MLS next

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
hint: training is more important

If this is true, why do professional teams send young players out on loan to develop?

Could it be that game time is important as well? There is only so much that can be replicated in practice.

The inability to replicate game-like scenarios in training is a reflection of the lack of knowledge and competence of the coach.
(see other thread about quality coaches and coaching licenses and certifications)

It's one thing to replicate "game-like scenarios" and another to compete in a real game against an opponent who is not your teammate playing 11v11 (unless you assume the team rosters 22+ players). As much as you try to replicate a game, it's not the same. The only coaches who claim that, are the ones who have huge rosters and try to convince parents and players that playing time in a game doesn't matter because it's all about training.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
hint: training is more important

If this is true, why do professional teams send young players out on loan to develop?

Could it be that game time is important as well? There is only so much that can be replicated in practice.

The inability to replicate game-like scenarios in training is a reflection of the lack of knowledge and competence of the coach.
(see other thread about quality coaches and coaching licenses and certifications)

It's one thing to replicate "game-like scenarios" and another to compete in a real game against an opponent who is not your teammate playing 11v11 (unless you assume the team rosters 22+ players). As much as you try to replicate a game, it's not the same. The only coaches who claim that, are the ones who have huge rosters and try to convince parents and players that playing time in a game doesn't matter because it's all about training.

sigh
You learn during class, not during the exam. The game is the exam. Training is the classroom.
You take your training on to the game pitch. If you can't do it in training, you can't do it during the game.

Some people care too much about the superficial and the imagery.
Okay, your kid is out there for the entire game so you can record and take pictures for FB and IG with all their bad touches, poor control, bad passing, can't beat anyone 1v1 or stop them, can't make quick or good decisions.

Good coaches can make game-like scenarios that are exactly the same and many times more difficult than games.

You think an overload possession drill in a small space with varying rules doesn't replicate game scenario?
There is a reason the best coaches spend most of game time taking notes of concepts to work on in practice. Not joysticking during games.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
hint: training is more important

If this is true, why do professional teams send young players out on loan to develop?

Could it be that game time is important as well? There is only so much that can be replicated in practice.

The inability to replicate game-like scenarios in training is a reflection of the lack of knowledge and competence of the coach.
(see other thread about quality coaches and coaching licenses and certifications)

It's one thing to replicate "game-like scenarios" and another to compete in a real game against an opponent who is not your teammate playing 11v11 (unless you assume the team rosters 22+ players). As much as you try to replicate a game, it's not the same. The only coaches who claim that, are the ones who have huge rosters and try to convince parents and players that playing time in a game doesn't matter because it's all about training.

sigh
You learn during class, not during the exam. The game is the exam. Training is the classroom.
You take your training on to the game pitch. If you can't do it in training, you can't do it during the game.

Some people care too much about the superficial and the imagery.
Okay, your kid is out there for the entire game so you can record and take pictures for FB and IG with all their bad touches, poor control, bad passing, can't beat anyone 1v1 or stop them, can't make quick or good decisions.

Good coaches can make game-like scenarios that are exactly the same and many times more difficult than games.

You think an overload possession drill in a small space with varying rules doesn't replicate game scenario?
There is a reason the best coaches spend most of game time taking notes of concepts to work on in practice. Not joysticking during games.

Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
hint: training is more important

If this is true, why do professional teams send young players out on loan to develop?

Could it be that game time is important as well? There is only so much that can be replicated in practice.

The inability to replicate game-like scenarios in training is a reflection of the lack of knowledge and competence of the coach.
(see other thread about quality coaches and coaching licenses and certifications)

It's one thing to replicate "game-like scenarios" and another to compete in a real game against an opponent who is not your teammate playing 11v11 (unless you assume the team rosters 22+ players). As much as you try to replicate a game, it's not the same. The only coaches who claim that, are the ones who have huge rosters and try to convince parents and players that playing time in a game doesn't matter because it's all about training.

sigh
You learn during class, not during the exam. The game is the exam. Training is the classroom.
You take your training on to the game pitch. If you can't do it in training, you can't do it during the game.

Some people care too much about the superficial and the imagery.
Okay, your kid is out there for the entire game so you can record and take pictures for FB and IG with all their bad touches, poor control, bad passing, can't beat anyone 1v1 or stop them, can't make quick or good decisions.

Good coaches can make game-like scenarios that are exactly the same and many times more difficult than games.

You think an overload possession drill in a small space with varying rules doesn't replicate game scenario?
There is a reason the best coaches spend most of game time taking notes of concepts to work on in practice. Not joysticking during games.

Well said.

Sorry you're so exasperated with the conversation. It's also true that just because you can do something in training does not necessarily mean you can do it in a game. I'm sure you've got great ideas for drills and 5 v 4 games, but you're still going against the same players every day. You get used to players tendencies and abilities. Complacency sets in over time. Not to mention you're only defending the style of play your team plays. As hard as you might try, in any sport, practice does not fully replicate game play. We all know "practice players" that disappear in matches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
hint: training is more important

If this is true, why do professional teams send young players out on loan to develop?

Could it be that game time is important as well? There is only so much that can be replicated in practice.

The inability to replicate game-like scenarios in training is a reflection of the lack of knowledge and competence of the coach.
(see other thread about quality coaches and coaching licenses and certifications)

It's one thing to replicate "game-like scenarios" and another to compete in a real game against an opponent who is not your teammate playing 11v11 (unless you assume the team rosters 22+ players). As much as you try to replicate a game, it's not the same. The only coaches who claim that, are the ones who have huge rosters and try to convince parents and players that playing time in a game doesn't matter because it's all about training.

sigh
You learn during class, not during the exam. The game is the exam. Training is the classroom.
You take your training on to the game pitch. If you can't do it in training, you can't do it during the game.

Some people care too much about the superficial and the imagery.
Okay, your kid is out there for the entire game so you can record and take pictures for FB and IG with all their bad touches, poor control, bad passing, can't beat anyone 1v1 or stop them, can't make quick or good decisions.

Good coaches can make game-like scenarios that are exactly the same and many times more difficult than games.

You think an overload possession drill in a small space with varying rules doesn't replicate game scenario?
There is a reason the best coaches spend most of game time taking notes of concepts to work on in practice. Not joysticking during games.

Well said.

Sorry you're so exasperated with the conversation. It's also true that just because you can do something in training does not necessarily mean you can do it in a game. I'm sure you've got great ideas for drills and 5 v 4 games, but you're still going against the same players every day. You get used to players tendencies and abilities. Complacency sets in over time. Not to mention you're only defending the style of play your team plays. As hard as you might try, in any sport, practice does not fully replicate game play. We all know "practice players" that disappear in matches.

Show me the player or team that cannot do something on the practice pitch but can do it on Saturdays.
Any player who is good and a standout in practice but plays poorly in games has a confidence issue or the practices are poor.
Either way, neither gets fixed in the game.

Why do you feel the need to exaggerate? There is no narrative here that games have no purpose or is useless.

It would be extremely difficult for you to find any top quality youth club/academy/coach in the world that doesn't subscribe to the philosophy that training is more important than games.

If your kid is riding the bench during games, they probably aren't doing too good in training or in games when they do get the chance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
hint: training is more important

If this is true, why do professional teams send young players out on loan to develop?

Could it be that game time is important as well? There is only so much that can be replicated in practice.

The inability to replicate game-like scenarios in training is a reflection of the lack of knowledge and competence of the coach.
(see other thread about quality coaches and coaching licenses and certifications)

It's one thing to replicate "game-like scenarios" and another to compete in a real game against an opponent who is not your teammate playing 11v11 (unless you assume the team rosters 22+ players). As much as you try to replicate a game, it's not the same. The only coaches who claim that, are the ones who have huge rosters and try to convince parents and players that playing time in a game doesn't matter because it's all about training.

sigh
You learn during class, not during the exam. The game is the exam. Training is the classroom.
You take your training on to the game pitch. If you can't do it in training, you can't do it during the game.

Some people care too much about the superficial and the imagery.
Okay, your kid is out there for the entire game so you can record and take pictures for FB and IG with all their bad touches, poor control, bad passing, can't beat anyone 1v1 or stop them, can't make quick or good decisions.

Good coaches can make game-like scenarios that are exactly the same and many times more difficult than games.

You think an overload possession drill in a small space with varying rules doesn't replicate game scenario?
There is a reason the best coaches spend most of game time taking notes of concepts to work on in practice. Not joysticking during games.

sigh
It's not about joysticking during games. It's about taking what you learned at practice and applying successfully or not in "real" time and when it counts and you are feeling the stress of competition. Just like you practice for an exam and taking the exam shows you how you can apply what you learned to a different set of questions/scenarios. Games at U13-14 are not about being recruited or taking pictures. It's about applying on a full field against competitors what they learned in practice. And the coach can give you feedback on your performance so you can figure out how to improve. Come on. This isn't hard to understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
hint: training is more important

If this is true, why do professional teams send young players out on loan to develop?

Could it be that game time is important as well? There is only so much that can be replicated in practice.

The inability to replicate game-like scenarios in training is a reflection of the lack of knowledge and competence of the coach.
(see other thread about quality coaches and coaching licenses and certifications)

It's one thing to replicate "game-like scenarios" and another to compete in a real game against an opponent who is not your teammate playing 11v11 (unless you assume the team rosters 22+ players). As much as you try to replicate a game, it's not the same. The only coaches who claim that, are the ones who have huge rosters and try to convince parents and players that playing time in a game doesn't matter because it's all about training.

sigh
You learn during class, not during the exam. The game is the exam. Training is the classroom.
You take your training on to the game pitch. If you can't do it in training, you can't do it during the game.

Some people care too much about the superficial and the imagery.
Okay, your kid is out there for the entire game so you can record and take pictures for FB and IG with all their bad touches, poor control, bad passing, can't beat anyone 1v1 or stop them, can't make quick or good decisions.

Good coaches can make game-like scenarios that are exactly the same and many times more difficult than games.

You think an overload possession drill in a small space with varying rules doesn't replicate game scenario?
There is a reason the best coaches spend most of game time taking notes of concepts to work on in practice. Not joysticking during games.

sigh
It's not about joysticking during games. It's about taking what you learned at practice and applying successfully or not in "real" time and when it counts and you are feeling the stress of competition. Just like you practice for an exam and taking the exam shows you how you can apply what you learned to a different set of questions/scenarios. Games at U13-14 are not about being recruited or taking pictures. It's about applying on a full field against competitors what they learned in practice. And the coach can give you feedback on your performance so you can figure out how to improve. Come on. This isn't hard to understand.

Your response seems to be to the wrong poster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
hint: training is more important

If this is true, why do professional teams send young players out on loan to develop?

Could it be that game time is important as well? There is only so much that can be replicated in practice.

The inability to replicate game-like scenarios in training is a reflection of the lack of knowledge and competence of the coach.
(see other thread about quality coaches and coaching licenses and certifications)

It's one thing to replicate "game-like scenarios" and another to compete in a real game against an opponent who is not your teammate playing 11v11 (unless you assume the team rosters 22+ players). As much as you try to replicate a game, it's not the same. The only coaches who claim that, are the ones who have huge rosters and try to convince parents and players that playing time in a game doesn't matter because it's all about training.

sigh
You learn during class, not during the exam. The game is the exam. Training is the classroom.
You take your training on to the game pitch. If you can't do it in training, you can't do it during the game.

Some people care too much about the superficial and the imagery.
Okay, your kid is out there for the entire game so you can record and take pictures for FB and IG with all their bad touches, poor control, bad passing, can't beat anyone 1v1 or stop them, can't make quick or good decisions.

Good coaches can make game-like scenarios that are exactly the same and many times more difficult than games.

You think an overload possession drill in a small space with varying rules doesn't replicate game scenario?
There is a reason the best coaches spend most of game time taking notes of concepts to work on in practice. Not joysticking during games.

Well said.

Sorry you're so exasperated with the conversation. It's also true that just because you can do something in training does not necessarily mean you can do it in a game. I'm sure you've got great ideas for drills and 5 v 4 games, but you're still going against the same players every day. You get used to players tendencies and abilities. Complacency sets in over time. Not to mention you're only defending the style of play your team plays. As hard as you might try, in any sport, practice does not fully replicate game play. We all know "practice players" that disappear in matches.

Show me the player or team that cannot do something on the practice pitch but can do it on Saturdays.
Any player who is good and a standout in practice but plays poorly in games has a confidence issue or the practices are poor.
Either way, neither gets fixed in the game.

Why do you feel the need to exaggerate? There is no narrative here that games have no purpose or is useless.

It would be extremely difficult for you to find any top quality youth club/academy/coach in the world that doesn't subscribe to the philosophy that training is more important than games.

If your kid is riding the bench during games, they probably aren't doing too good in training or in games when they do get the chance.

+1 Aren’t game rosters dependent on practice participation and performance, anyway?

[Anonymous]

It depends on the level of training and the coach.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Super helpful - thank you! DS’s goal (not mine!) is to play in college. It sounds like if it is possible then DCU would be the top and then Bethesda, Armour, Achilles MLS Next teams are still better for his goal then ECNL.

There are plenty of kids that are recruited from ECNL. Unless there is also an added hope of going pro, I’d leave him in ECNL if that is the most logistically simple option. Alexandria and SYC has MLSNext btw altho that may be too far if u were only looking at MD.

Those clubs are quite different in coaching style so make sure your kid can adapt. Finally, I don’t think MLSNext is worth it (honestly, even ECNL) if your kid is not getting a lot of playing time (at least half) so make sure your aware of where he falls on that spectrum should he make the team.

You don't think 4 days of good training with strong players and good coach is worth it because he may play less than a half on Saturday?

hint: training is more important

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It depends on the level of training and the coach.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Super helpful - thank you! DS’s goal (not mine!) is to play in college. It sounds like if it is possible then DCU would be the top and then Bethesda, Armour, Achilles MLS Next teams are still better for his goal then ECNL.

There are plenty of kids that are recruited from ECNL. Unless there is also an added hope of going pro, I’d leave him in ECNL if that is the most logistically simple option. Alexandria and SYC has MLSNext btw altho that may be too far if u were only looking at MD.

Those clubs are quite different in coaching style so make sure your kid can adapt. Finally, I don’t think MLSNext is worth it (honestly, even ECNL) if your kid is not getting a lot of playing time (at least half) so make sure your aware of where he falls on that spectrum should he make the team.

You don't think 4 days of good training with strong players and good coach is worth it because he may play less than a half on Saturday?

hint: training is more important

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It depends on the level of training and the coach.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Super helpful - thank you! DS’s goal (not mine!) is to play in college. It sounds like if it is possible then DCU would be the top and then Bethesda, Armour, Achilles MLS Next teams are still better for his goal then ECNL.

There are plenty of kids that are recruited from ECNL. Unless there is also an added hope of going pro, I’d leave him in ECNL if that is the most logistically simple option. Alexandria and SYC has MLSNext btw altho that may be too far if u were only looking at MD.

Those clubs are quite different in coaching style so make sure your kid can adapt. Finally, I don’t think MLSNext is worth it (honestly, even ECNL) if your kid is not getting a lot of playing time (at least half) so make sure your aware of where he falls on that spectrum should he make the team.

You don't think 4 days of good training with strong players and good coach is worth it because he may play less than a half on Saturday?

hint: training is more important

"good training with strong players and good coach"