Player Development vs Super Team Chasing?

[Fact]

Interesting topic here. For me it’s not about player development vs chasing the super team. It’s not about winning vs development. It’s about finding the right fit and environment for the specific goals that your child has or if they are too young yet to have goals that you want for them if development is high on the list. Who is to say that a super team is not developing players as well as another so call “development over winning” team that simply preaches development over winning like an evangelist with a bible?

In fact they are the first ones to undermine the super teams and their success towards how they see the development process by claiming to say they just teach kick ball and win at all costs? Is that all they really do to stay successful in always building competitive teams with the right fit of competitive players? If I were to say that all these teams and coaches that say we strive to develop players to their full potential and don’t value winning games and trimming rosters are a package of mere sham sugar coated lies engulfed in BS. Can they really make the so call righteous claim to really be developing players equally if there is a huge talent gap in the roster because they don’t recruit or cut players and keep players around for so-called development purposes? And risk the development of the majority of players disrupting the development process of the “team” as a whole. Are they really helping the team or are they creating more damage to the whole so-called development process.

There is no such thing as an all 100% solution to the development vs winning issue. Is it a compromise? Or should it really be more about narrowing the distribution gap between the best and the worst players so you can develop everyone equally thus making the team as a whole develop better and faster in the process.

Coaches have a limited time with a team to develop all players equally. So what do you do? Target the weak and screw the average and best players? Or target the best and screw the weak players? Or do you simply just mix it up equally which benefits the average and weak players but screws the best players on the team? It should be more about finding the balance for development time spent on different players while also attempting to balance the talent level of the roster to narrow the gap so you don’t have to keep robbing precious time from Peter to give to Paul. Having a narrow talent level in the roster allows you to maximize development efforts for the “team” which covers all players equally and fairly.

I respect the teams that make the necessary cuts and recruit the right players to keep the team’s talent fairly equal. I respect the teams that play possession soccer and at the same time value winning with the aim of exposing their players to the toughest competition possible to increase the rate of development of the process in respect to the development of the whole and not for the one. It’s not about keeping the individual player who had failed to develop and has fallen below the bar because he or she is not working as hard as the rest outside of team practice and feels entitled to play in games because they are part of the team. It’s about giving them the right opportunity they needed to find the right team that truly matches their goals and expectations towards their own development process needs

The most important part of the development process is to have a clear and distinct definition and understanding of what development truly means to you and your kid. The word development is being thrown around so freely these days that I feel that most people don’t really quite understand what it really means anymore. Find the right fit and environment first that defines what development truly means to you and make sure that the team has the same values and beliefs towards the process.

I did not read all of your garbage here, but no one turns on a dime this quickly unless you got your ass handed to you by your club. LOL

 

[Fact]

No it was more like having a Eureka moment after what I’ve observed across different teams throughout the processs

Nice try loser. Your ass was handed to you. Now go rant about an 8 year old costing your time a victory. LOL

 

[Poconos]

1) Who is to say that a super team is not developing players as well as another so call “development over winning” team that simply preaches development over winning like an evangelist with a bible?
2) In fact they are the first ones to undermine the super teams and their success towards how they see the development process by claiming to say they just teach kick ball and win at all costs?
3) Is that all they really do to stay successful in always building competitive teams with the right fit of competitive players?
4) Can they really make the so call righteous claim to really be developing players equally and to their fullest potential if there is a huge talent gap in the roster because they don’t recruit or cut players and keep players around for so-called development purposes?
5) Are they really helping the team or are they creating more damage to the whole so-called development process. Could cutting and recruiting players also be looked as part of aiding the development development process?
6) Could it be that the organizations with all the experience, research that take these kinds of measures really just understand the bigger picture better?
7) There is no such thing as an all 100% solution to the development vs winning issue. Could it be a compromise?
8) Coaches have a limited time with a team to develop all players equally. So what do you do?
9) Target the weak and screw the average and best players?
10) Or target the best and screw the weak players?
11) Or do you simply just mix it up equally which benefits the average and weak players but screws the best players on the team?
12) Could it be why or why not?
13) Calling out Docs?

is this a homework assignment ?

 

[Primetime]

The no GK trainer thing would be a deal killer for me at any club (no matter how desperate we are for it or to break into that next level). My son has a trainer now who is the best of the best and who catches little things neither I nor his old club trainer would have every caught. The once a week has done more to progress his playing than anything. I rather go to a club without free GK training than give him up. (Besides, old club has had 4 GK coaches in 1 year...currently his old field trainer is the GK trainer....great field trainer, has the GK basics, is up on the latest thinking but never played the position and misses some of the nuances an experienced GK might see).

If DS stick with goalkeeping I'm resigned to be a club hopper. If there are 2 GKs on a club it seems really unstable unless the 2 GKs are roughly equal caliber and the coach is willing to have them play a few minutes on the field. If one GK outperforms the other, the coach is either going to be under pressure to give the stronger one more minutes, or the stronger one will resent having to share minutes with the weaker one "for political reasons".

As they get older your gonna see 2 keepers on every team. Especially at the higher levels.

 

[Grace T.]

. It’s not about keeping the individual player who had failed to develop and has fallen below the bar because he or she is not working as hard as the rest outside of team practice and feels entitled to play in games because they are part of the team. It’s about giving them the right opportunity they needed to find the right team that truly matches their goals and expectations towards their own development process needs

If that were the case then clubs would make an effort to place dropped players in an appropriately placed team (either within the club, or if none exists somewhere else). Some do, but few and far between since a lot of the coaches are concerned about the wins and the standings since that's what they are judged upon, not the individual players and whether they develop. Most seem content to have the weaker player fill out the roster (and the fee) until something better (the so-called "impact player" everyone is advertising in the soccer boards for) comes along.

As they get older your gonna see 2 keepers on every team. Especially at the higher levels.

Agree, but even in the pros, it doesn't make the situation very stable particularly since the argument for equal play time is harder to justify as you move up in age and difficulty level. The exception is when the 2nd is clearly the weaker keeper and is just happy to play for the team, knowing they won't get many minutes.

 

[Fact]

@Fact if all you got is rating my posts as dumb or old and cannot contribute to the current discussion of the subject matter at hand and just give out negative ratings with no response then you should get lost. Cause it makes you look like a loser and a troll.

I think you are a complete loser for coming on a public forum and blaming a little 8 year old girl for YOUR losing a game. I rate your posts dumb or old because you are full of shit. No one that can be so blatantly mean to a little girl, especially in public, deserves any respect for what they post....there I contributed, happy now?

 

[focomoso]

...If I were to say that all these teams and coaches that say we strive to develop players to their full potential and don’t value winning games and trimming rosters are a package of mere sham sugar coated lies engulfed in BS. Can they really make the so call righteous claim to really be developing players equally and to their fullest potential if there is a huge talent gap in the roster because they don’t recruit or cut players and keep players around for so-called development purposes? And risk the development of the majority of players by disrupting the balance for the development process of the “team” as a whole and in fairness to the unit. Are they really helping the team or are they creating more damage to the whole so-called development process. Could cutting and recruiting players also be looked as part of aiding the development development process? Could it be that the organizations with all the experience, research that take these kinds of measures really just understand the bigger picture better?

This comes from a misunderstanding of how development works.

First, there is no guarantee that the better kids now will be better in a few years. It's possible (I'd say likely) that the majority of the best kids now won't end up being very good in a few years because they're relying on physical attributes and development schedules that won't carry over through puberty. Given that this is the case (just ask any coach that has stayed with multiple teams from 12 to 16), cutting the "lessor" kids when they are young ends up hurting the development of the players who end up sticking with the sport at the higher levels.

Second, the idea that a player has to be on the best team with the best kids to progress is false. I used to think this way and put my son into the DA (even playing up a year), but the trouble there is that kids start relying on their superstar teammates to get them out of trouble. They don't have to work so hard because someone else has their back. But when a kid is one of the best on the team, they have to step up and play their best all the time. If they don't play well, the team doesn't play well. This teaches leadership and responsibility and, in my view, makes kids better in the long run.

 

[Fact]

You sob you starting to piss me off now cause you keep going back to the same ole BS. And I’ve never blamed her but wanted advice on how to help her. Go fxxx yourself. Do you even know how hard I have worked to help girls on the team to facilitate and make sure they all get an equal chance to progress ? I’m the first one to offer my time and car if they can’t make it to practice. My wife does the same. We pick up girls and take them to outside training with my daughter. I go way out of my way more than anyone else to make sure they are all having fun and enjoying the process by having play dates with my daughter after. I’ve donated more money than anyone else to the team to help. If anyone has financial issues to cover tournament fees, I’m the first to help and come up with solutions. And if some parent could not afford for some reason a tournament or to even stay on the team because it has been a financial burden, I’ll be the first one to help and wouldn’t mine covering their tuition expense. I’m not here to knock down little 8 year old girls. I was concerned cause she was falling behind and had become a liability to the team in big games. So to me? The question was is she on the right team or should she be in another team where she can continue her development progress. The last thing I wanted to see is her totally lose her confidence, develop a phobia and then want to quit the sport because she is scared to play. And if it meant gettin on the coaches face to confront him about it so be it. I’m not a coach but I’m smart enough to recognize when a situation is going in the right or wrong direction. And I’ll speak my mind and give my thoughts whenever possible. Not to be a dick but you are the one coming up with fairy tale stories about your kids having world championship success with minimal effort. Shit like that to me does not exist. You get back what you put in. And if you don’t work hard at something that you claim to say you love and have talent for, you will not have world fame. Simple as that. And that’s why I called out your bull shit

You are the one that keeps mentioning me so I responded.

Now I don’t have time to read all your dribble but your true colors are showing. You don’t get it. You actually just wrote but I am sure you’ll delete it but don’t worry I took a screen shot and you can’t delete it from my post- The 8 year old was a “liability” to your team. You are pathetic. When are you going to learn, you don’t have a right to talk to a coach about someone else’s kid. PERIOD! Loser!

 

[Dargle]

Agree, but even in the pros, it doesn't make the situation very stable particularly since the argument for equal play time is harder to justify as you move up in age and difficulty level. The exception is when the 2nd is clearly the weaker keeper and is just happy to play for the team, knowing they won't get many minutes.

The reason GKs accept being on a team with two, or even three, GKs as they get older is to get exposure. The number of high level teams drop at the older age groups as talent consolidates. For GKs, that can leave some quality players without access to college scouts. So, many of them will join a high level team (particularly DA for boys) understanding that they will get less game time, but knowing they can get more attention. I know many DA teams that will choose which GKs start their junior year depending upon which ones are still trying to get college offers and which scouts will be in attendance. Once a GK has his offer, he'll play less understanding they need to showcase one of the other GKs. Some will even move to an SCDSL Discovery or CSL Premier team at that point, with the blessing of their future college coach, in order to get more playing time and reps.

 

[Eagle33]

The reason GKs accept being on a team with two, or even three, GKs as they get older is to get exposure. The number of high level teams drop at the older age groups as talent consolidates. For GKs, that can leave some quality players without access to college scouts. So, many of them will join a high level team (particularly DA for boys) understanding that they will get less game time, but knowing they can get more attention. I know many DA teams that will choose which GKs start their junior year depending upon which ones are still trying to get college offers and which scouts will be in attendance. Once a GK has his offer, he'll play less understanding they need to showcase one of the other GKs. Some will even move to an SCDSL Discovery or CSL Premier team at that point, with the blessing of their future college coach, in order to get more playing time and reps.

Getting attention while sitting on the bench? It doesn't work this way. Normally goalkeepers don't come on teams to be 3rd or even 2nd keeper. Most of the time they end up in this situation being on a team already before coach recruited someone who is better. In other cases they were either promised starting spot or shared time.

 

[dad4]

the argument for equal play time is harder to justify as you move up in age and difficulty level.

Yes but it needs to be both age and difficulty level, not just one. It may be a flight 1 team, but that is not a good reason to keep an elementary school kid on the bench 2/3 of every game.

 

[Dargle]

Getting attention while sitting on the bench? It doesn't work this way. Normally goalkeepers don't come on teams to be 3rd or even 2nd keeper. Most of the time they end up in this situation being on a team already before coach recruited someone who is better. In other cases they were either promised starting spot or shared time.

Perhaps your experience is different, but I'm telling you what I've seen from observing and speaking with GKs and their parents, both in D1 colleges and still in DA/club, who were actually in these situations in their high school years (especially junior year). Obviously, it doesn't work if the GK never plays, but I'm saying the GK takes reduced play (e.g., rotating every other game or every other half or even every third game) because they want to be showcased at the right time in the right setting. Perhaps you can call that being promised shared time, but I'm telling you that's why they agreed to it when they could have gone elsewhere and gotten 100% of the playing time.

 

[Eagle33]

Perhaps your experience is different, but I'm telling you what I've seen from observing and speaking with GKs and their parents, both in D1 colleges and still in DA/club, who were actually in these situations in their high school years (especially junior year). Obviously, it doesn't work if the GK never plays, but I'm saying the GK takes reduced play (e.g., rotating every other game or every other half or even every third game) because they want to be showcased at the right time in the right setting. Perhaps you can call that being promised shared time, but I'm telling you that's why they agreed to it when they could have gone elsewhere and gotten 100% of the playing time.

My experience is first hand (not observing someone else) with my own kid, who played DA, left DA and now playing at D1 school. So maybe, just maybe I can tell you how it really is.

 

[Dargle]

My experience is first hand (not observing someone else) with my own kid, who played DA, left DA and now playing at D1 school. So maybe, just maybe I can tell you how it really is.

I'm not sure why you're insistent that your anecdote is the only way it is, but even if everyone else was lying or deluded as to why their kid was on a DA team with other GKs, that's their perception of why they were there (and why they left when they did in some cases). The fact is that their kids did end up at D1, so it's not as if they screwed up that badly.

 

[focomoso]

You make some valid points. But you do mention relying on physical attributes. What if that was not the case given the example of a kid who may not have the physical attributes and yet is struggling. To me that’s more of an issue with fit and placement of the right team. Usually clubs have the a,b,c team and if that were the case why not move the kid from the a team to the b team to continue the child’s progress. And if later after puberty they prove themselves then move them back up.

On your second point, that to me is an individual’s case and needs to be addressed appropriately by the coach if they are relying on the best kids talent and not working as hard. That’s the coach’s job to correct and push the kid to work hard. But to say that you can’t maximize development for the team with a talent of equal roster that all work hard is false. If it would be true then you would see it happening in professional sports where talent rosters are constantly being trimmed and balanced for the proper objective to create a team that has the proper synergy. To me it’s about building that synergy within the roster to maximize development and if a few pieces don’t make sense, you adjust them, cut, recruit etc. to balance out your roster. Where one piece may not work well for one team, it may be the solution for another that needs that type of player. I believe it’s all subjective to the vision of the the coach and management for the team. At the end of the day they know what’s best for the team and if it means cutting players at time so be it. The player needs to get clear about what his personal goals and objectives are and if it’s the right match then he or she should go on with the opportunity at hand or figure out where he or she may be a better fit elsewhere. You make sacrifices and adjustment for the purpose of the whole and not for the one. When you cater development efforts to the one, you may be doing more damage to the progress of the whole unit in the end.

You (still) seem to think that winning games at this age means anything at all. Ask any experienced coach who has taken kids to college or beyond or gone through it themselves. Winning games is laughably unimportant at this stage. Your kid doesn't get better by winning games. They get better by working their way out of tough spots. The _worse_ their team is, the more opportunity they have to grow.

 

[focomoso]

Getting attention while sitting on the bench? It doesn't work this way. Normally goalkeepers don't come on teams to be 3rd or even 2nd keeper. Most of the time they end up in this situation being on a team already before coach recruited someone who is better. In other cases they were either promised starting spot or shared time.

I have seen many great GKs accept a spot on a DA knowing they'll split time just because it's DA. Whether that's a good strategy, I don't know, but it seems to be common. For better or worse, the DA label sells.

 

[focomoso]

My experience is first hand (not observing someone else) with my own kid, who played DA, left DA and now playing at D1 school. So maybe, just maybe I can tell you how it really is.

the way it really is... for you. Others make other choices.

 

[dad4]

Not winning games but playing the best competition possible has proven to make players and teams grow. You can have a pretty good team and enter flight 3 league and win all games and gain no development from that. But you can be playing the best teams in flight 1 and lose all the games and still be developing better. There would be plenty of opportunities to get through tough spots in the second scenario. I don’t believe it’s important playing for trophies but there has to be some sort of measurement for progress and how can we do that by winning tough games, competing. That shows development progress. I just don’t see how having a team with extreme differences in talent roster can help the players develop if the best are under achieving the lowest players are being too challenged. Wouldn’t you think if the roster of talent was fairly equal the coach can create a development program for them that all players on the team can get the most out of. Why or why not. Let’s look at the other side of the coin. So what would be the issue or drawback of having a team with an equal talent roster to develop vs one that doesn't, there has to be pros and cons for both sides of the spectrum?

Do you happen to know of actual studies on what kinds of schedules are best for player development? (actual data, not just voice of experience.)

My own thought is that kids learn best when faced with challenges that are within reach. Therefore, try to find as many close games as you can. A 5-5 season with lots of one point games is perfect. conversely, 9-0 games are a waste of both teams’ time.

However, that is just an opinion. I have nothing numeric to back that up or knock it down.

 

[espola]

Getting attention while sitting on the bench? It doesn't work this way. Normally goalkeepers don't come on teams to be 3rd or even 2nd keeper. Most of the time they end up in this situation being on a team already before coach recruited someone who is better. In other cases they were either promised starting spot or shared time.

...or they are on the team for bench-level skills at another position, so there is an understanding already that they are the backup.

 

[Justus]

I have seen many great GKs accept a spot on a DA knowing they'll split time just because it's DA. Whether that's a good strategy, I don't know, but it seems to be common. For better or worse, the DA label sells.

I played GK in AYSO and in the Mexican co-ed adult leagues. Go down to TJ for away game and then home game in El Monte. Fun times. I wanted action. I see some GK get none because their on all star goat team with tough as nails defenders. No shots on goal. I would look to find action and lot's of save opportunities

 

[Keepermom2]

I played GK in AYSO and in the Mexican co-ed adult leagues. Go down to TJ for away game and then home game in El Monte. Fun times. I wanted action. I see some GK get none because their on all star goat team with tough as nails defenders. No shots on goal. I would look to find action and lot's of save opportunities

My daughter is a 13 year old Keeper and we are playing on a team that is winning by landslides because SCDSL didn't want to play us in a higher flight even though half of our team is new and we fought for it. None the less, they focused on last years results in placement. After 5 games we have scored 32 goals. Any way, my daughter just started playing on a Mexican league boys team to get more action and loves it. She is a little nutty. It is so funny...I hate that we are on a winning team! My daughter loves her club team so there you have it! She will get the experience she needs paying $50 to play in a Saturday and Sunday Mexican league.