Coach vs Club in player development

[Anonymous]

Club sponsors provide plans and development guides- often, that’s exactly what they’re giving you, just with the club logo. Some clubs pay a lot of money to be associated with a name European Club- our team played a West Virginia bayern munich affiliate which supposedly follows their philosophy - if you believe that they have a club staffed by Munich quality coaches all adhering to that philosophy, I have a bridge to sell you.

As far as technical skill vs tactics, there is a good argument that teaching tactics at all stunts development and creativity before certain ages.US soccer wants 2v2 skills at U12, 1v1 below that- not full field tactics.

https://cdn2.sportngin.com/attachments/document/0090/7006/US_Youth_Soccer_Player_Development_Model.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

We have also encountered this at two different "big" clubs. Politics aside, I'm not sure how a coach protecting certain players from being challenged is helping that player in the long run.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

We have also encountered this at two different "big" clubs. Politics aside, I'm not sure how a coach protecting certain players from being challenged is helping that player in the long run.

It’s easier to move clubs to move up a team than to stay and move up a team at a lot of places- that’s just how it seems to be

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

We have also encountered this at two different "big" clubs. Politics aside, I'm not sure how a coach protecting certain players from being challenged is helping that player in the long run.

It’s easier to move clubs to move up a team than to stay and move up a team at a lot of places- that’s just how it seems to be

Grass isn’t always greener on the other side. There’s crap on both sides. One side may have too many players preventing you to ‘move up’, the other side might not have enough players and pick anyone that breathes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Club sponsors provide plans and development guides- often, that’s exactly what they’re giving you, just with the club logo. Some clubs pay a lot of money to be associated with a name European Club- our team played a West Virginia bayern munich affiliate which supposedly follows their philosophy - if you believe that they have a club staffed by Munich quality coaches all adhering to that philosophy, I have a bridge to sell you.

As far as technical skill vs tactics, there is a good argument that teaching tactics at all stunts development and creativity before certain ages.US soccer wants 2v2 skills at U12, 1v1 below that- not full field tactics.

https://cdn2.sportngin.com/attachments/document/0090/7006/US_Youth_Soccer_Player_Development_Model.pdf

Considering that only the women have performed well on the International stage perhaps our approach is flawed.

Tactics can be taught at younger ages but they are taught in a way that is age appropriate. The problem is, these guidelines are pretty generic and are not intended to leave anyone out. But to still be teaching 2v2 at 12 is laughably backwards and why we absolutely suck as a soccer nation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

We have also encountered this at two different "big" clubs. Politics aside, I'm not sure how a coach protecting certain players from being challenged is helping that player in the long run.

It’s easier to move clubs to move up a team than to stay and move up a team at a lot of places- that’s just how it seems to be

Grass isn’t always greener on the other side. There’s crap on both sides. One side may have too many players preventing you to ‘move up’, the other side might not have enough players and pick anyone that breathes.

A paying second team member and an open first team spot are more valuable than a paying first team member and an open second team spot to most clubs. It’s much easier to pick up a first team player, so that’s how they behave

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

We have also encountered this at two different "big" clubs. Politics aside, I'm not sure how a coach protecting certain players from being challenged is helping that player in the long run.

It’s easier to move clubs to move up a team than to stay and move up a team at a lot of places- that’s just how it seems to be

Grass isn’t always greener on the other side. There’s crap on both sides. One side may have too many players preventing you to ‘move up’, the other side might not have enough players and pick anyone that breathes.

I'd rather my kid start on a top team in a quality league than sit on a bench or rot on a lower team in a lower league.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

We have also encountered this at two different "big" clubs. Politics aside, I'm not sure how a coach protecting certain players from being challenged is helping that player in the long run.

It’s easier to move clubs to move up a team than to stay and move up a team at a lot of places- that’s just how it seems to be

Grass isn’t always greener on the other side. There’s crap on both sides. One side may have too many players preventing you to ‘move up’, the other side might not have enough players and pick anyone that breathes.

A paying second team member and an open first team spot are more valuable than a paying first team member and an open second team spot to most clubs. It’s much easier to pick up a first team player, so that’s how they behave

This makes sense. It’s much more marketable and they also want to take away good player(s) from local teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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[u]. 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.

This gave me a good laugh I needed. To think DCUM and its readers have been blessed with someone so involved and active in Professional Academies. Who knew? Yet somehow we cant find a good coach i'm told. Seems we have found the savior to US Soccer right here on DCUM in this thread. Please sir, show yourself. Do not remain anonymous. Tell us who you are so we can marvel at your credentials and raise you to the throne you deserve high atop the US Soccer mountain.

Give me a break

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

This sounds like the BRYC “ECNL” only girls! They should be in first place based on how they are treated compared to everybody else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This sounds like the BRYC “ECNL” only girls! They should be in first place based on how they are treated compared to everybody else.

Sounds like Loudoun, most top teams look down on the second teams, some times the gap is small

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Club sponsors provide plans and development guides- often, that's exactly what they're giving you, just with the club logo. Some clubs pay a lot of money to be associated with a name European Club- our team played a West Virginia bayern munich affiliate which supposedly follows their philosophy - if you believe that they have a club staffed by Munich quality coaches all adhering to that philosophy, I have a bridge to sell you.

As far as technical skill vs tactics, there is a good argument that teaching tactics at all stunts development and creativity before certain ages.US soccer wants 2v2 skills at U12, 1v1 below that- not full field tactics.

https://cdn2.sportngin.com/attachments/document/0090/7006/US_Youth_Soccer_Player_Development_Model.pdf

OP here: Thank you, this a very good read. I've never seen this before. Although six years old, a lot of what I was thinking is mentioned in the document. This thread is directly related to Chapter 3. I have talked to multiple coaches, and all of them seem to indicate that they either do not use them or have no clue if there is a plan for their process of teaching the game within the club—very strange behavior. Then, you look at games and notice certain clubs clearly are teaching the same things year over year. If you look at an older group, you see the results of what was happening at a younger group. They are not identical, but a framework is clear. It may not be what I think is best, but it is clear. Then, you see clubs, and there is a wildly different game between different teams/ages, and there is no way to tell what they are doing or where they are going based on looking at different teams. I think those are good coaches.

There is no doubt that the experience and knowledge of the coach are integral in the teaching, but without some milestones and guideposts, there will be development missed. Just because they were a good player or have licenses, does not directly indicate that subjective bias within a certain area of development or evaluation will not show up. Whether a coach decides that 1v1, 2v1, 3v2 progressions or a rondo focused training is best at U-Whatever for however long, it is largely irrelevant. My point is that whatever it maybe should be available and written down with milestones/objectives and that it is available as it largely should not change drastically within a club. Whatever club you are at, the coach should be able to show you where they are going. How they get there is up to the coach, but where they are going should be clear to everyone involved. If that is supplied, then at least a parent, if they care, can tell if they are getting what they are paying for with the club/coach. The kids may not achieve it, but even a person without "in-depth knowledge of the game" will know and can follow. The overarching thought that I see is, trust the coach and hope for the best. You are not Bielsa; you need a plan.

Why is a plan bad?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Grass isn’t always greener on the other side. There’s crap on both sides. One side may have too many players preventing you to ‘move up’, the other side might not have enough players and pick anyone that breathes.

I'd rather my kid start on a top team in a quality league than sit on a bench or rot on a lower team in a lower league.

are you sure thats what you’d want for your kid? Who would want that?

Also sounds like you might be paranoid that not everyone else believes your top team in a top league is a top team in a top league.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Grass isn’t always greener on the other side. There’s crap on both sides. One side may have too many players preventing you to ‘move up’, the other side might not have enough players and pick anyone that breathes.

I'd rather my kid start on a top team in a quality league than sit on a bench or rot on a lower team in a lower league.

are you sure thats what you’d want for your kid? Who would want that?

Also sounds like you might be paranoid that not everyone else believes your top team in a top league is a top team in a top league.

Ummm....no. Enjoy your 2nd team or bench spot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Grass isn’t always greener on the other side. There’s crap on both sides. One side may have too many players preventing you to ‘move up’, the other side might not have enough players and pick anyone that breathes.

I'd rather my kid start on a top team in a quality league than sit on a bench or rot on a lower team in a lower league.

are you sure thats what you’d want for your kid? Who would want that?

Also sounds like you might be paranoid that not everyone else believes your top team in a top league is a top team in a top league.

Ummm....no. Enjoy your 2nd team or bench spot.

What?