WWC 2023

That rule does two things. First, it equals the playing field across the countries a bit more. It also ensures the world cup isn't out done.
I also believe in the 70s or 80s the rule was if you had played in a World Cup you could not be in the Olympics.
The earliest Olympic restrictions ruled out all professional players.
 
Agree 100% with chopping heads. But who are you going to replace them with?

Pay to Play is so ingrained in US club and coaching cultures how would you get people to think differently?

Consider that Soccer Coaches aren't Business Ethics scholars. They've learned how business works on the fly by being forced into the meatgrinder at clubs. There's a good chance that many coaches see nothing wrong with Pay to Play. Many have likely benefitted from unethical behaviors.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't pay-to-play in part a function of the restriction on "selling" players in the US? I'm not defending pay-to-play, but any savvy family with a "deserving" player should be able to get their kid scholarshipped at a prominent club. I see pay-to-play as more of a perceived barrier to entry. Parents just assume they can't afford to have our kid play soccer, so they don't even consider having them play. But still, we have more kids playing soccer than any other country. I believe for girls its by a longshot.

In terms of ethics, are you speaking of coaches that make you take privates from them and then get preferential treatment on the team? I didn't see a lot of that on the boys side, is that pretty common for the girls? It sounds like maybe you are considering pay-to-play, something beyond just regular club dues, in which case, I admittedly don't have any experience with (other than with Dance).

We certainly have issues with culture, coaching and development, I'm just not convinced pay-to-play is a big factor in our failures, but I could be missing the point.
 
After a quick scan through the games so far, it appears that 0-0 is the most common game score so far (group play and round of 16). Now I have to do an exhaustive list to confirm that.
I was a little off -- through the first 56 games (48 group play and 8 round of 16 games) there have been 9 games that ended with a 0-0 score, 13 games at 1-0, and 8 at 2-0. All other scores happened 4 or fewer times. The oddball is the 6-3 score when France beat Panama.
 
FIFA and the Olympics restrict players on men's Olympic soccer teams to age 23 or less, with three exceptions per team.
There's no restriction on the women's side though, so its the senior side, if that's what the particular federation wants to do.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't pay-to-play in part a function of the restriction on "selling" players in the US? I'm not defending pay-to-play, but any savvy family with a "deserving" player should be able to get their kid scholarshipped at a prominent club. I see pay-to-play as more of a perceived barrier to entry. Parents just assume they can't afford to have our kid play soccer, so they don't even consider having them play. But still, we have more kids playing soccer than any other country. I believe for girls its by a longshot.

In terms of ethics, are you speaking of coaches that make you take privates from them and then get preferential treatment on the team? I didn't see a lot of that on the boys side, is that pretty common for the girls? It sounds like maybe you are considering pay-to-play, something beyond just regular club dues, in which case, I admittedly don't have any experience with (other than with Dance).

We certainly have issues with culture, coaching and development, I'm just not convinced pay-to-play is a big factor in our failures, but I could be missing the point.
Because of the pay-to-play structure, we are missing the opportunity to bring in young players whose families can't afford the pay part.
 
Because of the pay-to-play structure, we are missing the opportunity to bring in young players whose families can't afford the pay part.
I understand that generality, but there are plenty of recreational programs that are less costly. To me, the ability to get underprivileged kids to practice and games is a bigger issue than cost. I understand we miss out on a few kids, but again we still have the most youth players in the world. I've never looked at any of our national teams and thought they weren't loaded with great athletes. On the women's side that's primarily how we've been able to dominate for so many years.

Our other youth sports are predominantly pay-to-play. and yet we seem to do OK on an international level. Of course, some of those sports are traditionally American. Which leads back to the cultural issue. The antithesis of pay-to-play are pickup soccer games in the street, which culturally we don't have/support because how are you going to learn the game without some coach with an accent barking directions at you.
 
I understand that generality, but there are plenty of recreational programs that are less costly. To me, the ability to get underprivileged kids to practice and games is a bigger issue than cost. I understand we miss out on a few kids, but again we still have the most youth players in the world. I've never looked at any of our national teams and thought they weren't loaded with great athletes. On the women's side that's primarily how we've been able to dominate for so many years.

Our other youth sports are predominantly pay-to-play. and yet we seem to do OK on an international level. Of course, some of those sports are traditionally American. Which leads back to the cultural issue. The antithesis of pay-to-play are pickup soccer games in the street, which culturally we don't have/support because how are you going to learn the game without some coach with an accent barking directions at you.
I would say that the phrase "I've never looked at any of our national teams and thought they weren't loaded with great athletes" sums it up for me. I've heard plenty of coaches (all A level) assert the "give me an athlete and I can teach them soccer" mantra and pick kids accordingly. I would posit that the academy coaches in Europe have a mantra of "show me a kid with high IQ and great technical ability and we can make them athletic (i.e. able to run around a lot)". Athleticism can paper over a lot of cracks, but its no substitute for IQ & technique.
 
I would say that the phrase "I've never looked at any of our national teams and thought they weren't loaded with great athletes" sums it up for me. I've heard plenty of coaches (all A level) assert the "give me an athlete and I can teach them soccer" mantra and pick kids accordingly. I would posit that the academy coaches in Europe have a mantra of "show me a kid with high IQ and great technical ability and we can make them athletic (i.e. able to run around a lot)". Athleticism can paper over a lot of cracks, but its no substitute for IQ & technique.
Couldn't agree with you more. Speed of play is so much more important than speed of foot and size. Someone that can read the field before they receive the ball, receive the ball in one clean touch and then quickly execute a high percentage decision is so much more effective than a kid that runs a 4.3 40 and weighs 180 that your lofting balls to. I look at it as the difference between athleticism and effectiveness. I have nothing against athleticism, my son made it as far as he did in no small part due to his pure speed and coordination (although below average on size). I also loved watching the pure athleticism of the Nigerian teams of the past.

Maybe I'm overthinking this, but I believe that coaches that think they can teach a player soccer IQ, is a symptom of what I believe is our biggest issue with American soccer and that is "over-coaching". This is a great article on overcoaching...how many coaches have your kids had that would check many of these boxes?

"The Perils of Overcoaching Youth Soccer"
By Dave Simeone
U.S. Soccer National Staff
Many sports are coach-oriented rather than player-oriented, leading to the potential for over-coaching. Baseball, basketball, and football-referred to as set-up sports-all demand and allow a high degree of involvement by the coach during games. (Between pitches (baseball) or plays (football) the time and opportunity exist for diagrams to be drawn or the coach to reposition a player.

But soccer is different. In soccer, the involvement of the coach is secondary to the performance of the players. Soccer is fairly uninterrupted. Players must be allowed to make decisions on their own and learn to receive and process information to solve problems during the game.

Soccer coaches must do most of their game preparation work during the week. By game time on the weekend, it is up to the participants to act, make decisions and play!

Answer these questions honestly to determine if you are over-coaching. If you answer "yes" to very many you are over-coaching.

• Do you find that your voice is strained following a game?

• Is the information that you give your players during half time emotional but non- specific? Does it help them solve problems?

• Do you use catch phrases such as "suck it up, boys" or "no pain, no gain"" in attempting to motivate youngsters?

• Do you find that you are sweating and running just as much during the game as the players?

• Are you pre-game, half-time or post-game speeches similar to the president's state of the union address?

• When addressing the players, do you ramble and cause confusion among the players as to the point you are trying to make?

• Are your remarks and instruction made during the game and to players repetitive and redundant? Is this information general, non-specific jargon and cheerleading and is it altering the player's performance?

• Are you reluctant to allow players to make their own decisions during a game?

• Are you constantly barraging players with instructions during the game?

• Do you coach in absolutes such as "always" or "never"?

• Do you choreograph and arrange players into strict starting positions with instructions such as "never go out of your zone" or "defenders should never cross the midline?"

• Have you instructed players to refrain from passing the ball to certain teammates because their present level of ability is, from your adult perspective, inadequate?

• Do you spend an excessive amount of practice time on throw-ins, kick-offs, corner kicks or penalty kicks?

• Are you utilizing methods of training that do not allow players to acquire and improve technical skills, tactical decision-making, physical stamina and confidence (i.e., dribbling through cones, sending in lines awaiting a turn)?

• Are you attempting to improve the team's level of fitness by minimizing the time the players have contact with the ball? Do you view the game as a contest based only on fitness that leads to a preoccupation with running?

• Are you openly emotional or upset when addressing the players to the point that they stare at you and think, "What are you so disturbed about?"

• Do you have difficulty accepting a realistic approach to winning and losing? Do you believe that winning is synonymous with player development?

• Are you constantly aggravated and apprehensive about coaching?

If you answer "no" to the following questions, you may be over-coaching.

• Do your practices produce nearly the same degree of movement as a soccer game?
• Do you enjoy and have fun coaching youngsters?
• Do the players seem to enjoy playing because of your input and involvement as coach?

The games and practices youngsters take part in should be viewed as vehicles for learning. The same is true of their practices. The acquisition of playing ability is a long-term process that begins at the age of five or six. It is unrealistic to expect youngsters 11 years old or younger to have an adult perspective on the game.

Young players are a product of their experiences. They learn more from their experiences (games, activities, the environment) than they do from the coach. The role of the coach is to organize and set up games and activities that allow the players to learn and enjoy the sport.
 
I understand that generality, but there are plenty of recreational programs that are less costly. To me, the ability to get underprivileged kids to practice and games is a bigger issue than cost. I understand we miss out on a few kids, but again we still have the most youth players in the world. I've never looked at any of our national teams and thought they weren't loaded with great athletes. On the women's side that's primarily how we've been able to dominate for so many years.

Our other youth sports are predominantly pay-to-play. and yet we seem to do OK on an international level. Of course, some of those sports are traditionally American. Which leads back to the cultural issue. The antithesis of pay-to-play are pickup soccer games in the street, which culturally we don't have/support because how are you going to learn the game without some coach with an accent barking directions at you.

The transport is absolutely an issue particularly if to play on a high level team you are commuting an hour+ to get to where you need to go (whether it be LA traffic or a hub like Seattle where there's only 1 MLS team).

There are plenty of opportunities to play including AYSO and Latino league and high school. My kid has played Latino league and was worried it would be AYSO...it's not...some really great players there mixed in with AYSO Core level players. Problem is pro scouts and colleges do not look at this. They only look at the letter league clubs with access and a certain very limited number of high schools mostly in SoCal. The consolidation in Socal has made this worse as former independent clubs are struggled or getting absorbed by the big giants which raises the fees.

My son has played as well for Latino based clubs. I can tell you finance is certainly a dissuader for some of the kids, even with MLS Next subsidies. I've seen some including one really talented player drop when the fees get too high. Yes, there are scholarships particularly at the more suburban clubs. But it also caps the number of players those clubs can take given that someone needs to pay the fee...and some of it is cultural...there's a fear on some of those clubs if they get too ghetto it might turn off white/Asian paying customers (who are therefore reluctant also to play for largely Latino based teams).

Finally, I used to always assume the soccer IQ was higher in Latino based communities due to the kids playing pickup at school than white communities. I can tell you that assumption of mine was wrong. Soccer IQ, even among those who follow the sport, in Latino communities is relatively low. For reference, look at the social media where Club America supporters say the game was rigged because it was called against America and not Nashville: the Nashville keeper had a foot on the line which is within the rules, the America keeper did not....it was absolutely the right call. We spent time in Spain and the soccer IQ there even for their rec leagues is much higher than in our Latino (largely Mexican and central American) communities. They talk soccer with the expertise some American families talk gridiron football positions and strategies. My father, who played for the lower level Peruvian pro teams, once got into an argument with a youth ref in SoCal over whether a throw in should be considered offside (you can't be offside on a throw in dear father).

There have been some arguments floating around on social media that girls soccer will change once more Latina girls begin to enter it. That argument is wrong. And it hasn't really changed as much for the men despite that Latinos are heavily involved now. Soccer IQ is poor across the US, even in both communities. It's one of the reasons the Mexican men's team has struggled .Pick up games won't solve that. The only really remedy I see is a free academy system that identifies talent at an early age (and treats them as ruthlessly as Europe does).
 
Honestly nearly every player on other nations team in the WC sings along except us, even the Europeans.
Are you convinced they all know the words - especially the younger ones? I'm not. When do most of them hear it now? That's an honest question. I won't harshly judge a player who stands quietly while our anthem is played. Like @watfly, I am a free-speech absolutist. However, I do find that playing for your country yet kneeling in protest smacks of virtue signaling. If you want to protest, make it known you won't be part of the team until your cause is addressed. Show some commitment - i.e. individual sacrifice - if you believe in a cause.
 
The transport is absolutely an issue particularly if to play on a high level team you are commuting an hour+ to get to where you need to go (whether it be LA traffic or a hub like Seattle where there's only 1 MLS team).

There are plenty of opportunities to play including AYSO and Latino league and high school. My kid has played Latino league and was worried it would be AYSO...it's not...some really great players there mixed in with AYSO Core level players. Problem is pro scouts and colleges do not look at this. They only look at the letter league clubs with access and a certain very limited number of high schools mostly in SoCal. The consolidation in Socal has made this worse as former independent clubs are struggled or getting absorbed by the big giants which raises the fees.

My son has played as well for Latino based clubs. I can tell you finance is certainly a dissuader for some of the kids, even with MLS Next subsidies. I've seen some including one really talented player drop when the fees get too high. Yes, there are scholarships particularly at the more suburban clubs. But it also caps the number of players those clubs can take given that someone needs to pay the fee...and some of it is cultural...there's a fear on some of those clubs if they get too ghetto it might turn off white/Asian paying customers (who are therefore reluctant also to play for largely Latino based teams).

Finally, I used to always assume the soccer IQ was higher in Latino based communities due to the kids playing pickup at school than white communities. I can tell you that assumption of mine was wrong. Soccer IQ, even among those who follow the sport, in Latino communities is relatively low. For reference, look at the social media where Club America supporters say the game was rigged because it was called against America and not Nashville: the Nashville keeper had a foot on the line which is within the rules, the America keeper did not....it was absolutely the right call. We spent time in Spain and the soccer IQ there even for their rec leagues is much higher than in our Latino (largely Mexican and central American) communities. They talk soccer with the expertise some American families talk gridiron football positions and strategies. My father, who played for the lower level Peruvian pro teams, once got into an argument with a youth ref in SoCal over whether a throw in should be considered offside (you can't be offside on a throw in dear father).

There have been some arguments floating around on social media that girls soccer will change once more Latina girls begin to enter it. That argument is wrong. And it hasn't really changed as much for the men despite that Latinos are heavily involved now. Soccer IQ is poor across the US, even in both communities. It's one of the reasons the Mexican men's team has struggled .Pick up games won't solve that. The only really remedy I see is a free academy system that identifies talent at an early age (and treats them as ruthlessly as Europe does).
I appreciate your perspective. I agree that street soccer isn't going to turn our country's development around.

The million dollar question (if we believe that soccer IQ is our biggest issue) is how do we improve our soccer IQ? I don't know that just having our "best" kids in a free academy system is going to work without wholesale changes in coaching and development philosophy. I don't know that parents and kids are going to accept a ruthless system, when culturally we've gotten kinda soft. Soccer is life in other countries, and are we going to sacrifice education and other sports to meet the demands of a ruthless system?

I believe you had mentioned that kids learn by making mistakes and that most coaches discourage and/or criticize players for making mistakes. That is so true. Many may think this is trivial, but there is a huge difference between a coach criticizing a player and saying "you should have done this" vs "what happened there? what other options might have been better?". You have so many options both on and off the ball in soccer, often there isn't a right answer, but some answers are better than others. Kids have to develop that innate decision making skill and coaches can guide them but they can't direct them to the best answers.

So if any organization was dumb enough to ask me for advice, I would say play futsal until U12 (which gives you a lot of touches and forces you to make quick decisions) , don't overcoach players and try to instill a passion in the sport. Maybe follow some of the principles of Tom Byer who helped revolutionize Japanese soccer. (Of course, US Soccer hired him to run a pilot program, but unceremoniously fired him before he could get the program off the ground).

I think were probably being too quick to write-off the women's program and men's is improving, but I still think we need to make major changes, even though it probably won't result in us being top program on a year-to-year basis because the cultural issue is tough to overcome.
 
I would say that the phrase "I've never looked at any of our national teams and thought they weren't loaded with great athletes" sums it up for me. I've heard plenty of coaches (all A level) assert the "give me an athlete and I can teach them soccer" mantra and pick kids accordingly. I would posit that the academy coaches in Europe have a mantra of "show me a kid with high IQ and great technical ability and we can make them athletic (i.e. able to run around a lot)". Athleticism can paper over a lot of cracks, but its no substitute for IQ & technique.

"BULLSHIT! Give me some American male athletes and I'll show you how to outrun a ball." - Sincerely, MLS
 
Couldn't agree with you more. Speed of play is so much more important than speed of foot and size. Someone that can read the field before they receive the ball, receive the ball in one clean touch and then quickly execute a high percentage decision is so much more effective than a kid that runs a 4.3 40 and weighs 180 that your lofting balls to. I look at it as the difference between athleticism and effectiveness. I have nothing against athleticism, my son made it as far as he did in no small part due to his pure speed and coordination (although below average on size). I also loved watching the pure athleticism of the Nigerian teams of the past.

Maybe I'm overthinking this, but I believe that coaches that think they can teach a player soccer IQ, is a symptom of what I believe is our biggest issue with American soccer and that is "over-coaching". This is a great article on overcoaching...how many coaches have your kids had that would check many of these boxes?

"The Perils of Overcoaching Youth Soccer"
By Dave Simeone
U.S. Soccer National Staff
Many sports are coach-oriented rather than player-oriented, leading to the potential for over-coaching. Baseball, basketball, and football-referred to as set-up sports-all demand and allow a high degree of involvement by the coach during games. (Between pitches (baseball) or plays (football) the time and opportunity exist for diagrams to be drawn or the coach to reposition a player.

But soccer is different. In soccer, the involvement of the coach is secondary to the performance of the players. Soccer is fairly uninterrupted. Players must be allowed to make decisions on their own and learn to receive and process information to solve problems during the game.

Soccer coaches must do most of their game preparation work during the week. By game time on the weekend, it is up to the participants to act, make decisions and play!

Answer these questions honestly to determine if you are over-coaching. If you answer "yes" to very many you are over-coaching.

• Do you find that your voice is strained following a game?

• Is the information that you give your players during half time emotional but non- specific? Does it help them solve problems?

• Do you use catch phrases such as "suck it up, boys" or "no pain, no gain"" in attempting to motivate youngsters?

• Do you find that you are sweating and running just as much during the game as the players?

• Are you pre-game, half-time or post-game speeches similar to the president's state of the union address?

• When addressing the players, do you ramble and cause confusion among the players as to the point you are trying to make?

• Are your remarks and instruction made during the game and to players repetitive and redundant? Is this information general, non-specific jargon and cheerleading and is it altering the player's performance?

• Are you reluctant to allow players to make their own decisions during a game?

• Are you constantly barraging players with instructions during the game?

• Do you coach in absolutes such as "always" or "never"?

• Do you choreograph and arrange players into strict starting positions with instructions such as "never go out of your zone" or "defenders should never cross the midline?"

• Have you instructed players to refrain from passing the ball to certain teammates because their present level of ability is, from your adult perspective, inadequate?

• Do you spend an excessive amount of practice time on throw-ins, kick-offs, corner kicks or penalty kicks?

• Are you utilizing methods of training that do not allow players to acquire and improve technical skills, tactical decision-making, physical stamina and confidence (i.e., dribbling through cones, sending in lines awaiting a turn)?

• Are you attempting to improve the team's level of fitness by minimizing the time the players have contact with the ball? Do you view the game as a contest based only on fitness that leads to a preoccupation with running?

• Are you openly emotional or upset when addressing the players to the point that they stare at you and think, "What are you so disturbed about?"

• Do you have difficulty accepting a realistic approach to winning and losing? Do you believe that winning is synonymous with player development?

• Are you constantly aggravated and apprehensive about coaching?

If you answer "no" to the following questions, you may be over-coaching.

• Do your practices produce nearly the same degree of movement as a soccer game?
• Do you enjoy and have fun coaching youngsters?
• Do the players seem to enjoy playing because of your input and involvement as coach?

The games and practices youngsters take part in should be viewed as vehicles for learning. The same is true of their practices. The acquisition of playing ability is a long-term process that begins at the age of five or six. It is unrealistic to expect youngsters 11 years old or younger to have an adult perspective on the game.

Young players are a product of their experiences. They learn more from their experiences (games, activities, the environment) than they do from the coach. The role of the coach is to organize and set up games and activities that allow the players to learn and enjoy the sport.

Damn... a lot of these apply to my love making.
 
My limited experience in youth soccer does not support the idea that we are missing out on potentially elite, National Team level players due to pay-to-play. From the club side, if a player looks like they can help a team win, a coach will want her on the team. We were fortunate to play with an excellent coach who trained players to be skillful soccer players. The club regularly had multiple girls on "scholarship." From the player side, those who will develop into elite performers have an innate need to train and play like they need air to breathe. They find ways to play because that is their passion. I do believe we may be missing many potentially good players due to pay-to-play, but the ones who have the potential to be elite get noticed, and clubs come calling.

The most upside in US soccer is available through better training and skill development - especially at young ages. As others have mentioned, tactics revolving around superior athleticism stunt the development of skill on the ball and soccer IQ.

I would like to see a bigger pool of National Team level players split into regions that regularly play each other. See how potential and current National Team players look head-to-head. Even if the team ends up with the same players it has now, there would be a feeling that a spot is earned as opposed to a "lifetime" appointment.
 
My limited experience in youth soccer does not support the idea that we are missing out on potentially elite, National Team level players due to pay-to-play. From the club side, if a player looks like they can help a team win, a coach will want her on the team. We were fortunate to play with an excellent coach who trained players to be skillful soccer players. The club regularly had multiple girls on "scholarship." From the player side, those who will develop into elite performers have an innate need to train and play like they need air to breathe. They find ways to play because that is their passion. I do believe we may be missing many potentially good players due to pay-to-play, but the ones who have the potential to be elite get noticed, and clubs come calling.

The most upside in US soccer is available through better training and skill development - especially at young ages. As others have mentioned, tactics revolving around superior athleticism stunt the development of skill on the ball and soccer IQ.

I would like to see a bigger pool of National Team level players split into regions that regularly play each other. See how potential and current National Team players look head-to-head. Even if the team ends up with the same players it has now, there would be a feeling that a spot is earned as opposed to a "lifetime" appointment.
Part of the problem is our ID and many of the scholarships come late. In Europe, academy identification is now as young as 7 (and in Spain they play small sided for much longer, which is why Spanish teams can struggle at Mic when they are younger). In the US, much of the club identification is the more athletic, early blooming player.
 
I appreciate your perspective. I agree that street soccer isn't going to turn our country's development around.

The million dollar question (if we believe that soccer IQ is our biggest issue) is how do we improve our soccer IQ? I don't know that just having our "best" kids in a free academy system is going to work without wholesale changes in coaching and development philosophy. I don't know that parents and kids are going to accept a ruthless system, when culturally we've gotten kinda soft. Soccer is life in other countries, and are we going to sacrifice education and other sports to meet the demands of a ruthless system?

I believe you had mentioned that kids learn by making mistakes and that most coaches discourage and/or criticize players for making mistakes. That is so true. Many may think this is trivial, but there is a huge difference between a coach criticizing a player and saying "you should have done this" vs "what happened there? what other options might have been better?". You have so many options both on and off the ball in soccer, often there isn't a right answer, but some answers are better than others. Kids have to develop that innate decision making skill and coaches can guide them but they can't direct them to the best answers.

So if any organization was dumb enough to ask me for advice, I would say play futsal until U12 (which gives you a lot of touches and forces you to make quick decisions) , don't overcoach players and try to instill a passion in the sport. Maybe follow some of the principles of Tom Byer who helped revolutionize Japanese soccer. (Of course, US Soccer hired him to run a pilot program, but unceremoniously fired him before he could get the program off the ground).

I think were probably being too quick to write-off the women's program and men's is improving, but I still think we need to make major changes, even though it probably won't result in us being top program on a year-to-year basis because the cultural issue is tough to overcome.
One of the reasons AYSO fell from the broad scope it had was because the coaches didn't have soccer IQ knowledge so parents went to the clubs where supposedly the coaches with English accents knew more than the coaches (like my first son's AYSO core coach) who were having kids line up in the gridiron 3 point stance. The problem, however, was that many of these English coaches weren't the cream of the crop (as illustrated in the book "Desperate Soccer Moms"). They were mostly washouts in their home countries looking to fill the void here. Our coaching knowledge isn't particularly deep here in the US even for those getting paid (poor instructors beget incomplete students and many of those instructors still have English accents...mine for my E&D had). The forray into self-explored learning that permeates grassroots soccer (much as it does our current schools as a fad) also didn't help. It's enough to teach kids looking to play college. It's not enough at the early years to create pros with strong soccer IQ.

My son was once reamed out in the middle of a league cup game when his first bronze team was facing their first silver level opponent. My son let in a goal and afterwards approached the coach and asked him what he did wrong. The instruction he got was he needed "to do better". That was useful. My son in the recent past had a long 1v1 he got beat on and approached the coach (a Latino coach with a strong knowledge of the game and who actively watches and played the sport) what he could do better. The coach told him he's always falling back to the 6 on his 1 v 1s and shouldn't drop to the goal, instead rushing out from wherever he is, even if it's outside the box. That advice is wrong. Rushing out and sliding feet first is a good way to get a red card (keepers should never slide feet first if in the box and outside it's only for very specific situations where a red card can be avoided). Holding in place is wrong: the striker either just runs around you or chips you if the ball is more in their control than the keeper's. Every knowledgeable goalkeeper coach he's ever taken with (including the local greats) has instructed the proper answer is to fall back to the 6. He did make a mistake, but that wasn't it. His mistake was he was set leaning backwards. Only spotted it with the non club GK looked at the footage later....the coach's advice was wrong.
 
In the US, much of the club identification is the more athletic, early blooming player.
This was generally true based on the teams we saw in youth soccer. However, on the team my daughter played on through most of youth soccer, the bias was toward those who were best at "small ball" games - typically, smaller, quicker, more coordinated players. The problem I see is that the players that could benefit the most from the "small ball" games/drills were playing on teams that often played the long ball instead of playing the long game.

My solution is that youth soccer games (until about 10 years old?) consist of two separate game activities that all players participate in. One is a "small ball" game with no goalie to incent training in ball skill work, and the other is a more traditional game with a goalie.
 
This was generally true based on the teams we saw in youth soccer. However, on the team my daughter played on through most of youth soccer, the bias was toward those who were best at "small ball" games - typically, smaller, quicker, more coordinated players. The problem I see is that the players that could benefit the most from the "small ball" games/drills were playing on teams that often played the long ball instead of playing the long game.

My solution is that youth soccer games (until about 10 years old?) consist of two separate game activities that all players participate in. One is a "small ball" game with no goalie to incent training in ball skill work, and the other is a more traditional game with a goalie.
Like it. Would help GKs with their feet too, especially now that 6 and 7 year olds are showing up to training. How can we get you on the national board?
 
The coach told him he's always falling back to the 6 on his 1 v 1s and shouldn't drop to the goal, instead rushing out from wherever he is, even if it's outside the box. That advice is wrong. Rushing out and sliding feet first is a good way to get a red card (keepers should never slide feet first if in the box and outside it's only for very specific situations where a red card can be avoided). Holding in place is wrong: the striker either just runs around you or chips you if the ball is more in their control than the keeper's. Every knowledgeable goalkeeper coach he's ever taken with (including the local greats) has instructed the proper answer is to fall back to the 6. He did make a mistake, but that wasn't it. His mistake was he was set leaning backwards. Only spotted it with the non club GK looked at the footage later....the coach's advice was wrong.
I'm going to disagree with you a bit here. While goalkeeping is a little more precise than playing in the field, there are no absolutes in soccer. Like the overcoaching article mentions, coaches need to avoid using terms like "always" and "never". Soccer is the most situational sport with multiple variables you have to assess in a split second. Falling back to the 6 may have been the appropriate decision in your son's circumstance, but never sliding feet first would be taking a very valuable tool out of a keeper's tool box. It's effective, albeit with risk. Personally, I haven't seen it result in as many red cards as you have experienced. These risk/return equations are all things that a soccer player needs to understand to develop their soccer IQ. One of my pet peeve's is seeing a goalie rush out to stop a 1v1 and suddenly stop and backpedal in retreat. That typically doesn't end well as you've released much of the pressure on the attacker and are likely off-balance as you backpedal. Even if you've made the wrong decision to charge the attacker, you're only going to compound the problem by retreating.
 
I'm going to disagree with you a bit here. While goalkeeping is a little more precise than playing in the field, there are no absolutes in soccer. Like the overcoaching article mentions, coaches need to avoid using terms like "always" and "never". Soccer is the most situational sport with multiple variables you have to assess in a split second. Falling back to the 6 may have been the appropriate decision in your son's circumstance, but never sliding feet first would be taking a very valuable tool out of a keeper's tool box. It's effective, albeit with risk. Personally, I haven't seen it result in as many red cards as you have experienced. These risk/return equations are all things that a soccer player needs to understand to develop their soccer IQ. One of my pet peeve's is seeing a goalie rush out to stop a 1v1 and suddenly stop and backpedal in retreat. That typically doesn't end well as you've released much of the pressure on the attacker and are likely off-balance as you backpedal. Even if you've made the wrong decision to charge the attacker, you're only going to compound the problem by retreating.
The advice to my son when he played as a keeper was to either go for the ball or stay on the line. Playing halfway was only to the benefit of the attacker.
 
Back
Top