What does everyone think about SYC

[Anonymous]

Two different styles, both successful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think there are a lot of straw men arguments on this thread.

There is a difference between the best way to win a game and the best way to develop players. In order to develop, players need to touch the ball in competitive situations.

Clubs which emphasize playing styles which encourage all players to touch the ball frequently tend to end up
(a) with players who are more capable because they have developed
(b) winning more games than they otherwise would have, as result of this better player devlopment

Development in this context means that these players have devloped a better first touch, the ability to make quick decisions under pressure, and the ability to pass quickly and accurately. Irrespective of playing style, these clubs tend to retain possession better (even if they are not playing a strictly possession style) than other clubs because the kids make better decisions and more accurate passes.

The clubs which do this best tend to stress the importance of making good decisions. In particular the balance of risk vs reward. So

(1) In defense, look to pass out if possible rather than hoof the ball away giving it straight back to the other team. Hoofing is still allowed if there really is no good pass available - or of course if there is a good high reward long ball pass on. But well coached teams will usually have a pass available because the kids know how to move, create space, and show behnd the line.

(2) When considering a riskier pass (and most longer passes fall into this category) weigh the reward correctly against the risk. Sure - if you can see that a long ball can be played into an area where there is a high chance of a scoring opportunity devloping then go ahead and play it. But if your long risky pass isn't going to result in a significant advantage then take a different option.

(3) If nothing is on - do not mindlessly play the ball forward simply to lose it. Instead move the ball around the field quickly forcing the defense to react until something opens up.

None of this precludes playing long balls. And you will see the best youth teams in the area play long balls when a defense is holidng a high line in an attempt to crowd the midfield. And because they have kids who can play those balls accurately and wingers who can run on to them and finish, what usually happens is that the defenses change their strategy. They start to defend much deeper and the good teams are able to change the way they attack in response.

That is how the good teams play. Now - what about "kick and run" teams? I have never seen SYC 07 play - so I have no idea if this applies to them. However there are many clubs who don't manage to effectively teach the above - perhaps because it requires the acceptance of losing games while the kids are learning - or perhaps because they're just not very good teachers - or maybe because they're working with kids whose technical skills are just not at a level where they can be successful trying to do this. In any event there are many teams where the kids play a lot of long balls. Not "good" long balls where they see a chance of completing a dangerous pass - the defense just hoofs the ball almost every time they get it. 90% of the time it goes straight back to the opposition. They don't play through the midfield - not because they are making tactically sound decisions in response to the way the defense is set up as they continue to play this way even against a defense playing deep to cover the long ball, but because they simply can't do it - they can't complete the short, quick passes with a high enough success rate not to give the ball away after two or three passes. And defenders, when they win the ball, do not calmly take a second to look up and evaluate their options - confident in their ability to mantain possession; instead they panic and apply the boot as the first option.

And at younger ages this style of play can be successful even against teams of the first type for two reasons:

1. The opponents are still young and developing themselves - they are far from perfect and their decisions are neither as good as they will become later, nor is their execution always perfect. As I noted above, learning how to play this way involves losing games sometimes while sticking to the plan anyway. Teams trying to play in a way which develops the kids are prone to making mistakes in dangerous positions and giving away soft goals as a result. The good coaches will encourage the kids to keep playing this way though as they know that the only way for the kids to learn to do it well is to live with the mistakes while they are learning.

2. An early developer - big, fast and strong - can physically dominate defenders. This kid will get on the end of more long balls than the quality of decision/pass deserves and he can score goals.

BUT teams who learn to depend on the big, fast striker, while they might well win games for a while, do NOT improve. Because they are not practicing any of the skills which will allow them to improve, and because over time their opponenst do improve and the big, fast kid becomes less physically dominant.

Excellent post. Thanks for taking the time to say all of this. It deserves it's own thread.

I'm an SYC parent and couldn't tell you what style the 07 boys play as both my kids are younger. What I think is interesting about this thread is the idea of watching 1 game and assuming what kids are being taught. From my own first hand experience watching my kids, the kids practice in small boxes/small sided games (1v1/2v2) and 4/5 a side on an area about as big as a futsal/basketball court. All possession and movement and short passing/angles, and emphasizing touch on the ball. Maybe that's different than before because of the coaching changes a couple years ago, but I see most of the other teams at the same fields doing the same type of work in similar sized spaces, at what I'd guess are ages ranging from U9 to U13.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think there are a lot of straw men arguments on this thread.

There is a difference between the best way to win a game and the best way to develop players. In order to develop, players need to touch the ball in competitive situations.

Clubs which emphasize playing styles which encourage all players to touch the ball frequently tend to end up
(a) with players who are more capable because they have developed
(b) winning more games than they otherwise would have, as result of this better player devlopment

Development in this context means that these players have devloped a better first touch, the ability to make quick decisions under pressure, and the ability to pass quickly and accurately. Irrespective of playing style, these clubs tend to retain possession better (even if they are not playing a strictly possession style) than other clubs because the kids make better decisions and more accurate passes.

The clubs which do this best tend to stress the importance of making good decisions. In particular the balance of risk vs reward. So

(1) In defense, look to pass out if possible rather than hoof the ball away giving it straight back to the other team. Hoofing is still allowed if there really is no good pass available - or of course if there is a good high reward long ball pass on. But well coached teams will usually have a pass available because the kids know how to move, create space, and show behnd the line.

(2) When considering a riskier pass (and most longer passes fall into this category) weigh the reward correctly against the risk. Sure - if you can see that a long ball can be played into an area where there is a high chance of a scoring opportunity devloping then go ahead and play it. But if your long risky pass isn't going to result in a significant advantage then take a different option.

(3) If nothing is on - do not mindlessly play the ball forward simply to lose it. Instead move the ball around the field quickly forcing the defense to react until something opens up.

None of this precludes playing long balls. And you will see the best youth teams in the area play long balls when a defense is holidng a high line in an attempt to crowd the midfield. And because they have kids who can play those balls accurately and wingers who can run on to them and finish, what usually happens is that the defenses change their strategy. They start to defend much deeper and the good teams are able to change the way they attack in response.

That is how the good teams play. Now - what about "kick and run" teams? I have never seen SYC 07 play - so I have no idea if this applies to them. However there are many clubs who don't manage to effectively teach the above - perhaps because it requires the acceptance of losing games while the kids are learning - or perhaps because they're just not very good teachers - or maybe because they're working with kids whose technical skills are just not at a level where they can be successful trying to do this. In any event there are many teams where the kids play a lot of long balls. Not "good" long balls where they see a chance of completing a dangerous pass - the defense just hoofs the ball almost every time they get it. 90% of the time it goes straight back to the opposition. They don't play through the midfield - not because they are making tactically sound decisions in response to the way the defense is set up as they continue to play this way even against a defense playing deep to cover the long ball, but because they simply can't do it - they can't complete the short, quick passes with a high enough success rate not to give the ball away after two or three passes. And defenders, when they win the ball, do not calmly take a second to look up and evaluate their options - confident in their ability to mantain possession; instead they panic and apply the boot as the first option.

And at younger ages this style of play can be successful even against teams of the first type for two reasons:

1. The opponents are still young and developing themselves - they are far from perfect and their decisions are neither as good as they will become later, nor is their execution always perfect. As I noted above, learning how to play this way involves losing games sometimes while sticking to the plan anyway. Teams trying to play in a way which develops the kids are prone to making mistakes in dangerous positions and giving away soft goals as a result. The good coaches will encourage the kids to keep playing this way though as they know that the only way for the kids to learn to do it well is to live with the mistakes while they are learning.

2. An early developer - big, fast and strong - can physically dominate defenders. This kid will get on the end of more long balls than the quality of decision/pass deserves and he can score goals.

BUT teams who learn to depend on the big, fast striker, while they might well win games for a while, do NOT improve. Because they are not practicing any of the skills which will allow them to improve, and because over time their opponenst do improve and the big, fast kid becomes less physically dominant.

Excellent post. Thanks for taking the time to say all of this. It deserves it's own thread.

I'm an SYC parent and couldn't tell you what style the 07 boys play as both my kids are younger. What I think is interesting about this thread is the idea of watching 1 game and assuming what kids are being taught. From my own first hand experience watching my kids, the kids practice in small boxes/small sided games (1v1/2v2) and 4/5 a side on an area about as big as a futsal/basketball court. All possession and movement and short passing/angles, and emphasizing touch on the ball. Maybe that's different than before because of the coaching changes a couple years ago, but I see most of the other teams at the same fields doing the same type of work in similar sized spaces, at what I'd guess are ages ranging from U9 to U13.

As a point of reference almost every club does this now. It is better than not doing it obviously - but it is only a piece of the puzzle. There is a great deal more to developing players than just this - otherwise everyone would be good at it .

[Anonymous]

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Every club’s website, in addition to saying “the premier club in (area),” claims to develop players’ skills like this.

I’d love to see one just be honest and say they’re only interested in fast players and big players so they can win U-13 State Cups.

I don't think the problem is dishonesty. I think all clubs genuinely want to develop players. The problem is that teaching soccer is not especially easy. The best coaches
1. have a good football brain which usually, although not always, results from having been coached and having played professionally themselves.
2. Know how to teach (and how to teach soccer, although the latter part is easier than the former).
3. Have patience and are willing to stick with the plan when it costs games.
4. Have enough leadership ability that they can carry the team (and parents) with them in the early stages of development when they will lose games ugly.

Not many coaches have all those skills. Every coach my DS has ever had attempted to teach the kids to play the way I described. They all stood up and gave a presentation indicating that this was their intent, and describing how they would achieve it. They all ran practices with lots of small space, possession passing and small-sided games. Maybe they liked rondos, or maybe they bought into the rondos-are-no-good-you-need-to-play-directional-soccer school of thought. But many of them couldn't teach, or they didn't have patience, or they couldn't lead, or whatever - the result was not what anyone had hoped for. Not because they wanted not to play this way - but because they couldn't do it.

It's also worth pointing out that teaching kids to play this way requires that they all have a level of technical ability to start with. The best coach in the world could not stroll into the coaching job with a typical club's 2nd or 3rd team and make this work - because too many of the kids simply would not be able to execute. And playing this requires not just understanding and decision making - it requires the kids to be able to correctly execute what they are being asked to do well over 90% of the time. And not just some of the kids - all of them. If there are even two or three kids on the team who only complete 50%-60% of their passes then you can't play this way. Everything breaks down.

[Anonymous]

LoOk aT tHaT pOsSeSsiOn oMG!!

https://www.fotmob.com/livescores/3411437?status=finished

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LoOk aT tHaT pOsSeSsiOn oMG!!

https://www.fotmob.com/livescores/3411437?status=finished

I went to the new stadium before lockdown to see them play Chelsea live, I know Tottenham, and believe me, SYC is no Tottenham, other than the fact that neither is in the elite tier of their respective leagues. Move and embarrass you and your club no further.

[Anonymous]

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LoOk aT tHaT pOsSeSsiOn oMG!!

https://www.fotmob.com/livescores/3411437?status=finished

I went to the new stadium before lockdown to see them play Chelsea live, I know Tottenham, and believe me, SYC is no Tottenham, other than the fact that neither is in the elite tier of their respective leagues. Move and embarrass you and your club no further.

Tottenham's in first place.

Nine matches into the season? Do we crown nfl champs four games into the season? Preposterous, especially from a journalist. Is Southampton gonna be in champions league next year? Cmon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LoOk aT tHaT pOsSeSsiOn oMG!!

https://www.fotmob.com/livescores/3411437?status=finished

I went to the new stadium before lockdown to see them play Chelsea live, I know Tottenham, and believe me, SYC is no Tottenham, other than the fact that neither is in the elite tier of their respective leagues. Move and embarrass you and your club no further.

Tottenham's in first place.

Nine matches into the season? Do we crown nfl champs four games into the season? Preposterous, especially from a journalist. Is Southampton gonna be in champions league next year? Cmon.

STOP THE COUNT!!!!!

[Anonymous]

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LoOk aT tHaT pOsSeSsiOn oMG!!

https://www.fotmob.com/livescores/3411437?status=finished

I went to the new stadium before lockdown to see them play Chelsea live, I know Tottenham, and believe me, SYC is no Tottenham, other than the fact that neither is in the elite tier of their respective leagues. Move and embarrass you and your club no further.

So make your case that Tottenham isn't in the "elite tier" of the EPL.

The stats to the contrary: Over the last 11 years, the following clubs are the *only* clubs to finish ahead of Spurs even once:

Chelsea: 8 times
Manchester City: 8 times
Arsenal: 7 times, none in the last 4
Manchester United: 7 times, less frequently since Fergie retired
Liverpool: 3 times
Leicester: 2 times
Everton: 1 time

The average league position of these clubs:

Manchester City: 2.27
Manchester United: 3.55
Chelsea: 3.55
Tottenham: 4.27
Arsenal: 4.27
Liverpool: 5.00
Leicester: 8.33 (since promotion)

Same test, past *five* years:

Chelsea: 3 times
Manchester City: 3 times
Manchester United: 2 times
Liverpool: 2 times
Leicester: 2 times
Arsenal: 1 time
Everton: 0 times

Average league position over the past five years:

Manchester City: 2.2
Tottenham: 3.6
Liverpool: 3.8
Manchester United: 4.4
Chelsea: 4.6
Arsenal: 5.2
Leicester: 7.2
Everton: 9.2

So in the early 2010s, Spurs would rank roughly fifth behind Chelsea, Arsenal and the Manchester clubs.

In the late 2010s, only Manchester City has a definitive case for being better. Over the last two years, add Liverpool.

By any measure, they're in the top five in the deepest professional league (maybe second-deepest, depending on how you rate Spain) in the world.

Start your own thread you annoying git.

[Anonymous]

*Liverpool stages huge comeback against Barca*
Alexandria fans: yeah but what was their possession?

[Anonymous]

My son's U-little team player against SYC in the Capital Cup tournament this past weekend.

I was impressed by the SYC players' physicality -- they clearly had been drilled on how to use their arms/bodies to push the other players away. There were some flagrant fouls, but I attribute that to the boys just not putting into practice correctly what they've been taught -- not to malice or bad sportsmanship.

Whether those types of skills -- blocking and pushing and the rougher physical aspects of the game -- are whether the focus should be at U-little or not, I can't say. They don't seem like particularly technical skills to learn, and I'd rather my boys learn ball control and positioning/passing skills, but I certainly can't argue that getting those rougher skills down early doesn't yield results: SYC beat us and every other team pretty handily.

We've lost to better teams, and we've lost to worst teams, and I don't take it too seriously with U-littles. However, I must add that the U9 coach for SYC was the most obnoxious coach I've ever seen in years of having my children play U-little. Constant, non-stop berating of his players for The. Entire. Game. I mean, his team was winning by 5 goals and they're playing well (obviously) but literally the entire game, the SYC coach was angrily screaming at his players, full-throated bloviating yelling and screaming about any single little lost 50-50 ball, or any successful move or passing by the other team.

I have never in my life seen such an angry, unpleasant coach for such little kids. Again, he wasn't yelling at the ref or at the other team ... he was berating his own (very successful) players for any little perceived mistake. It was embarrassing and borderline abusive, in my opinion.

It's a shame, because we have been considering other clubs in the area, but SYC is firmly crossed off of our list due to their U9 coach. There's no way I would want my 8 year old subjected to that kind of aggression and anger -- heaven help those boys when they are actually in a close game or on the losing side. Really not a good look, SYC. These kids are 8 years old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My son's U-little team player against SYC in the Capital Cup tournament this past weekend.

I was impressed by the SYC players' physicality -- they clearly had been drilled on how to use their arms/bodies to push the other players away. There were some flagrant fouls, but I attribute that to the boys just not putting into practice correctly what they've been taught -- not to malice or bad sportsmanship.

Whether those types of skills -- blocking and pushing and the rougher physical aspects of the game -- are whether the focus should be at U-little or not, I can't say. They don't seem like particularly technical skills to learn, and I'd rather my boys learn ball control and positioning/passing skills, but I certainly can't argue that getting those rougher skills down early doesn't yield results: SYC beat us and every other team pretty handily.

We've lost to better teams, and we've lost to worst teams, and I don't take it too seriously with U-littles. However, I must add that the U9 coach for SYC was the most obnoxious coach I've ever seen in years of having my children play U-little. Constant, non-stop berating of his players for The. Entire. Game. I mean, his team was winning by 5 goals and they're playing well (obviously) but literally the entire game, the SYC coach was angrily screaming at his players, full-throated bloviating yelling and screaming about any single little lost 50-50 ball, or any successful move or passing by the other team.

I have never in my life seen such an angry, unpleasant coach for such little kids. Again, he wasn't yelling at the ref or at the other team ... he was berating his own (very successful) players for any little perceived mistake. It was embarrassing and borderline abusive, in my opinion.

It's a shame, because we have been considering other clubs in the area, but SYC is firmly crossed off of our list due to their U9 coach. There's no way I would want my 8 year old subjected to that kind of aggression and anger -- heaven help those boys when they are actually in a close game or on the losing side. Really not a good look, SYC. These kids are 8 years old.

I'm not in any way defending this coach. It sounds like he's horrible. Even so - every club has good coaches and bad coaches. I wouldn't write a whole club off because of the antics of a single coach - unless you know he would be your DS' coach next year. Find out who would be coaching your son's team next year at each of the clubs you are considering and watch that coach's teams play. Make your decision based on that coach - not some other coach.

[Anonymous]

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LoOk aT tHaT pOsSeSsiOn oMG!!

https://www.fotmob.com/livescores/3411437?status=finished

I went to the new stadium before lockdown to see them play Chelsea live, I know Tottenham, and believe me, SYC is no Tottenham, other than the fact that neither is in the elite tier of their respective leagues. Move and embarrass you and your club no further.

So make your case that Tottenham isn't in the "elite tier" of the EPL.

The stats to the contrary: Over the last 11 years, the following clubs are the *only* clubs to finish ahead of Spurs even once:

Chelsea: 8 times
Manchester City: 8 times
Arsenal: 7 times, none in the last 4
Manchester United: 7 times, less frequently since Fergie retired
Liverpool: 3 times
Leicester: 2 times
Everton: 1 time

The average league position of these clubs:

Manchester City: 2.27
Manchester United: 3.55
Chelsea: 3.55
Tottenham: 4.27
Arsenal: 4.27
Liverpool: 5.00
Leicester: 8.33 (since promotion)

Same test, past *five* years:

Chelsea: 3 times
Manchester City: 3 times
Manchester United: 2 times
Liverpool: 2 times
Leicester: 2 times
Arsenal: 1 time
Everton: 0 times

Average league position over the past five years:

Manchester City: 2.2
Tottenham: 3.6
Liverpool: 3.8
Manchester United: 4.4
Chelsea: 4.6
Arsenal: 5.2
Leicester: 7.2
Everton: 9.2

So in the early 2010s, Spurs would rank roughly fifth behind Chelsea, Arsenal and the Manchester clubs.

In the late 2010s, only Manchester City has a definitive case for being better. Over the last two years, add Liverpool.

By any measure, they're in the top five in the deepest professional league (maybe second-deepest, depending on how you rate Spain) in the world.

Don't be ridiculous:

There's only one measure of whether a team is elite or not - it's silverware. Specifically premier league titles and european chamionships, with a half point thrown in for an FA cup.

Years since Spurs last won an EPL: infinity (they last won the English first division 60 years ago)
Years since Spurs last won a European Championship: infinity
Years since Spurs last won an FA cup: 30

They haven't won a thing in the last thirty years. They're an also ran - behind every single one of the clubs you mentioned and many others. Losers from start to finish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

RantingSoccerDad wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LoOk aT tHaT pOsSeSsiOn oMG!!

https://www.fotmob.com/livescores/3411437?status=finished

I went to the new stadium before lockdown to see them play Chelsea live, I know Tottenham, and believe me, SYC is no Tottenham, other than the fact that neither is in the elite tier of their respective leagues. Move and embarrass you and your club no further.

So make your case that Tottenham isn't in the "elite tier" of the EPL.

The stats to the contrary: Over the last 11 years, the following clubs are the *only* clubs to finish ahead of Spurs even once:

Chelsea: 8 times
Manchester City: 8 times
Arsenal: 7 times, none in the last 4
Manchester United: 7 times, less frequently since Fergie retired
Liverpool: 3 times
Leicester: 2 times
Everton: 1 time

The average league position of these clubs:

Manchester City: 2.27
Manchester United: 3.55
Chelsea: 3.55
Tottenham: 4.27
Arsenal: 4.27
Liverpool: 5.00
Leicester: 8.33 (since promotion)

Same test, past *five* years:

Chelsea: 3 times
Manchester City: 3 times
Manchester United: 2 times
Liverpool: 2 times
Leicester: 2 times
Arsenal: 1 time
Everton: 0 times

Average league position over the past five years:

Manchester City: 2.2
Tottenham: 3.6
Liverpool: 3.8
Manchester United: 4.4
Chelsea: 4.6
Arsenal: 5.2
Leicester: 7.2
Everton: 9.2

So in the early 2010s, Spurs would rank roughly fifth behind Chelsea, Arsenal and the Manchester clubs.

In the late 2010s, only Manchester City has a definitive case for being better. Over the last two years, add Liverpool.

By any measure, they're in the top five in the deepest professional league (maybe second-deepest, depending on how you rate Spain) in the world.

Don't be ridiculous:

There's only one measure of whether a team is elite or not - it's silverware. Specifically premier league titles and european chamionships, with a half point thrown in for an FA cup.

Years since Spurs last won an EPL: infinity (they last won the English first division 60 years ago)
Years since Spurs last won a European Championship: infinity
Years since Spurs last won an FA cup: 30

They haven't won a thing in the last thirty years. They're an also ran - behind every single one of the clubs you mentioned and many others. Losers from start to finish.

Just like SYC then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not in any way defending this coach. It sounds like he's horrible. Even so - every club has good coaches and bad coaches. I wouldn't write a whole club off because of the antics of a single coach - unless you know he would be your DS' coach next year. Find out who would be coaching your son's team next year at each of the clubs you are considering and watch that coach's teams play. Make your decision based on that coach - not some other coach.

I hear what you're saying but --- it was so bad that one has to interpret this coach's behavior as being implicitly sanctioned by the SYC club. Which tells me that SYC is not a club I would ever consider for my (several) soccer-playing children. But hey, I guess some parents don't mind, or have weighed that negative against what they see as other positives about the club. I just know that I could never allow my boys to be subjected to that kind of abusive behavior (while winning handily!) ... and I'm probably one of the toughest parents when it comes to not treating my children with kid gloves.

This wasn't just pointing out mistakes or even demanding perfection -- all of that I support. My kids' teams have been on the winning side of huge blowouts in other games, and I've seen and appreciated our coach continuing to "coach" the boys from the sidelines, yelling instructions or corrections or challenging the kids to put in more effort. But man, this was something else; the loud, angry, ugly way that every single thing he had to say to his own team was communicated was disturbing. I could easily see it turning young players off from the game.