Coach vs Club in player development

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so let me understand, you opinion is a bad club typically has a curriculum or a style of play that they work toward teaching? is that what you are saying?

it depends on the style. Coaching young kids to kick and run- which will win a lot of games at that age if you have a couple of fast strikers with reasonable ball skills isn't good for anyone. On the other hand, coaching possession take a while to click and may not get the results parents want right away.

and if a player is a playmaker, he'll want to get the ball at his feet and run at the back line. by forcing a style of play, much like relying a style of play, you are stymieing the growth of the player. good coaches can connect with the player and maximize the game

Single style clubs tend to squash player creativity - they want kids to execute rote patterns and approaches. Instead of forcing kids to play a style let them discover the pros and cons of different styles. I am constantly seeing kids at the older ages conditioned to only build out of the back or only go direct. The clubs have failed these players because they have been blindly taught only one approach - whatever their club said was the ‘right’ way to play the game. The trend is now possession (because tika taka was too hard). Any serious student of the game knows that possession is important at some phases of a game but an absolute disaster in other phases. If your club says this is the only way to play, your kids development is being stunted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so let me understand, you opinion is a bad club typically has a curriculum or a style of play that they work toward teaching? is that what you are saying?

it depends on the style. Coaching young kids to kick and run- which will win a lot of games at that age if you have a couple of fast strikers with reasonable ball skills isn't good for anyone. On the other hand, coaching possession take a while to click and may not get the results parents want right away.

and if a player is a playmaker, he'll want to get the ball at his feet and run at the back line. by forcing a style of play, much like relying a style of play, you are stymieing the growth of the player. good coaches can connect with the player and maximize the game

Single style clubs tend to squash player creativity - they want kids to execute rote patterns and approaches. Instead of forcing kids to play a style let them discover the pros and cons of different styles. I am constantly seeing kids at the older ages conditioned to only build out of the back or only go direct. The clubs have failed these players because they have been blindly taught only one approach - whatever their club said was the ‘right’ way to play the game. The trend is now possession (because tika taka was too hard). Any serious student of the game knows that possession is important at some phases of a game but an absolute disaster in other phases. If your club says this is the only way to play, your kids development is being stunted.

we've had parents complain about a lack of tournament wins for young kids. Our coach refuses to do set plays and lets the kids work out strategy- I think it helps creativity and team work. I think its the right approach in the long term, but short sited win now strategies will yield better results

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so let me understand, you opinion is a bad club typically has a curriculum or a style of play that they work toward teaching? is that what you are saying?

it depends on the style. Coaching young kids to kick and run- which will win a lot of games at that age if you have a couple of fast strikers with reasonable ball skills isn't good for anyone. On the other hand, coaching possession take a while to click and may not get the results parents want right away.

and if a player is a playmaker, he'll want to get the ball at his feet and run at the back line. by forcing a style of play, much like relying a style of play, you are stymieing the growth of the player. good coaches can connect with the player and maximize the game

Single style clubs tend to squash player creativity - they want kids to execute rote patterns and approaches. Instead of forcing kids to play a style let them discover the pros and cons of different styles. I am constantly seeing kids at the older ages conditioned to only build out of the back or only go direct. The clubs have failed these players because they have been blindly taught only one approach - whatever their club said was the ‘right’ way to play the game. The trend is now possession (because tika taka was too hard). Any serious student of the game knows that possession is important at some phases of a game but an absolute disaster in other phases. If your club says this is the only way to play, your kids development is being stunted.

Yeah, I guess that's why all those players who've come through the academies at Barca and Ajax through the years suck so bad. Thankfully they have geniuses like you to show them the way.

It's true there are many different ways to play the game, but at the youth level just about every top pro academy in the world tries to stick to one style when teaching the game. Even if their professional teams play differently, all of the teams in the academy will play the same style - the coaches are all on the same page.

If you can find an example of a professional academy espousing your belief that mixing it up and teaching different styles of play from year to year is a benefit to youth development, please post it here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so let me understand, you opinion is a bad club typically has a curriculum or a style of play that they work toward teaching? is that what you are saying?

it depends on the style. Coaching young kids to kick and run- which will win a lot of games at that age if you have a couple of fast strikers with reasonable ball skills isn't good for anyone. On the other hand, coaching possession take a while to click and may not get the results parents want right away.

and if a player is a playmaker, he'll want to get the ball at his feet and run at the back line. by forcing a style of play, much like relying a style of play, you are stymieing the growth of the player. good coaches can connect with the player and maximize the game

Single style clubs tend to squash player creativity - they want kids to execute rote patterns and approaches. Instead of forcing kids to play a style let them discover the pros and cons of different styles. I am constantly seeing kids at the older ages conditioned to only build out of the back or only go direct. The clubs have failed these players because they have been blindly taught only one approach - whatever their club said was the ‘right’ way to play the game. The trend is now possession (because tika taka was too hard). Any serious student of the game knows that possession is important at some phases of a game but an absolute disaster in other phases. If your club says this is the only way to play, your kids development is being stunted.

Yeah, I guess that's why all those players who've come through the academies at Barca and Ajax through the years suck so bad. Thankfully they have geniuses like you to show them the way.

It's true there are many different ways to play the game, but at the youth level just about every top pro academy in the world tries to stick to one style when teaching the game. Even if their professional teams play differently, all of the teams in the academy will play the same style - the coaches are all on the same page.

If you can find an example of a professional academy espousing your belief that mixing it up and teaching different styles of play from year to year is a benefit to youth development, please post it here.

If you believe the professional academies are teaching a single style of play, you are quite mistaken. In fact, much of the time spent in professional youth academies (during league play) is spent on working on counters and shifts in style. We would spend weeks specifically working on how we changed our style given different opponents and situations. If you believe that anything local looks at all like a professional youth academy, you are also quite mistaken. There is nothing local that looks remotely like a professional youth academy, let alone a Barca or Ajax. So let’s avoid any confusion that such an academy is even in the current region. Please post feel free to post any support about how professional clubs only play one style.

[Anonymous]

Some idiotic responses, every team should be organized with and without the ball?

Maybe some coaches don’t know how to do their job but I doubt it is intentional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so let me understand, you opinion is a bad club typically has a curriculum or a style of play that they work toward teaching? is that what you are saying?

it depends on the style. Coaching young kids to kick and run- which will win a lot of games at that age if you have a couple of fast strikers with reasonable ball skills isn't good for anyone. On the other hand, coaching possession take a while to click and may not get the results parents want right away.

and if a player is a playmaker, he'll want to get the ball at his feet and run at the back line. by forcing a style of play, much like relying a style of play, you are stymieing the growth of the player. good coaches can connect with the player and maximize the game

Single style clubs tend to squash player creativity - they want kids to execute rote patterns and approaches. Instead of forcing kids to play a style let them discover the pros and cons of different styles. I am constantly seeing kids at the older ages conditioned to only build out of the back or only go direct. The clubs have failed these players because they have been blindly taught only one approach - whatever their club said was the ‘right’ way to play the game. The trend is now possession (because tika taka was too hard). Any serious student of the game knows that possession is important at some phases of a game but an absolute disaster in other phases. If your club says this is the only way to play, your kids development is being stunted.

Yeah, I guess that's why all those players who've come through the academies at Barca and Ajax through the years suck so bad. Thankfully they have geniuses like you to show them the way.

It's true there are many different ways to play the game, but at the youth level just about every top pro academy in the world tries to stick to one style when teaching the game. Even if their professional teams play differently, all of the teams in the academy will play the same style - the coaches are all on the same page.

If you can find an example of a professional academy espousing your belief that mixing it up and teaching different styles of play from year to year is a benefit to

youth development, please post it here.

Professional clubs are filtering out all sorts of deficiencies before the kid even smells the academy. They have a higher supply of players; they're allowed to do what they want. Would you like to re-frame your argument?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so let me understand, you opinion is a bad club typically has a curriculum or a style of play that they work toward teaching? is that what you are saying?

it depends on the style. Coaching young kids to kick and run- which will win a lot of games at that age if you have a couple of fast strikers with reasonable ball skills isn't good for anyone. On the other hand, coaching possession take a while to click and may not get the results parents want right away.

and if a player is a playmaker, he'll want to get the ball at his feet and run at the back line. by forcing a style of play, much like relying a style of play, you are stymieing the growth of the player. good coaches can connect with the player and maximize the game

Single style clubs tend to squash player creativity - they want kids to execute rote patterns and approaches. Instead of forcing kids to play a style let them discover the pros and cons of different styles. I am constantly seeing kids at the older ages conditioned to only build out of the back or only go direct. The clubs have failed these players because they have been blindly taught only one approach - whatever their club said was the ‘right’ way to play the game. The trend is now possession (because tika taka was too hard). Any serious student of the game knows that possession is important at some phases of a game but an absolute disaster in other phases. If your club says this is the only way to play, your kids development is being stunted.

Yeah, I guess that's why all those players who've come through the academies at Barca and Ajax through the years suck so bad. Thankfully they have geniuses like you to show them the way.

It's true there are many different ways to play the game, but at the youth level just about every top pro academy in the world tries to stick to one style when teaching the game. Even if their professional teams play differently, all of the teams in the academy will play the same style - the coaches are all on the same page.

If you can find an example of a professional academy espousing your belief that mixing it up and teaching different styles of play from year to year is a benefit to youth development, please post it here.

they're generational players; la masia has been struggling to put out great players capable of breaking into first team. several also leave and find success, failure elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

OP here: A lot of good takes and things to think about. I was not really concerned with the professional academies and their level of coaching, but it brings up a good point. I think we can all agree that level of coaching is unreasonable in our region. But, I do think just going with a good/inspiring coach is a little short sighted. Now, if this good coach also took a little time and had resources they are working from, and could show, that would lead to the club level. That can make a difference; at least other people are involved in some way. I have a hard time with just the good coach only suggestion. I do not believe any one individual, organization, or country has all the answers and they are going to be blind to certain aspects. So, a safe way to keep an eye out for those blind spots during development would be to have some plan in place. A plan that can be told to others. It could be as simple as this year "x" is the goal for learning. It does not need to be followed as dogma, but the coach is not allowed carte blanche to follow "something."

So, maybe the suggestion is a good coach with a club that has some plan they can show you.

[Anonymous]

almost every la masia "reject" would make the US youth national team at their age group

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here: A lot of good takes and things to think about. I was not really concerned with the professional academies and their level of coaching, but it brings up a good point. I think we can all agree that level of coaching is unreasonable in our region. But, I do think just going with a good/inspiring coach is a little short sighted. Now, if this good coach also took a little time and had resources they are working from, and could show, that would lead to the club level. That can make a difference; at least other people are involved in some way. I have a hard time with just the good coach only suggestion. I do not believe any one individual, organization, or country has all the answers and they are going to be blind to certain aspects. So, a safe way to keep an eye out for those blind spots during development would be to have some plan in place. A plan that can be told to others. It could be as simple as this year "x" is the goal for learning. It does not need to be followed as dogma, but the coach is not allowed carte blanche to follow "something."

So, maybe the suggestion is a good coach with a club that has some plan they can show you.

OP, you don't have an in depth knowledge of the game, so you can't tell by watching practices and games whether a coach is any good or not. Therefore what you are really looking for is a coach/club with a good sales pitch - and PowerPoint presentation to go with it - that will convince you they have a "plan."

Good luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:almost every la masia "reject" would make the US youth national team at their age group

it's almost like soccer is the most important sport for their culture

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here: A lot of good takes and things to think about. I was not really concerned with the professional academies and their level of coaching, but it brings up a good point. I think we can all agree that level of coaching is unreasonable in our region. But, I do think just going with a good/inspiring coach is a little short sighted. Now, if this good coach also took a little time and had resources they are working from, and could show, that would lead to the club level. That can make a difference; at least other people are involved in some way. I have a hard time with just the good coach only suggestion. I do not believe any one individual, organization, or country has all the answers and they are going to be blind to certain aspects. So, a safe way to keep an eye out for those blind spots during development would be to have some plan in place. A plan that can be told to others. It could be as simple as this year "x" is the goal for learning. It does not need to be followed as dogma, but the coach is not allowed carte blanche to follow "something."

So, maybe the suggestion is a good coach with a club that has some plan they can show you.

What type of "plan" do you expect to see from a club? For example...What's Arlington's "plan"? Loudoun's "plan"? any club? You aren't going to see a "plan". You might here some BS on player development but every coach does their own thing for the most part. Alexandria might follow a curriculum more closely, but that's about it.

[Anonymous]

Problem with our big club was more political and incumbency based. Moving up to the highest team was a bit of a glass ceiling as certain kids and families had built up a connection with the club and were beyond being challenged, despite the fact that several head to head matchups clearly favored kids on the second team over the first both in game and individual competitions. We had a coach who even recognized it and told us there was not only a clique of parents but a clique of coaches and that if we wanted to play top flight we really had to leave the club and try elsewhere as there was little chance of moving up.

[Anonymous]

OP here: Well, I never said I had "in depth knowledge of the game", but quite frankly, I don't need it. Nor should a parent be asked to have the ability to evaluate, at just a few practices, if the coach has the correct knowledge. That's well out of scope for most parents. However, even if they are just PowerPoints, or PDFs, or napkins, anything is better than nothing that can be conveyed to other people easily. So far, in this thread, I have not seen one reason why having a plan is bad. The only thing it could possibly do is provide insight to the parents and guide for the coaches. All positive things. They don't need to be overly restrictive, and there are plenty of online resources for these coaches.

The strange thing I find is the push back. Brushing off the mere notion of having information available about what should be taught at any point is very odd. No milestones or objectives, just "trust the coach" or "find the coach." Anyone can say it is pointless to try and teach a pre-k child to multiply fractions. But, if you have a teacher that is attempting to teach a class of four year old kids how to do exactly that, and is not getting the results they desire, maybe they have a blind spot. Just mayyyybe they skipped a step somewhere. They may need to consult with other teachers and gain more insight into what would be more appropriate. Maybe they need to revisit other skills those children need first.

For some reason in sport, some coaches disregard explaining what they are doing, why, and where it is going. They don't want to point to anything, they don't allow others to know. There very well could be magic coaches in the world that are able to know everything for every step. I would put more stock into the humility of a teacher if they can say, I am using these guides and my knowledge. Far more reasonable. Not just their gut and to trust them to have supreme "in depth knowledge of the game" at their disposal. Blindly using drills in whatever order and hoping for the best.

I am sure we have all seen teams where the kids are clearly missing technical training in specific areas, but it seems the coach may have moved on to tactics solely to prevent blowouts. Or, the inverse, the coach is only concerned with technical skills and the shape and movement of the team is non-existent. My thought is those are good coaches, they care, but they didn't have or use a guide to help with the blind spots.

Here are some examples I found:
https://www.newyorkredbulls.com/youth/coaching-guide#Annual%20Training%20Plans

https://www.baltimorearmour.com/portals/9071/docs/baltimorearmourstyleofplay.pdf

https://lagalaxyoc.com/lagoc/docs/club_philosophy_pdm.pdf


If you look for videos on Youtube, it seems pretty easy to match up the plan based on the age.

In no way am I saying every coach/club needs this much detail, but to ignore it is going against their own best interests. Interesting that specific clubs are named as having or not having a plan. How did you come to that list? Was it something you noticed in the games that you have seen?

Why is having a plan bad?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:so let me understand, you opinion is a bad club typically has a curriculum or a style of play that they work toward teaching? is that what you are saying?

it depends on the style. Coaching young kids to kick and run- which will win a lot of games at that age if you have a couple of fast strikers with reasonable ball skills isn't good for anyone. On the other hand, coaching possession take a while to click and may not get the results parents want right away.

and if a player is a playmaker, he'll want to get the ball at his feet and run at the back line. by forcing a style of play, much like relying a style of play, you are stymieing the growth of the player. good coaches can connect with the player and maximize the game

Single style clubs tend to squash player creativity - they want kids to execute rote patterns and approaches. Instead of forcing kids to play a style let them discover the pros and cons of different styles. I am constantly seeing kids at the older ages conditioned to only build out of the back or only go direct. The clubs have failed these players because they have been blindly taught only one approach - whatever their club said was the ‘right’ way to play the game. The trend is now possession (because tika taka was too hard). Any serious student of the game knows that possession is important at some phases of a game but an absolute disaster in other phases. If your club says this is the only way to play, your kids development is being stunted.

LOL