Timed mile for high school soccer tryouts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Timed runs are pretty common in scholastic sports tryouts, not just soccer. They are just used as a baseline fitness level. Any top player worth his salt will not be in the bottom 25% of times anyways, so this really isn't a big deal. No coach is taking the top 11 times and making them the starters either. Once they know the kid has at least some measure of cardiovascular endurance then they can start looking at their technical ability.

Then why bother?

Spend the time scrimmaging, where you actually learn more about the players and then once the team is selected do a stupid timed run to put on a chart you’ll never ever look at again if it suits your fancy.

It is just a waste of time. If to much value is placed on it and kids are either selected or cut based on it then it is dumb. If the numbers are used then it is also dumb. All in all, no matter how you add it up, it is a dumb waste of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Timed runs are pretty common in scholastic sports tryouts, not just soccer. They are just used as a baseline fitness level. Any top player worth his salt will not be in the bottom 25% of times anyways, so this really isn't a big deal. No coach is taking the top 11 times and making them the starters either. Once they know the kid has at least some measure of cardiovascular endurance then they can start looking at their technical ability.

Then why bother?

Spend the time scrimmaging, where you actually learn more about the players and then once the team is selected do a stupid timed run to put on a chart you’ll never ever look at again if it suits your fancy.

It is just a waste of time. If to much value is placed on it and kids are either selected or cut based on it then it is dumb. If the numbers are used then it is also dumb. All in all, no matter how you add it up, it is a dumb waste of time.

Taking 10 minutes out of the day to run a mile or two is far quicker to cut the non-athletes than having to watch 60+ kids scrimmage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Timed runs are pretty common in scholastic sports tryouts, not just soccer. They are just used as a baseline fitness level. Any top player worth his salt will not be in the bottom 25% of times anyways, so this really isn't a big deal. No coach is taking the top 11 times and making them the starters either. Once they know the kid has at least some measure of cardiovascular endurance then they can start looking at their technical ability.

Then why bother?

Spend the time scrimmaging, where you actually learn more about the players and then once the team is selected do a stupid timed run to put on a chart you’ll never ever look at again if it suits your fancy.

It is just a waste of time. If to much value is placed on it and kids are either selected or cut based on it then it is dumb. If the numbers are used then it is also dumb. All in all, no matter how you add it up, it is a dumb waste of time.

Taking 10 minutes out of the day to run a mile or two is far quicker to cut the non-athletes than having to watch 60+ kids scrimmage.

It takes more than 10 minutes, especially if the coach makes sure that the kids are properly warmed up but I wouldn’t expect a coach who would waste their time on this to properly warm the 60+ kids up to only to ultimately ignore the data or completely misuse it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Timed runs are pretty common in scholastic sports tryouts, not just soccer. They are just used as a baseline fitness level. Any top player worth his salt will not be in the bottom 25% of times anyways, so this really isn't a big deal. No coach is taking the top 11 times and making them the starters either. Once they know the kid has at least some measure of cardiovascular endurance then they can start looking at their technical ability.

Then why bother?

Spend the time scrimmaging, where you actually learn more about the players and then once the team is selected do a stupid timed run to put on a chart you’ll never ever look at again if it suits your fancy.

It is just a waste of time. If to much value is placed on it and kids are either selected or cut based on it then it is dumb. If the numbers are used then it is also dumb. All in all, no matter how you add it up, it is a dumb waste of time.

Taking 10 minutes out of the day to run a mile or two is far quicker to cut the non-athletes than having to watch 60+ kids scrimmage.

It takes more than 10 minutes, especially if the coach makes sure that the kids are properly warmed up but I wouldn’t expect a coach who would waste their time on this to properly warm the 60+ kids up to only to ultimately ignore the data or completely misuse it.

Looking for food?

[Anonymous]

Only on DCUM would people argue that it is some big inappropriate imposition to ask soccer players to run at a reasonable pace for less than 10 minutes out of a tryout. No wonder kids are so soft and lazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Only on DCUM would people argue that it is some big inappropriate imposition to ask soccer players to run at a reasonable pace for less than 10 minutes out of a tryout. No wonder kids are so soft and lazy.

I think it's the parents whose kids have the high score in their Dribble Up app, but can't do much on an actual field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Timed runs are pretty common in scholastic sports tryouts, not just soccer. They are just used as a baseline fitness level. Any top player worth his salt will not be in the bottom 25% of times anyways, so this really isn't a big deal. No coach is taking the top 11 times and making them the starters either. Once they know the kid has at least some measure of cardiovascular endurance then they can start looking at their technical ability.

Then why bother?

Spend the time scrimmaging, where you actually learn more about the players and then once the team is selected do a stupid timed run to put on a chart you’ll never ever look at again if it suits your fancy.

It is just a waste of time. If to much value is placed on it and kids are either selected or cut based on it then it is dumb. If the numbers are used then it is also dumb. All in all, no matter how you add it up, it is a dumb waste of time.

Taking 10 minutes out of the day to run a mile or two is far quicker to cut the non-athletes than having to watch 60+ kids scrimmage.

It takes more than 10 minutes, especially if the coach makes sure that the kids are properly warmed up but I wouldn’t expect a coach who would waste their time on this to properly warm the 60+ kids up to only to ultimately ignore the data or completely misuse it.

I think you are looking at school tryouts the same as you would club tryouts. They are completely different animals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Timed runs are pretty common in scholastic sports tryouts, not just soccer. They are just used as a baseline fitness level. Any top player worth his salt will not be in the bottom 25% of times anyways, so this really isn't a big deal. No coach is taking the top 11 times and making them the starters either. Once they know the kid has at least some measure of cardiovascular endurance then they can start looking at their technical ability.

Then why bother?

Spend the time scrimmaging, where you actually learn more about the players and then once the team is selected do a stupid timed run to put on a chart you’ll never ever look at again if it suits your fancy.

It is just a waste of time. If to much value is placed on it and kids are either selected or cut based on it then it is dumb. If the numbers are used then it is also dumb. All in all, no matter how you add it up, it is a dumb waste of time.

Taking 10 minutes out of the day to run a mile or two is far quicker to cut the non-athletes than having to watch 60+ kids scrimmage.

Run two miles is not an indicator of athleticism. Look at at the want-to-be’s who could never crack a grape in any sport who run those fun runs and mini marathons on the weekend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Only on DCUM would people argue that it is some big inappropriate imposition to ask soccer players to run at a reasonable pace for less than 10 minutes out of a tryout. No wonder kids are so soft and lazy.[/quote

Right? This is crazy.

Also, it shows whether a kid can follow a training plan to achieve a goal. If you know you have to hit that milestone, and you fail to train for it, maybe you don't deserve that spot on the team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only on DCUM would people argue that it is some big inappropriate imposition to ask soccer players to run at a reasonable pace for less than 10 minutes out of a tryout. No wonder kids are so soft and lazy.[/quote

Right? This is crazy.

Also, it shows whether a kid can follow a training plan to achieve a goal. If you know you have to hit that milestone, and you fail to train for it, maybe you don't deserve that spot on the team.

I am one of the naysayers, and my kid doesn’t even play soccer. It’s just such a silly “making the team” criterion that I couldn’t resist putting my oar in...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Only on DCUM would people argue that it is some big inappropriate imposition to ask soccer players to run at a reasonable pace for less than 10 minutes out of a tryout. No wonder kids are so soft and lazy.

Only on DCUM would someone like claim that anyone said a timed run test was “inappropriate”.

What has been said, is that it is useless, a waste of time and dumb.

It isn’t “asking to much if the kids” it is simply a waste of their time and the information learned is of little actionable value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only on DCUM would people argue that it is some big inappropriate imposition to ask soccer players to run at a reasonable pace for less than 10 minutes out of a tryout. No wonder kids are so soft and lazy.

Only on DCUM would someone like claim that anyone said a timed run test was “inappropriate”.

What has been said, is that it is useless, a waste of time and dumb.

It isn’t “asking to much if the kids” it is simply a waste of their time and the information learned is of little actionable value.

Well the action is that you cut all the lazy out-of-shape players who wouldn't be able to dribble, pass, shoot, or sprint after five minutes because they're too exhausted.

[Anonymous]

Very entertaining reading all these posts from parents who never played soccer and don't know anything about the game complaining that their soft lazy unfit kid got cut because they couldn't complete a timed endurance test at tryouts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Very entertaining reading all these posts from parents who never played soccer and don't know anything about the game complaining that their soft lazy unfit kid got cut because they couldn't complete a timed endurance test at tryouts.

Oh yes, and here is another American soccer expert who is all puffed up because they played in college (while the elite athletes played sports Americans actually care about) calling kids soft, lazy, and unfit because they ran a mile in 6 minutes instead of 5.5 🙄

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s kind of hilarious how self-assured so many parents on this thread are about what makes a good soccer player. The American UMC obsession with soccer itself is also hilarious. (Since apparently most of you haven’t noticed, America sucks at soccer 🤣)

But I’m sure when the English Premier League signs kids at like 13-14, it’s only after making sure they can run a mile in a given amount of time. Probably has nothing to do with experienced scouts/coaches being able to identify an innate talent and having the confidence to know that fitness levels can always be improved...

Last time I checked America has won more women’s World Cups than any other country, so if we suck ... we’ll what does that say about the rest of the world? Yes, our men aren’t very good. True. It’s still easy enough to watch and read about SA and Euro soccer pros and what makes them great. As many PPs here have said, it is not the ONLY thing, but it is a thing.

By the way, last time I checked the Man U test, which comes from Man U, which is in England last time I checked, ends up with the participant running several miles in a designated amount of time. So, does Man U not know what they’re doing? Are you smarter than that club? Please educate us oh superior soccer mind.

Whoa! Clearly touched a nerve! But to answer your first question, it says that women in other countries either haven’t been playing soccer as long as women in the US, or they don’t play at all. The US has always been very progressive in terms of women’s sport - does not imply innate superior soccer talent.

And to your second question, isn’t the Man U test a bunch of sprints? Kind of like what one might do while playing soccer? I wonder if they would have not been interested in a player who, oh I don’t know, could score directly from a corner kick if he didn’t complete this precious timed running trial??

Should the goalie be held to the same speed standard as a striker? Are the endurance standards the same for strikers as midfielders? Maybe they should be, I don’t know. But it sounds like box-checking lazy coaching to me...

Yes, yes we know that "someday" the rest of the world will catch up. Meanwhile, we're still waiting ...

Also, Man U test isn't "just a bunch of sprints". It is a sprint, then a slower run, then repeat, without rest, but it goes on continuously for a few miles. There's no walking or stopping. My guess is you've never done it. I have. The goalie comment is silly and shows you're trying to deflect. You also try to keep insinuating that we are all saying the only thing that matters is running a few miles, when no one other than you has said that. But I can argue with you forever because its fun to see you struggle to offer a decent counterargument. Enjoy the fish and chips at the pub, fan boy.