Timed mile for high school soccer tryouts?

[Anonymous]

Because people take HS soccer so serious HA.. I guess that most should be able to do it. But the quality of HS soccer especially coaching, Is so bad I think they should be worrying about the ball at the feet and soccer IQ before timed runs.

[Anonymous]

Because people take HS soccer so serious HA.. I guess that most should be able to do it. But the quality of HS soccer especially coaching, Is so bad I think they should be worrying about the ball at the feet and soccer IQ before timed runs.

They can get kids with both at most high schools, given the sheer number of kids at the school and limited number of slots on a team. It's not an either/or thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:.

Being fit is certainly a part of the game. But having a metric as a selection criteria is silly. Having the metric as an expectation of the selected team is mostly fine.

DP but this seems reasonable. Select the kids who are good at soccer, then make sure they are in shape.

This.

By HS it is a hell of a lot easier to improve the fitness of a already good soccer player than it is to improve the quality of a fit but mediocre soccer player.

This whole timed run just had it backwards when you are compiling a team in a short period of time for a equally short season.

Why do you think the timed run had it backwards? The coach has explicitly said he's not going to cut kids based just on that. It is simply one of the things he will be considering. As it should be.

Because this test simply does not correlate to actual soccer fitness. It is not predictive of soccer performance or soccer ability.

It is a waste of an entire session running kids through it.

Spending time in practice, working towards fitness through running and sprints will also not yield any positive soccer results in a short 3 month season at the expense of working on specific soccer training.

These kids already play soccer mostly year round. They are in soccer shape.

So spending perhaps 10 minutes on this is a waste of an entire session?

Okay.

It takes more than 10 minutes to run a 100 kids at a tryout in a timed session.

It is a waste of time. Yes especially when it will have no real affect on the outcome of selection

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:.

Being fit is certainly a part of the game. But having a metric as a selection criteria is silly. Having the metric as an expectation of the selected team is mostly fine.

DP but this seems reasonable. Select the kids who are good at soccer, then make sure they are in shape.

This.

By HS it is a hell of a lot easier to improve the fitness of a already good soccer player than it is to improve the quality of a fit but mediocre soccer player.

This whole timed run just had it backwards when you are compiling a team in a short period of time for a equally short season.

Why do you think the timed run had it backwards? The coach has explicitly said he's not going to cut kids based just on that. It is simply one of the things he will be considering. As it should be.

Because this test simply does not correlate to actual soccer fitness. It is not predictive of soccer performance or soccer ability.

It is a waste of an entire session running kids through it.

Spending time in practice, working towards fitness through running and sprints will also not yield any positive soccer results in a short 3 month season at the expense of working on specific soccer training.

These kids already play soccer mostly year round. They are in soccer shape.

I've seen plenty of players who play travel soccer nearly year round who are gassed after just a handful of sprints because they don't have a good fitness base. Completely useless after 20 minutes. That's not being in soccer shape, and that player has a pretty small window to be effective or make something happen before they're too tired to execute. They could be the most gifted player on the field but they're doing themselves and their teammates a disservice if they tire quickly or take longer to recover because they're unfit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:.

Being fit is certainly a part of the game. But having a metric as a selection criteria is silly. Having the metric as an expectation of the selected team is mostly fine.

DP but this seems reasonable. Select the kids who are good at soccer, then make sure they are in shape.

This.

By HS it is a hell of a lot easier to improve the fitness of a already good soccer player than it is to improve the quality of a fit but mediocre soccer player.

This whole timed run just had it backwards when you are compiling a team in a short period of time for a equally short season.

Why do you think the timed run had it backwards? The coach has explicitly said he's not going to cut kids based just on that. It is simply one of the things he will be considering. As it should be.

Because this test simply does not correlate to actual soccer fitness. It is not predictive of soccer performance or soccer ability.

It is a waste of an entire session running kids through it.

Spending time in practice, working towards fitness through running and sprints will also not yield any positive soccer results in a short 3 month season at the expense of working on specific soccer training.

These kids already play soccer mostly year round. They are in soccer shape.

I've seen plenty of players who play travel soccer nearly year round who are gassed after just a handful of sprints because they don't have a good fitness base. Completely useless after 20 minutes. That's not being in soccer shape, and that player has a pretty small window to be effective or make something happen before they're too tired to execute. They could be the most gifted player on the field but they're doing themselves and their teammates a disservice if they tire quickly or take longer to recover because they're unfit.

Soccer has lots of built in recovery time. It is ignorant to believe that a series of sprints is predictive of in game soccer performance.

[Anonymous]

Soccer has lots of built in recovery time. It is ignorant to believe that a series of sprints is predictive of in game soccer performance.

Ok, whatever you say. My son is the 6, playing 11 a side 90 minute games and appears to be running constantly during games. But you do you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:.

Being fit is certainly a part of the game. But having a metric as a selection criteria is silly. Having the metric as an expectation of the selected team is mostly fine.

DP but this seems reasonable. Select the kids who are good at soccer, then make sure they are in shape.

This.

By HS it is a hell of a lot easier to improve the fitness of a already good soccer player than it is to improve the quality of a fit but mediocre soccer player.

This whole timed run just had it backwards when you are compiling a team in a short period of time for a equally short season.

Why do you think the timed run had it backwards? The coach has explicitly said he's not going to cut kids based just on that. It is simply one of the things he will be considering. As it should be.

Because this test simply does not correlate to actual soccer fitness. It is not predictive of soccer performance or soccer ability.

It is a waste of an entire session running kids through it.

Spending time in practice, working towards fitness through running and sprints will also not yield any positive soccer results in a short 3 month season at the expense of working on specific soccer training.

These kids already play soccer mostly year round. They are in soccer shape.

I've seen plenty of players who play travel soccer nearly year round who are gassed after just a handful of sprints because they don't have a good fitness base. Completely useless after 20 minutes. That's not being in soccer shape, and that player has a pretty small window to be effective or make something happen before they're too tired to execute. They could be the most gifted player on the field but they're doing themselves and their teammates a disservice if they tire quickly or take longer to recover because they're unfit.

Soccer has lots of built in recovery time. It is ignorant to believe that a series of sprints is predictive of in game soccer performance.

It's completely ridiculous there are posters arguing against top fitness for soccer players. This is so 2021.

We were expected to play full speed for 90 minutes. And, that entailed a TON of physical conditioning inside and outside of practice, in addition to ball work.

Now for $$ reasons Clubs carry such ridiculously large rosters these kids that are more out of shape than their grandparents were (studies show this) can catch a Gatorade and a breather at 15 min mark.

Go google some of the training videos of professional FIFA players. See the type of conditioning they do.

Somewhere along the way, idiots have touted that the 90 min practices 3 days per week are enough conditioning for soccer players. Christ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:.

Being fit is certainly a part of the game. But having a metric as a selection criteria is silly. Having the metric as an expectation of the selected team is mostly fine.

DP but this seems reasonable. Select the kids who are good at soccer, then make sure they are in shape.

This.

By HS it is a hell of a lot easier to improve the fitness of a already good soccer player than it is to improve the quality of a fit but mediocre soccer player.

This whole timed run just had it backwards when you are compiling a team in a short period of time for a equally short season.

Why do you think the timed run had it backwards? The coach has explicitly said he's not going to cut kids based just on that. It is simply one of the things he will be considering. As it should be.

Because this test simply does not correlate to actual soccer fitness. It is not predictive of soccer performance or soccer ability.

It is a waste of an entire session running kids through it.

Spending time in practice, working towards fitness through running and sprints will also not yield any positive soccer results in a short 3 month season at the expense of working on specific soccer training.

These kids already play soccer mostly year round. They are in soccer shape.

So spending perhaps 10 minutes on this is a waste of an entire session?

Okay.

It takes more than 10 minutes to run a 100 kids at a tryout in a timed session.

It is a waste of time. Yes especially when it will have no real affect on the outcome of selection

Agreed it takes more than 10 minutes to get that many kids through a timed run. Personally I'd evaluate the soccer and cut those who can't play. But once the group is more manageable or maybe even not until I have the final roster, I'd absolutely do some sort of endurance test to get a sense of where the team is fitness-wise, as well as the mental toughness of individual players to push themselves through an uncomfortable situation as they tire. That informs tactics and substitutions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:.

Being fit is certainly a part of the game. But having a metric as a selection criteria is silly. Having the metric as an expectation of the selected team is mostly fine.

DP but this seems reasonable. Select the kids who are good at soccer, then make sure they are in shape.

This.

By HS it is a hell of a lot easier to improve the fitness of a already good soccer player than it is to improve the quality of a fit but mediocre soccer player.

This whole timed run just had it backwards when you are compiling a team in a short period of time for a equally short season.

Why do you think the timed run had it backwards? The coach has explicitly said he's not going to cut kids based just on that. It is simply one of the things he will be considering. As it should be.

Because this test simply does not correlate to actual soccer fitness. It is not predictive of soccer performance or soccer ability.

It is a waste of an entire session running kids through it.

Spending time in practice, working towards fitness through running and sprints will also not yield any positive soccer results in a short 3 month season at the expense of working on specific soccer training.

These kids already play soccer mostly year round. They are in soccer shape.

I've seen plenty of players who play travel soccer nearly year round who are gassed after just a handful of sprints because they don't have a good fitness base. Completely useless after 20 minutes. That's not being in soccer shape, and that player has a pretty small window to be effective or make something happen before they're too tired to execute. They could be the most gifted player on the field but they're doing themselves and their teammates a disservice if they tire quickly or take longer to recover because they're unfit.

Soccer has lots of built in recovery time. It is ignorant to believe that a series of sprints is predictive of in game soccer performance.

You really need a certain base level of stamina. I don't know if the criteria those coaches are using is the right one but I think there should be some way of measuring that as one part of the tryouts.

Have seen wonderful futsal players who are highly skilled who can move around in the small indoor space but put them on a field and they can't get to the ball fast enough and can't keep up a fast pace while dribbling so no matter how far away they are from an opponent the opponent will always catch up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:.

Being fit is certainly a part of the game. But having a metric as a selection criteria is silly. Having the metric as an expectation of the selected team is mostly fine.

DP but this seems reasonable. Select the kids who are good at soccer, then make sure they are in shape.

This.

By HS it is a hell of a lot easier to improve the fitness of a already good soccer player than it is to improve the quality of a fit but mediocre soccer player.

This whole timed run just had it backwards when you are compiling a team in a short period of time for a equally short season.

Why do you think the timed run had it backwards? The coach has explicitly said he's not going to cut kids based just on that. It is simply one of the things he will be considering. As it should be.

Because this test simply does not correlate to actual soccer fitness. It is not predictive of soccer performance or soccer ability.

It is a waste of an entire session running kids through it.

Spending time in practice, working towards fitness through running and sprints will also not yield any positive soccer results in a short 3 month season at the expense of working on specific soccer training.

These kids already play soccer mostly year round. They are in soccer shape.

I've seen plenty of players who play travel soccer nearly year round who are gassed after just a handful of sprints because they don't have a good fitness base. Completely useless after 20 minutes. That's not being in soccer shape, and that player has a pretty small window to be effective or make something happen before they're too tired to execute. They could be the most gifted player on the field but they're doing themselves and their teammates a disservice if they tire quickly or take longer to recover because they're unfit.

Soccer has lots of built in recovery time. It is ignorant to believe that a series of sprints is predictive of in game soccer performance.

It's clear you've never actually played soccer at any level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is stupid. No professional soccer player ever out-jogs someone to the ball. It is sprint and recover, which does not translate to a long distance timed run.

I guarantee neither Messi nor Ronaldo come anywhere close to the best 2-mile timed run on their own team. We all know Maradona was a marathoner.

Why not do a sprint and cut the slowest kids who can't run an 11 second 100m? Both metrics are physically unattainable for a certain population of kids, and both are a poor measure of how the athlete will perform on the field.

Do you know anything that you are talking about? Boys HS record for 100M is 10.0 recorded in 2014 (T and F News). I don’t think many 9th graders are going to be running 11.0 100m.
“...the slowest kids who can’t run an 11 second 100m...” Geesh.

On the other hand a 5:30 mile is highly achievable and that endurance capacity is also highly desirable in a sport like soccer. If an athlete can’t immediately achieve 5:30, he or she can train toward it. The goal of the coach presumably is to build sheer endurance, yes, but also to develop an athlete who is able to perform with some level of power after being tired. That would mean fast acceleration and sustained sprints and fast lateral movements ... not simply 11 second in the 100m.
Soccer requires a kind of endurance that is not just the body going on, but also endurance that allows the brain to function quickly and alertly in a physically stressed state, responding to the play on the field.

The bar he is setting seems reasonable, perhaps one part of a mosaic of fitness he wishes to see in his athletes. After all, it’s the Beautiful Game.

Why would you train for something that has no real practical use in a actual soccer game? Nobody runs flat out for a mile in a soccer game ever.

No one does 10 reps of a bench press in a football game either ... but. No one does mountain climbers in a basketball game either ... but. Clearly you’re not an athlete and have never been one.

Clearly you're not a soccer player or you not believe this is at all useful in finding who is good at soccer.

Generally, quality club soccer players are already "fit".

And, why do HS soccer coaches bother with this as a metric if much of their practice time is always spent running sprints, laps and bleachers with very little soccer?

Your first cut should be this simple, "What travel team and what league do you play in?"

Then you make up teams and small size scrimmage. Next cut, two teams and full scrimmage and done.

Played soccer, coached soccer for a long time. Ran. Lifted weights. Juggled. Played a lot of pickup, travel, school ball, etc. Watched a lot too. Probably have forgotten more soccer than you’ve experienced. Anyhow, there is no one answer, but yes many soccer players run a mile or two at a fast pace for their endurance training session and then also mix in strength and power (explosion) training as well as a mix of sprint, rest, jog, sprint, rest routines. I’ll agree that running more than a mile or two is not as useful.

You seem fixated on this. I’ll try and be clear one last time.

Being fit is certainly a part of the game. But having a metric as a selection criteria is silly. Having the metric as an expectation of the selected team is mostly fine.

And this - goal-setting expected metric - is what pretty much every HS coach does. They do it for soccer, american football, field hockey and I expect they do it for basketball and baseball too. This coach has made quite clear that this is what he is doing.

But it is not unexpected that HS coaches who many know little about the game choose players based on the idea that we will outrun and outwork our opponents.

This is nonsense. Most HS coaches are also local travel coaches. Sure they're not ex-pros, nor are they EPL managers. But they know enough about the game to pick out the best players with a reasonable degree of accuracy. There may be the occasional know-nothing but that is not the norm round here.

They may well focus on outrunning and outworking opponents because that may be their best strategy. They don't have a year with the team. Unlike a travel coach who can develop players individually and work on team tactics over a period of months - the HS coach has six weeks from tryouts to the end of the season. He is not going to be able to coach the team to play a new style in that time, nor develop individual players - and nor will the kids even get much time to figure out how to adjust to each other. He has to play with what he's got and what they know today.

If HS soccer had a reputation of playing quality soccer this would not stick out. But the fact is, HS soccer is mostly known for its poor quality overall, it’s overly aggressive style and sloppy play it stands to reason that coaches are relying on stop watches to select their team.

No it doesn't stand to reason that the coaches are relying on stopwatches. And in this case it's not true. You are apouting complete nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because people take HS soccer so serious HA.. I guess that most should be able to do it. But the quality of HS soccer especially coaching, Is so bad I think they should be worrying about the ball at the feet and soccer IQ before timed runs.

I'm quite sure he is worrying about soccer skills more than timed runs. Why on earth do you believe he isn't? The coach has simply said there will be a timed run. You bozos have all leapt to the conclusion, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, that he is selecting his team based on this metric above others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:.

Being fit is certainly a part of the game. But having a metric as a selection criteria is silly. Having the metric as an expectation of the selected team is mostly fine.

DP but this seems reasonable. Select the kids who are good at soccer, then make sure they are in shape.

This.

By HS it is a hell of a lot easier to improve the fitness of a already good soccer player than it is to improve the quality of a fit but mediocre soccer player.

This whole timed run just had it backwards when you are compiling a team in a short period of time for a equally short season.

Why do you think the timed run had it backwards? The coach has explicitly said he's not going to cut kids based just on that. It is simply one of the things he will be considering. As it should be.

Because this test simply does not correlate to actual soccer fitness. It is not predictive of soccer performance or soccer ability.

It is a waste of an entire session running kids through it.

Spending time in practice, working towards fitness through running and sprints will also not yield any positive soccer results in a short 3 month season at the expense of working on specific soccer training.

These kids already play soccer mostly year round. They are in soccer shape.

I've seen plenty of players who play travel soccer nearly year round who are gassed after just a handful of sprints because they don't have a good fitness base. Completely useless after 20 minutes. That's not being in soccer shape, and that player has a pretty small window to be effective or make something happen before they're too tired to execute. They could be the most gifted player on the field but they're doing themselves and their teammates a disservice if they tire quickly or take longer to recover because they're unfit.

Soccer has lots of built in recovery time. It is ignorant to believe that a series of sprints is predictive of in game soccer performance.

Dribbling, passing, shooting, defending, reading the game and making quick decisions, and running at various speeds are all some aspects of soccer performance. If you can't run/sprint after 20 minutes and cannot execute any of those other elements because you're tired and can't think quickly, that's generally considered a big problem in 90 minute game. The built-in recovery time you mention relative to the amount of running a player does is not as much as you think it is. The players who are fit recover much more quickly in those short periods of time than players who are out of shape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Soccer has lots of built in recovery time. It is ignorant to believe that a series of sprints is predictive of in game soccer performance.

Ok, whatever you say. My son is the 6, playing 11 a side 90 minute games and appears to be running constantly during games. But you do you.

Have you considered that your son’s team should try and posses the ball more?

Perhaps you can train on the side to be fit and not waste soccer practice time on an expectation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because people take HS soccer so serious HA.. I guess that most should be able to do it. But the quality of HS soccer especially coaching, Is so bad I think they should be worrying about the ball at the feet and soccer IQ before timed runs.

I'm quite sure he is worrying about soccer skills more than timed runs. Why on earth do you believe he isn't? The coach has simply said there will be a timed run. You bozos have all leapt to the conclusion, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, that he is selecting his team based on this metric above others.

Considering this thread even exists it says that it is a priority and a main concern for kids trying out.

It is a waste of time. This isn’t track team tryouts.