kids that did something special during training sessions.