What is good coaching?

[Anonymous]

A good coach is a coach who selected my kid as a starter. Just ask me!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A good coach is a coach who selected my kid as a starter. Just ask me!

So true. But he’ll be a terrible coach when your kid sits the bench

[Anonymous]

Club coaches need to manage the team well so that everyone feels treated fairly. Playing time should be earned, not negotiated with parents. It’s not like school soccer, these kids have lots of choices and can and will vote with their feet.

[Anonymous]

Priorities are players interest first, Team second, Parents not on list. Training is intense and teaches players how to work and good habits on and off field. A good coach is prepping players for next level, not results now. We have had great coaching and horrible coaching and it didn’t correlate with wins and losses. I can’t remember season results from more than a year ago, anyways. Our first travel club coach and one of the best at any age group pushed us to leave to another club that had more to offer long term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At U12 DC1 had a top team coach who was focused a lot on competition, technical skills, conditioning and strategy. Little down time, little emphasis on teamwork. Some players sat on the bench the whole season.

At U12 DC2 had a coach really focused on development of core technical skills and softer skills like sportsmanship and was just a really nice coach and a good person to be around with. Everyone played although some much more than others but no one sat out whole games.

Which one is "good"? I think you'd get a lot of different answers from different people.

Both of them sound like crap to me.

I would look for a coach who focuses on tactics and decision-making + knows what those things actually are.

As for the rest - all players need to play, but nothing else really matters all that much.
- a coach who focuses on technical skills is largely wasting his time - kids need to learn that on their own - especially if they're already on a top team where they need to spend way more time on it than can be carved out of team practices to really improve
- competitiveness and sportsmanship are both good things to encourage
- being nice is better than being nasty

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At U12 DC1 had a top team coach who was focused a lot on competition, technical skills, conditioning and strategy. Little down time, little emphasis on teamwork. Some players sat on the bench the whole season.

At U12 DC2 had a coach really focused on development of core technical skills and softer skills like sportsmanship and was just a really nice coach and a good person to be around with. Everyone played although some much more than others but no one sat out whole games.

Which one is "good"? I think you'd get a lot of different answers from different people.

Both of them sound like crap to me.

I would look for a coach who focuses on tactics and decision-making + knows what those things actually are.

As for the rest - all players need to play, but nothing else really matters all that much.
- a coach who focuses on technical skills is largely wasting his time - kids need to learn that on their own - especially if they're already on a top team where they need to spend way more time on it than can be carved out of team practices to really improve
- competitiveness and sportsmanship are both good things to encourage
- being nice is better than being nasty

Can you name some coaches in the area that does the above?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At U12 DC1 had a top team coach who was focused a lot on competition, technical skills, conditioning and strategy. Little down time, little emphasis on teamwork. Some players sat on the bench the whole season.

At U12 DC2 had a coach really focused on development of core technical skills and softer skills like sportsmanship and was just a really nice coach and a good person to be around with. Everyone played although some much more than others but no one sat out whole games.

Which one is "good"? I think you'd get a lot of different answers from different people.

Both of them sound like crap to me.

I would look for a coach who focuses on tactics and decision-making + knows what those things actually are.

As for the rest - all players need to play, but nothing else really matters all that much.
- a coach who focuses on technical skills is largely wasting his time - kids need to learn that on their own - especially if they're already on a top team where they need to spend way more time on it than can be carved out of team practices to really improve
- competitiveness and sportsmanship are both good things to encourage
- being nice is better than being nasty

Can you name some coaches in the area that does the above?

Considering that this forum was inactive for year due to coaches beinging named, namkng them now is a dangerous game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At U12 DC1 had a top team coach who was focused a lot on competition, technical skills, conditioning and strategy. Little down time, little emphasis on teamwork. Some players sat on the bench the whole season.

At U12 DC2 had a coach really focused on development of core technical skills and softer skills like sportsmanship and was just a really nice coach and a good person to be around with. Everyone played although some much more than others but no one sat out whole games.

Which one is "good"? I think you'd get a lot of different answers from different people.

Both of them sound like crap to me.

I would look for a coach who focuses on tactics and decision-making + knows what those things actually are.

As for the rest - all players need to play, but nothing else really matters all that much.
- a coach who focuses on technical skills is largely wasting his time - kids need to learn that on their own - especially if they're already on a top team where they need to spend way more time on it than can be carved out of team practices to really improve
- competitiveness and sportsmanship are both good things to encourage
- being nice is better than being nasty

Can you name some coaches in the area that does the above?

Considering that this forum was inactive for year due to coaches beinging named, namkng them now is a dangerous game.

Maybe just identify club and teams? I actually agree with the above although mostly for very competitive players.

Individual/technical and fitness can be developed on their own. Sportsmanship and integrity should be guided by parents as they are rooted in your own personal values but encouragement is good too.

A coach’s value lies in their ability to develop effective decision-making, individually, as a team, and basically to continue to grow a players soccer IQ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At U12 DC1 had a top team coach who was focused a lot on competition, technical skills, conditioning and strategy. Little down time, little emphasis on teamwork. Some players sat on the bench the whole season.

At U12 DC2 had a coach really focused on development of core technical skills and softer skills like sportsmanship and was just a really nice coach and a good person to be around with. Everyone played although some much more than others but no one sat out whole games.

Which one is "good"? I think you'd get a lot of different answers from different people.

Both of them sound like crap to me.

I would look for a coach who focuses on tactics and decision-making + knows what those things actually are.

As for the rest - all players need to play, but nothing else really matters all that much.
- a coach who focuses on technical skills is largely wasting his time - kids need to learn that on their own - especially if they're already on a top team where they need to spend way more time on it than can be carved out of team practices to really improve
- competitiveness and sportsmanship are both good things to encourage
- being nice is better than being nasty

Can you name some coaches in the area that does the above?

Considering that this forum was inactive for year due to coaches beinging named, namkng them now is a dangerous game.

Maybe just identify club and teams? I actually agree with the above although mostly for very competitive players.

Individual/technical and fitness can be developed on their own. Sportsmanship and integrity should be guided by parents as they are rooted in your own personal values but encouragement is good too.

A coach’s value lies in their ability to develop effective decision-making, individually, as a team, and basically to continue to grow a players soccer IQ.

SYC's (they keep coming up latley apologies for this) top teams tend to function this way. On the lower teams some do also but if the players cannot handle the ball, focusing on IQ and decision-making may not do much for them or the team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At U12 DC1 had a top team coach who was focused a lot on competition, technical skills, conditioning and strategy. Little down time, little emphasis on teamwork. Some players sat on the bench the whole season.

At U12 DC2 had a coach really focused on development of core technical skills and softer skills like sportsmanship and was just a really nice coach and a good person to be around with. Everyone played although some much more than others but no one sat out whole games.

Which one is "good"? I think you'd get a lot of different answers from different people.

Both of them sound like crap to me.

I would look for a coach who focuses on tactics and decision-making + knows what those things actually are.

As for the rest - all players need to play, but nothing else really matters all that much.
- a coach who focuses on technical skills is largely wasting his time - kids need to learn that on their own - especially if they're already on a top team where they need to spend way more time on it than can be carved out of team practices to really improve
- competitiveness and sportsmanship are both good things to encourage
- being nice is better than being nasty

That kind of thinking is why US youth soccer sucks. Players certainly need to spend a ton of time on their own, but they also need a lot of guidance and correction on technical details and defects. Watch an “elite” US youth game and you’ll see players with glaring technical defects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At U12 DC1 had a top team coach who was focused a lot on competition, technical skills, conditioning and strategy. Little down time, little emphasis on teamwork. Some players sat on the bench the whole season.

At U12 DC2 had a coach really focused on development of core technical skills and softer skills like sportsmanship and was just a really nice coach and a good person to be around with. Everyone played although some much more than others but no one sat out whole games.

Which one is "good"? I think you'd get a lot of different answers from different people.

Both of them sound like crap to me.

I would look for a coach who focuses on tactics and decision-making + knows what those things actually are.

As for the rest - all players need to play, but nothing else really matters all that much.
- a coach who focuses on technical skills is largely wasting his time - kids need to learn that on their own - especially if they're already on a top team where they need to spend way more time on it than can be carved out of team practices to really improve
- competitiveness and sportsmanship are both good things to encourage
- being nice is better than being nasty

That kind of thinking is why US youth soccer sucks. Players certainly need to spend a ton of time on their own, but they also need a lot of guidance and correction on technical details and defects. Watch an “elite” US youth game and you’ll see players with glaring technical defects.

100% this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At U12 DC1 had a top team coach who was focused a lot on competition, technical skills, conditioning and strategy. Little down time, little emphasis on teamwork. Some players sat on the bench the whole season.

At U12 DC2 had a coach really focused on development of core technical skills and softer skills like sportsmanship and was just a really nice coach and a good person to be around with. Everyone played although some much more than others but no one sat out whole games.

Which one is "good"? I think you'd get a lot of different answers from different people.

Both of them sound like crap to me.

I would look for a coach who focuses on tactics and decision-making + knows what those things actually are.

As for the rest - all players need to play, but nothing else really matters all that much.
- a coach who focuses on technical skills is largely wasting his time - kids need to learn that on their own - especially if they're already on a top team where they need to spend way more time on it than can be carved out of team practices to really improve
- competitiveness and sportsmanship are both good things to encourage
- being nice is better than being nasty

That kind of thinking is why US youth soccer sucks. Players certainly need to spend a ton of time on their own, but they also need a lot of guidance and correction on technical details and defects. Watch an “elite” US youth game and you’ll see players with glaring technical defects.

100% this

To the PP’s credit, I don’t think no technical coaching was envisioned, only that it’s no longer the focus at very top levels.

Of course, a coach should always be correcting technique or preaching mastery but I assumed that was a given. I guess not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are very few coaches in this world. Even the “best” coaches are slightly psychotic.

Instead of asking for a “good coach” teach your kids how to deal with a psycho coach because that’s what they’re probably gonna get for the rest of their lives if they’re gonna play top level sports.

And then, eventually they’ll get a psycho boss and I’ll know what to do.

This made me laugh. It's sad, but true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At U12 DC1 had a top team coach who was focused a lot on competition, technical skills, conditioning and strategy. Little down time, little emphasis on teamwork. Some players sat on the bench the whole season.

At U12 DC2 had a coach really focused on development of core technical skills and softer skills like sportsmanship and was just a really nice coach and a good person to be around with. Everyone played although some much more than others but no one sat out whole games.

Which one is "good"? I think you'd get a lot of different answers from different people.

Both of them sound like crap to me.

I would look for a coach who focuses on tactics and decision-making + knows what those things actually are.

As for the rest - all players need to play, but nothing else really matters all that much.
- a coach who focuses on technical skills is largely wasting his time - kids need to learn that on their own - especially if they're already on a top team where they need to spend way more time on it than can be carved out of team practices to really improve
- competitiveness and sportsmanship are both good things to encourage
- being nice is better than being nasty

At U12 no. You're wrong IMO.
At U12 most kids are not at the level of tactics and decision making. They need the basics first. Even the top teams are not focusing on that. I would agree for U15 and up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At U12 DC1 had a top team coach who was focused a lot on competition, technical skills, conditioning and strategy. Little down time, little emphasis on teamwork. Some players sat on the bench the whole season.

At U12 DC2 had a coach really focused on development of core technical skills and softer skills like sportsmanship and was just a really nice coach and a good person to be around with. Everyone played although some much more than others but no one sat out whole games.

Which one is "good"? I think you'd get a lot of different answers from different people.

Both of them sound like crap to me.

I would look for a coach who focuses on tactics and decision-making + knows what those things actually are.

As for the rest - all players need to play, but nothing else really matters all that much.
- a coach who focuses on technical skills is largely wasting his time - kids need to learn that on their own - especially if they're already on a top team where they need to spend way more time on it than can be carved out of team practices to really improve
- competitiveness and sportsmanship are both good things to encourage
- being nice is better than being nasty

At U12 no. You're wrong IMO.
At U12 most kids are not at the level of tactics and decision making. They need the basics first. Even the top teams are not focusing on that. I would agree for U15 and up.

Strongly disagree with this. That doesn’t make sense. At that age, the most competitive kids have been playing soccer a long time and frankly that tactical and decision making is what can make them stand out (esp. in the long run), assuming peers and/or teammates have similar technical skills and athleticism.