stifiling young soccer players by over-coaching

[Anonymous]

My former pro coach soccer dad sends me daily emails about the poor state of soccer in this country and the crap Academies that are messing with the game here in the U.S. Today this excerpt from Paul Gardner's part 2 on "The Growth of Academies.." in Soccer America was like a punch to the stomach after watching 7-year olds being told to stop dribbling and stay in position in a 3 V 3 scrimmage :

Because the academies may be producing crops of superior defenders. That is quite likely. The most important academies are those attached to pro clubs, whose coaches may well encourage the developing of better defenders -- usually considered the bedrock of a successful team. Add to that possible bias another definite bias: Given the strict tactical and positional requirements of defensive play, defenders, and particularly goalkeepers, are much more amenable to teaching than are players at the front end of the team.

Flooding the sport with superior defenders sounds like a recipe for less goal scoring. It is unlikely to make the game more exciting and entertaining.

Luckily, that fear may be misplaced. As it happens, I haven’t been particularly aware of a influx of great young defenders appearing on the scene -- so the academies’ inability to develop better players may take in all positions -- except possibly, goalkeepers, who are always the odd man out anyway.

It may be that it’s time to step back from the pedagogic frontiers, to stop paying so much attention to the process and the technique of teaching. That is unquestionably of great academic interest ... but how does it fare when used to teach the playing of soccer?

Most of the advice that used to pass for coaching wisdom has deservedly joined the Dodo. In my youth it was common to hear phrases like “Play it the way you’re facing!”, “Don’t pass to anyone who’s marked”, and, in my case, after yet another poor pass, “Yours are the ones in white, Gardner.” Plus the usual “Let him know you’re there!” and “Get stuck in!” and so on. Pretty awful stuff.

Even so, there is one piece of wisdom that was heard then, and is still heard today. Not shouted -- merely offered as an observation: The game is the best coach. Which means, of course, that the coach is not the best coach. I suspect that is something that no one, no coach, who has been swept up into the world of the academies would accept.

If the game is really the best coach, then we need a lot more playing of the game -- not supervised by adults -- and a lot less of the academic approach of teaching. Teaching what, anyway? A vital part of soccer, the artistry and the creativity, cannot be taught. Just as it cannot be measured by computers. But it can be suppressed.

Is this what we’re getting? The things that can be taught -- and therefore presumably learned -- are the defensive side of the game. I don’t doubt that such things are taught splendidly in the academies. But I’d rather the emphasis were put somewhere else. Academy products will definitely be more highly trained, more tactically aware than previous generations of boys. Whether that necessarily makes for better soccer -- I rather doubt that.

I do believe that too much emphasis on teaching -- however expert it may be -- tends to shrivel a young player’s soccer personality. Playing in games -- without frequent interruptions from coaches -- allows a boy to learn without being taught, or instructed, allows his personal traits, foibles, flairs and whimsies to develop and those are the qualities that distinguish a talented artist from a robot.

I fear a lot of those personal touches would be frowned on by the academy coaches, probably suppressed in the name of “correcting bad habits.” Of course, there’s a nice academic discipline involved in that, getting the pupils to do things correctly -- but I think the academies need to do more. They need to demonstrate, incontestably, that their didactic, academic approach is the right one.

Right now, the evidence seems to me to point in the other direction: That nurturing young soccer talent needs a very flexible, non-programmed approach. Developing team players -- which will surely be a top target in the pro-linked academies -- is not the same thing as developing individual players. Players with their own soccer personality, their own set of skills, their own magic, maybe their own genius. Rare players, but the sort of players that soccer has relied on for over 100 years to raise it above, way above, simply a bunch of guys running about.

This is not necessarily about a Messi or a Neymar or a Ronaldo or a Rooney -- players who, almost from birth, were recognized as exceptional. It is highly likely that such amazing talent will be respected wherever the player goes, a youth club, an academy or wherever. That has nearly always been the case, and the academies are not likely to change that.

But just below that level lurk the nearly-lads, those with a hidden genius that needs help to blossom. Maybe they are lacking in self-confidence, maybe they have too much of it, maybe they are lazy, or find it difficult to “fit in” -- they are problem kids who need careful attention if their genius is to be realized.

But before it can be realized, the genius must be recognized. I wonder whether the academies, with their scholastic approach, are equipped to nurture the mavericks? If they cannot, for philosophic reasons, do the job, that would not only be another mark against them, it would also be a huge disappointment.

What better statement of their own value could the academies make than to ensure a future in the sport for highly talented maverick players, those who, in the past, may have been “coached” out of the game, or simply ignored? Not an easy project, but one that would firmly establish the value of the academy system.

[Anonymous]

Summary? I'm happy to discuss the issue, but that was too long-winded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Summary? I'm happy to discuss the issue, but that was too long-winded.

I think OP was saying there's too much emphasis on skills and not enough on playing.

Kind of like what parents say about schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Summary? I'm happy to discuss the issue, but that was too long-winded.

I think OP was saying there's too much emphasis on skills and not enough on playing.

Kind of like what parents say about schools

No. There is too much over-coaching. Yelling at kids at 7, 8, 9 anytime they take more than few touches. Discouraging dribbling and taking players on. Too much focusing on a defensive-style of play which is easier to teach. Too much emphasis on a pass-centric game in the early years of learning soccer. Too many coaches stopping games/scrimmages in practice and over-coaching. Too much robotic coaching. Not recognizing individuality.

The ball-skill ---which is learned by dribbling is exactly what they aren't emphasizing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Summary? I'm happy to discuss the issue, but that was too long-winded.

I think OP was saying there's too much emphasis on skills and not enough on playing.

Kind of like what parents say about schools

No. There is too much over-coaching. Yelling at kids at 7, 8, 9 anytime they take more than few touches. Discouraging dribbling and taking players on. Too much focusing on a defensive-style of play which is easier to teach. Too much emphasis on a pass-centric game in the early years of learning soccer. Too many coaches stopping games/scrimmages in practice and over-coaching. Too much robotic coaching. Not recognizing individuality.

The ball-skill ---which is learned by dribbling is exactly what they aren't emphasizing.

I have witnessed youth coaching at places like Real Madrid and Benfica. The difference is creativity and on-the-ball technique is ingrained early not at academies but due to permeating street/casual football culture that is everywhere. Non-structured football in the US is vastly behind other football-culture countries and that matters greatly. Esp at RM, academy coaching gets pretty structured and philosophy focused.

I don't think the US does a great job making defenders either. Who is the last great US defender? The last 3/4 best US players played in attack (dempsey, donovan), midfield (bradley), or GK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My former pro coach soccer dad sends me daily emails about the poor state of soccer in this country and the crap Academies that are messing with the game here in the U.S. Today this excerpt from Paul Gardner's part 2 on "The Growth of Academies.." in Soccer America was like a punch to the stomach after watching 7-year olds being told to stop dribbling and stay in position in a 3 V 3 scrimmage :

Because the academies may be producing crops of superior defenders. That is quite likely. The most important academies are those attached to pro clubs, whose coaches may well encourage the developing of better defenders -- usually considered the bedrock of a successful team. Add to that possible bias another definite bias: Given the strict tactical and positional requirements of defensive play, defenders, and particularly goalkeepers, are much more amenable to teaching than are players at the front end of the team.

Flooding the sport with superior defenders sounds like a recipe for less goal scoring. It is unlikely to make the game more exciting and entertaining.

Luckily, that fear may be misplaced. As it happens, I haven’t been particularly aware of a influx of great young defenders appearing on the scene -- so the academies’ inability to develop better players may take in all positions -- except possibly, goalkeepers, who are always the odd man out anyway.

It may be that it’s time to step back from the pedagogic frontiers, to stop paying so much attention to the process and the technique of teaching. That is unquestionably of great academic interest ... but how does it fare when used to teach the playing of soccer?

Most of the advice that used to pass for coaching wisdom has deservedly joined the Dodo. In my youth it was common to hear phrases like “Play it the way you’re facing!”, “Don’t pass to anyone who’s marked”, and, in my case, after yet another poor pass, “Yours are the ones in white, Gardner.” Plus the usual “Let him know you’re there!” and “Get stuck in!” and so on. Pretty awful stuff.

Even so, there is one piece of wisdom that was heard then, and is still heard today. Not shouted -- merely offered as an observation: The game is the best coach. Which means, of course, that the coach is not the best coach. I suspect that is something that no one, no coach, who has been swept up into the world of the academies would accept.

If the game is really the best coach, then we need a lot more playing of the game -- not supervised by adults -- and a lot less of the academic approach of teaching. Teaching what, anyway? A vital part of soccer, the artistry and the creativity, cannot be taught. Just as it cannot be measured by computers. But it can be suppressed.

Is this what we’re getting? The things that can be taught -- and therefore presumably learned -- are the defensive side of the game. I don’t doubt that such things are taught splendidly in the academies. But I’d rather the emphasis were put somewhere else. Academy products will definitely be more highly trained, more tactically aware than previous generations of boys. Whether that necessarily makes for better soccer -- I rather doubt that.

I do believe that too much emphasis on teaching -- however expert it may be -- tends to shrivel a young player’s soccer personality. Playing in games -- without frequent interruptions from coaches -- allows a boy to learn without being taught, or instructed, allows his personal traits, foibles, flairs and whimsies to develop and those are the qualities that distinguish a talented artist from a robot.

I fear a lot of those personal touches would be frowned on by the academy coaches, probably suppressed in the name of “correcting bad habits.” Of course, there’s a nice academic discipline involved in that, getting the pupils to do things correctly -- but I think the academies need to do more. They need to demonstrate, incontestably, that their didactic, academic approach is the right one.

Right now, the evidence seems to me to point in the other direction: That nurturing young soccer talent needs a very flexible, non-programmed approach. Developing team players -- which will surely be a top target in the pro-linked academies -- is not the same thing as developing individual players. Players with their own soccer personality, their own set of skills, their own magic, maybe their own genius. Rare players, but the sort of players that soccer has relied on for over 100 years to raise it above, way above, simply a bunch of guys running about.

This is not necessarily about a Messi or a Neymar or a Ronaldo or a Rooney -- players who, almost from birth, were recognized as exceptional. It is highly likely that such amazing talent will be respected wherever the player goes, a youth club, an academy or wherever. That has nearly always been the case, and the academies are not likely to change that.

But just below that level lurk the nearly-lads, those with a hidden genius that needs help to blossom. Maybe they are lacking in self-confidence, maybe they have too much of it, maybe they are lazy, or find it difficult to “fit in” -- they are problem kids who need careful attention if their genius is to be realized.

But before it can be realized, the genius must be recognized. I wonder whether the academies, with their scholastic approach, are equipped to nurture the mavericks? If they cannot, for philosophic reasons, do the job, that would not only be another mark against them, it would also be a huge disappointment.

What better statement of their own value could the academies make than to ensure a future in the sport for highly talented maverick players, those who, in the past, may have been “coached” out of the game, or simply ignored? Not an easy project, but one that would firmly establish the value of the academy system.

the 2010 Spanish national team was one of the most 'defensive' teams to ever win the world cup. Flooding the sport with impeccable technicians can be stifling too. Poor logic in the article. The rest is decent enough.

[Anonymous]

Even better than a summary -- how about we respect copyright and give Soccer America a few page views by linking to the piece rather than copying the whole thing?

http://www.socceramerica.com/article/66592/the-growth-of-the-academies-part-2-is-there-any.html

There will be a SoccerWire piece today along these lines.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My former pro coach soccer dad sends me daily emails about the poor state of soccer in this country and the crap Academies that are messing with the game here in the U.S. Today this excerpt from Paul Gardner's part 2 on "The Growth of Academies.." in Soccer America was like a punch to the stomach after watching 7-year olds being told to stop dribbling and stay in position in a 3 V 3 scrimmage :

Because the academies may be producing crops of superior defenders. That is quite likely. The most important academies are those attached to pro clubs, whose coaches may well encourage the developing of better defenders -- usually considered the bedrock of a successful team. Add to that possible bias another definite bias: Given the strict tactical and positional requirements of defensive play, defenders, and particularly goalkeepers, are much more amenable to teaching than are players at the front end of the team.

Flooding the sport with superior defenders sounds like a recipe for less goal scoring. It is unlikely to make the game more exciting and entertaining.

Luckily, that fear may be misplaced. As it happens, I haven’t been particularly aware of a influx of great young defenders appearing on the scene -- so the academies’ inability to develop better players may take in all positions -- except possibly, goalkeepers, who are always the odd man out anyway.

It may be that it’s time to step back from the pedagogic frontiers, to stop paying so much attention to the process and the technique of teaching. That is unquestionably of great academic interest ... but how does it fare when used to teach the playing of soccer?

Most of the advice that used to pass for coaching wisdom has deservedly joined the Dodo. In my youth it was common to hear phrases like “Play it the way you’re facing!”, “Don’t pass to anyone who’s marked”, and, in my case, after yet another poor pass, “Yours are the ones in white, Gardner.” Plus the usual “Let him know you’re there!” and “Get stuck in!” and so on. Pretty awful stuff.

Even so, there is one piece of wisdom that was heard then, and is still heard today. Not shouted -- merely offered as an observation: The game is the best coach. Which means, of course, that the coach is not the best coach. I suspect that is something that no one, no coach, who has been swept up into the world of the academies would accept.

If the game is really the best coach, then we need a lot more playing of the game -- not supervised by adults -- and a lot less of the academic approach of teaching. Teaching what, anyway? A vital part of soccer, the artistry and the creativity, cannot be taught. Just as it cannot be measured by computers. But it can be suppressed.

Is this what we’re getting? The things that can be taught -- and therefore presumably learned -- are the defensive side of the game. I don’t doubt that such things are taught splendidly in the academies. But I’d rather the emphasis were put somewhere else. Academy products will definitely be more highly trained, more tactically aware than previous generations of boys. Whether that necessarily makes for better soccer -- I rather doubt that.

I do believe that too much emphasis on teaching -- however expert it may be -- tends to shrivel a young player’s soccer personality. Playing in games -- without frequent interruptions from coaches -- allows a boy to learn without being taught, or instructed, allows his personal traits, foibles, flairs and whimsies to develop and those are the qualities that distinguish a talented artist from a robot.

I fear a lot of those personal touches would be frowned on by the academy coaches, probably suppressed in the name of “correcting bad habits.” Of course, there’s a nice academic discipline involved in that, getting the pupils to do things correctly -- but I think the academies need to do more. They need to demonstrate, incontestably, that their didactic, academic approach is the right one.

Right now, the evidence seems to me to point in the other direction: That nurturing young soccer talent needs a very flexible, non-programmed approach. Developing team players -- which will surely be a top target in the pro-linked academies -- is not the same thing as developing individual players. Players with their own soccer personality, their own set of skills, their own magic, maybe their own genius. Rare players, but the sort of players that soccer has relied on for over 100 years to raise it above, way above, simply a bunch of guys running about.

This is not necessarily about a Messi or a Neymar or a Ronaldo or a Rooney -- players who, almost from birth, were recognized as exceptional. It is highly likely that such amazing talent will be respected wherever the player goes, a youth club, an academy or wherever. That has nearly always been the case, and the academies are not likely to change that.

But just below that level lurk the nearly-lads, those with a hidden genius that needs help to blossom. Maybe they are lacking in self-confidence, maybe they have too much of it, maybe they are lazy, or find it difficult to “fit in” -- they are problem kids who need careful attention if their genius is to be realized.

But before it can be realized, the genius must be recognized. I wonder whether the academies, with their scholastic approach, are equipped to nurture the mavericks? If they cannot, for philosophic reasons, do the job, that would not only be another mark against them, it would also be a huge disappointment.

What better statement of their own value could the academies make than to ensure a future in the sport for highly talented maverick players, those who, in the past, may have been “coached” out of the game, or simply ignored? Not an easy project, but one that would firmly establish the value of the academy system.

the 2010 Spanish national team was one of the most 'defensive' teams to ever win the world cup. Flooding the sport with impeccable technicians can be stifling too. Poor logic in the article. The rest is decent enough.

Goals win games. Defensive-style dominant teams are rarely the winners. Ideally, a team can achieve both styles. However, seeing youth coaches making their forwards play so far back and the strategy being kick it out of bounds on defense to avoid a goal--not much hope for either here in the U.S.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Summary? I'm happy to discuss the issue, but that was too long-winded.

I think OP was saying there's too much emphasis on skills and not enough on playing.

Kind of like what parents say about schools

No. There is too much over-coaching. Yelling at kids at 7, 8, 9 anytime they take more than few touches. Discouraging dribbling and taking players on. Too much focusing on a defensive-style of play which is easier to teach. Too much emphasis on a pass-centric game in the early years of learning soccer. Too many coaches stopping games/scrimmages in practice and over-coaching. Too much robotic coaching. Not recognizing individuality.

The ball-skill ---which is learned by dribbling is exactly what they aren't emphasizing.

I have witnessed youth coaching at places like Real Madrid and Benfica. The difference is creativity and on-the-ball technique is ingrained early not at academies but due to permeating street/casual football culture that is everywhere. Non-structured football in the US is vastly behind other football-culture countries and that matters greatly. Esp at RM, academy coaching gets pretty structured and philosophy focused.

I don't think the US does a great job making defenders either. Who is the last great US defender? The last 3/4 best US players played in attack (dempsey, donovan), midfield (bradley), or GK.

Try Sauerbrunn, Klingenberg, and Johnston. You're looking in the wrong places.

[Anonymous]

Really? who cares, soccer is not popular here and will not become popular here until they pay big $$$ for top players to play here in their prime not when they are washed up.

Skills need to be developed but people want to see goals. The same goes for basketball. You see kids all day long practicing 3 pointers but never see them practicing passing, shooting, defense.

what gets ratings? scoring, when you have ratings you have advertising $$$$

all about the $$$$

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My former pro coach soccer dad sends me daily emails about the poor state of soccer in this country and the crap Academies that are messing with the game here in the U.S. Today this excerpt from Paul Gardner's part 2 on "The Growth of Academies.." in Soccer America was like a punch to the stomach after watching 7-year olds being told to stop dribbling and stay in position in a 3 V 3 scrimmage :

I think you and your dad need to take a break from mainstream soccer media if you are both getting so worked up over articles like that. "Daily emails" and "Punch to the stomach"? Really?

I'm sure the author has witnessed some examples of the things he's concerned about, but it seems like a big leap to say that it's a systematic issue. In the States at least you'll find that coaches at different development academies (and often within them) and those of other top teams have varying styles and emphases, mostly based on how they grew up playing. Even in clubs where the older kids are taught more of a defensive, passing based style of play, you may find that the coaches of the younger kids coming through the system are focusing on skills including dribbling and moves, and spend a lot of time in practices on 1 v. 1 situations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My former pro coach soccer dad sends me daily emails about the poor state of soccer in this country and the crap Academies that are messing with the game here in the U.S. Today this excerpt from Paul Gardner's part 2 on "The Growth of Academies.." in Soccer America was like a punch to the stomach after watching 7-year olds being told to stop dribbling and stay in position in a 3 V 3 scrimmage :

I think you and your dad need to take a break from mainstream soccer media if you are both getting so worked up over articles like that. "Daily emails" and "Punch to the stomach"? Really?

I'm sure the author has witnessed some examples of the things he's concerned about, but it seems like a big leap to say that it's a systematic issue. In the States at least you'll find that coaches at different development academies (and often within them) and those of other top teams have varying styles and emphases, mostly based on how they grew up playing. Even in clubs where the older kids are taught more of a defensive, passing based style of play, you may find that the coaches of the younger kids coming through the system are focusing on skills including dribbling and moves, and spend a lot of time in practices on 1 v. 1 situations.

No OPT--but I've yet to see 1 V 1 training at our club. My 7-year old was told to stand on a cone during a 3 V 3 scrimmage and that he wasn't allowed 'to go for the ball'. One-touch/ditch it as soon as you receive it is what they are teaching the 7-8 years olds in our club. Dribbling is almost forbidden in any scrimmage/game. Maybe we are just at the wrong club.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My former pro coach soccer dad sends me daily emails about the poor state of soccer in this country and the crap Academies that are messing with the game here in the U.S. Today this excerpt from Paul Gardner's part 2 on "The Growth of Academies.." in Soccer America was like a punch to the stomach after watching 7-year olds being told to stop dribbling and stay in position in a 3 V 3 scrimmage :

I think you and your dad need to take a break from mainstream soccer media if you are both getting so worked up over articles like that. "Daily emails" and "Punch to the stomach"? Really?

I'm sure the author has witnessed some examples of the things he's concerned about, but it seems like a big leap to say that it's a systematic issue. In the States at least you'll find that coaches at different development academies (and often within them) and those of other top teams have varying styles and emphases, mostly based on how they grew up playing. Even in clubs where the older kids are taught more of a defensive, passing based style of play, you may find that the coaches of the younger kids coming through the system are focusing on skills including dribbling and moves, and spend a lot of time in practices on 1 v. 1 situations.

No OPT--but I've yet to see 1 V 1 training at our club. My 7-year old was told to stand on a cone during a 3 V 3 scrimmage and that he wasn't allowed 'to go for the ball'. One-touch/ditch it as soon as you receive it is what they are teaching the 7-8 years olds in our club. Dribbling is almost forbidden in any scrimmage/game. Maybe we are just at the wrong club.

A lot of clubs offer training that is poor in a variety of ways, or may have coaches who do things right along with many who don't. If your kid is serious about soccer and you are willing to support that, it's always a good idea to do some research to find out whether there may be other clubs or teams within a club that are a better fit. One easy way to start this is to watch the teams your kid plays against or wander around teams at tournaments where your kid may be playing. If you like what you see, ask the parents more about the team. They tend to be happy to share with admiring strangers! There are plenty of coaches around who emphasize dribbling and flair (at the young ages at least).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My former pro coach soccer dad sends me daily emails about the poor state of soccer in this country and the crap Academies that are messing with the game here in the U.S. Today this excerpt from Paul Gardner's part 2 on "The Growth of Academies.." in Soccer America was like a punch to the stomach after watching 7-year olds being told to stop dribbling and stay in position in a 3 V 3 scrimmage :

I think you and your dad need to take a break from mainstream soccer media if you are both getting so worked up over articles like that. "Daily emails" and "Punch to the stomach"? Really?

I'm sure the author has witnessed some examples of the things he's concerned about, but it seems like a big leap to say that it's a systematic issue. In the States at least you'll find that coaches at different development academies (and often within them) and those of other top teams have varying styles and emphases, mostly based on how they grew up playing. Even in clubs where the older kids are taught more of a defensive, passing based style of play, you may find that the coaches of the younger kids coming through the system are focusing on skills including dribbling and moves, and spend a lot of time in practices on 1 v. 1 situations.

No OPT--but I've yet to see 1 V 1 training at our club. My 7-year old was told to stand on a cone during a 3 V 3 scrimmage and that he wasn't allowed 'to go for the ball'. One-touch/ditch it as soon as you receive it is what they are teaching the 7-8 years olds in our club. Dribbling is almost forbidden in any scrimmage/game. Maybe we are just at the wrong club.

A lot of clubs offer training that is poor in a variety of ways, or may have coaches who do things right along with many who don't. If your kid is serious about soccer and you are willing to support that, it's always a good idea to do some research to find out whether there may be other clubs or teams within a club that are a better fit. One easy way to start this is to watch the teams your kid plays against or wander around teams at tournaments where your kid may be playing. If you like what you see, ask the parents more about the team. They tend to be happy to share with admiring strangers! There are plenty of coaches around who emphasize dribbling and flair (at the young ages at least).

Thanks!