Timed mile for high school soccer tryouts?

[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.

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. 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.

Ha! I don't think you even read my post. Anyhow, my post was not about a metric nor was it about the quality of HS soccer coaches or using a stopwatch. BTW, "it stands to reason" usually means, I really have no first hand knowledge or experience, but I'll offer an uniformed opinion anyhow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While the times seem really hard to meet unless you are in shape, I agree it is just to weed those out that are out of shape. The frustrating thing about it is that there are probably plenty of super fast sprinters that hate running distance and can't hit those targets.

5:30 should be attainable by any high school soccer player who has trained for even a few weeks. And a kid who can't do this is going to struggle to put in a full 90 minutes.

530 is a ridiculous threshold for a mile. 7 is realistic and 630 is pretty optimal and 6 is a dedicated fast endurance athlete.
I couldnt run a 10min mile but I still played entire games on defense and kept sprints with all of the forwards. I was also a brick, other girls could charge me and they literally bounced off of me. I could also clear the ball and throw in better than any of my teammates as I had a lot of upper body strength. There are other attributes for soccer. This is also HS soccer not club.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 🙄

I take it you were one of those elite athletes who a sport Americans care about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While the times seem really hard to meet unless you are in shape, I agree it is just to weed those out that are out of shape. The frustrating thing about it is that there are probably plenty of super fast sprinters that hate running distance and can't hit those targets.

5:30 should be attainable by any high school soccer player who has trained for even a few weeks. And a kid who can't do this is going to struggle to put in a full 90 minutes.

530 is a ridiculous threshold for a mile. 7 is realistic and 630 is pretty optimal and 6 is a dedicated fast endurance athlete.
I couldnt run a 10min mile but I still played entire games on defense and kept sprints with all of the forwards. I was also a brick, other girls could charge me and they literally bounced off of me. I could also clear the ball and throw in better than any of my teammates as I had a lot of upper body strength. There are other attributes for soccer. This is also HS soccer not club.

You sound like you were a formidable defender indeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You don’t need a timed run to determine that. It is of little soccer value.

[Anonymous]

Typical American soccer coach mentality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While the times seem really hard to meet unless you are in shape, I agree it is just to weed those out that are out of shape. The frustrating thing about it is that there are probably plenty of super fast sprinters that hate running distance and can't hit those targets.

5:30 should be attainable by any high school soccer player who has trained for even a few weeks. And a kid who can't do this is going to struggle to put in a full 90 minutes.

530 is a ridiculous threshold for a mile. 7 is realistic and 630 is pretty optimal and 6 is a dedicated fast endurance athlete.
I couldnt run a 10min mile but I still played entire games on defense and kept sprints with all of the forwards. I was also a brick, other girls could charge me and they literally bounced off of me. I could also clear the ball and throw in better than any of my teammates as I had a lot of upper body strength. There are other attributes for soccer. This is also HS soccer not club.

I ran sun-6 minute miles (female). I could also out sprint almost all other players. And I am not petite - stronger than most girls.
Being able to run a mile fast is a good test of both endurance and speed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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. 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.

Ha! I don't think you even read my post. Anyhow, my post was not about a metric nor was it about the quality of HS soccer coaches or using a stopwatch. BTW, "it stands to reason" usually means, I really have no first hand knowledge or experience, but I'll offer an uniformed opinion anyhow.

I read your post and you lose all credibility if you believe a timed run is a useful exercise at a tryout.

Seriously, what is actually done with the numbers after the fact? Are kids separated immediately into small sided groups based on them? Are the numbers actually gone over after the session when you have already seen everyone play? Has the observed athleticism displayed in scrimmages conflict with the numbers? I.E. did you fail to notice a fast player in game that you needed the mile times to confirm?

Are you that utterly blind as a coach that you could not identify a fast, quality player when you see it? You really are that bad that you need 60+ kids run a race because you can’t spot a fast player?

That is what makes it a joke. If you actually need it your pathetic and lazy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:While the times seem really hard to meet unless you are in shape, I agree it is just to weed those out that are out of shape. The frustrating thing about it is that there are probably plenty of super fast sprinters that hate running distance and can't hit those targets.

5:30 should be attainable by any high school soccer player who has trained for even a few weeks. And a kid who can't do this is going to struggle to put in a full 90 minutes.

530 is a ridiculous threshold for a mile. 7 is realistic and 630 is pretty optimal and 6 is a dedicated fast endurance athlete.
I couldnt run a 10min mile but I still played entire games on defense and kept sprints with all of the forwards. I was also a brick, other girls could charge me and they literally bounced off of me. I could also clear the ball and throw in better than any of my teammates as I had a lot of upper body strength. There are other attributes for soccer. This is also HS soccer not club.

I ran sun-6 minute miles (female). I could also out sprint almost all other players. And I am not petite - stronger than most girls.
Being able to run a mile fast is a good test of both endurance and speed.

What does it predictive about your soccer abilities?

[Anonymous]

They should just cut the soccer programs from every high school in the country and also fire any travel coach who has the players run a mile or two once a season to get a sense of his team's general, overall fitness level. That's the only solution. American soccer coaches are the only coaches at any level in the entire world who use some variation of a timed distance run to test their players endurance.

[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.

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.

What field are you talking about? You’re debating what kids can do on the track as if it related to the field.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are correct, they are different animals indeed. HS soccer sucks compared to club. Imagine believing that at this stage into a travel spring season some meathead HS coach thinks he needs a fitness test. This isn’t September, these kids have been playing for over 8 months now if they are club players. They are in shape

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should just cut the soccer programs from every high school in the country and also fire any travel coach who has the players run a mile or two once a season to get a sense of his team's general, overall fitness level. That's the only solution. American soccer coaches are the only coaches at any level in the entire world who use some variation of a timed distance run to test their players endurance.

They kinda are, yeah. Again, if a fitness test is to be used then at least use the Man U test. It is at least used by soccer clubs. But American HS soccer coaches know better even though HS soccer is a terrible product in general.

[Anonymous]

Haha all the parents bristling at these tests are clearly just mad their kids are not fit. Why don’t you want your kids to do hard things? Soccer is also about building character. Sacrifice. Pushing your body to its absolute limit. If your kid can’t do it they can probably still make the team they’ll just have to keep doing the test until they pass. The cooper run (2 miles under 12 minutes) was always awful for me as a sprinter but it sure as hell got me in shape training for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Haha all the parents bristling at these tests are clearly just mad their kids are not fit. Why don’t you want your kids to do hard things? Soccer is also about building character. Sacrifice. Pushing your body to its absolute limit. If your kid can’t do it they can probably still make the team they’ll just have to keep doing the test until they pass. The cooper run (2 miles under 12 minutes) was always awful for me as a sprinter but it sure as hell got me in shape training for it.

Btw I’m female so it shouldn’t be as hard for boys.