Alexandria older boys teams

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The real question is at what age do the Alexandria players transition to full automatons. Does it take one or two years to strip them of creativity and joy for the game? I guess if you keep telling kids they are wrong if they don’t play the style we tell them, you can probably get it done in one season. If I remember my Star Trek, the borg was pretty efficient at this kind of thing.

I get your point here. I agree that Alexandria does seem to teach a little to much to a system - and that, as a consequence they become predictable which inhibits their results at older age groups, but that does not invalidate the fact that the kids develop good technical skills. And I doubt that they permanently drive creativity out of the kids.

I think the failure comes at trying to run before one can walk. I can teach a 10 year old how to go through the motions of algebra and get most of the questions correct; however, he won’t know any of the underlying concepts or be able to answer the question why. On top of that it will take a lot more effort and time just to have him look like he’s doing algebra. Now if I wait until the kid has developed in the basics of math, he’ll know both how and why he should use algebra. As an added bonus he will have spent a lot more time at the basics and will both be more proficient at those and will learn algebra more quickly. Any system that invests a lot of time early in concepts that are not age appropriate is poorly designed and likely to fail. With regard to the Alexandria approach, is this something they just made up or has some reputable third party validated the approach? Are the meh results at older ages a consequence spending too much time on non-age appropriate activities in the younger years instead of fully developing basic skills and concepts? I’ve always found the lack of understanding child development and eduction one of the more frustrating things about these ‘professional’ youth coaches. I think parents should not assume that because someone has given themselves a title that the person actually knows what they are doing. If your paying several thousand dollars a year to these clubs, ask questions and get fact driven answers.

This is where we disagree. I have seen a lot of the Alexandria kids (U14-U16) play - and they are well above average technically. Whatever the failings of Alexandria's system might be (and nobody is perfect) it does not fail to instill the basics.

Adding to this - I don't think Alexandria tries to run before it walks either. Kids are perfectly capable of playing possession style soccer at a young age, and encouraging them to do so definitely helps develop good basic skills. If there is a flaw - it is perhaps that the precise system of decision-making they teach is too rigid, and therefore at older ages the play becomes predictable and easy for a well organized team to defend.

[Anonymous]

Any system that invests a lot of time early in concepts that are not age appropriate is poorly designed and likely to fail. With regard to the Alexandria approach, is this something they just made up or has some reputable third party validated the approach?


The possession-based approach is used by teams in professional soccer - for example, by Barcelona. Certainly not all teams. But, it is not something that Alexandria made up.

In terms of whether it is developmentally appropriate to teach this system, the system itself is not that complicated in theory. Any kids U9 and up should be able to grasp the general idea. However, it can be difficult to implement, because it involves making judgment calls (can I move up the pitch or do I need to pass backwards? Is this particular pass in the area near my goal too risky?). But, some of the way of learning this is making mistakes. When the kids are younger, they will often lose, especially against teams that kick it long.

And again, no matter how well you learn and implement it, if you are outmatched by much faster and more athletic opponents, it'll be difficult.



the question is whether it is developmentally appropriate to coach any system at those ages. The consensus seems to be it isn't but that isn't what parents want to hear

I disagree, because organized travel soccer should not be the only soccer that a truly interested player is playing. My son does travel with Alexandria, and at the younger ages, Alexandria has taught him a system of play that avoids the problem of kids swarming without purpose, or kicking and running such that only the physically largest kids succeed. He also plays futsal for a different club, and pickup soccer games on his own, where he does not implement Alexandria's style or system.

[Anonymous]

you can teach spacing and movement and possession without rigidity imposing building from the back. Part of development for young players should be learning how to make good decisions fast and having them constantly passing back doesn't allow them to make those decisions

[Anonymous]

The kids still don't learn it to the level it is taught by other places. Having to tell teammates to just play the ball 'I will be there'...after coming from somewhere that instilled all of the players a higher level of field IQ is frustrating and was a learning curve. Conversely, playing the ball and now having teammates that did not know or see to make the run. Even some places that really think they are training at a high level of possession based still have players turning the wrong way consistently and missing great opportunities. It's not all bad. It's a wake up call to the player that the majority of kids here aren't going to play at that same level of IQ so you are going to have to do more of it on your own. They won't be giving the same options or seeing at the same level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Any system that invests a lot of time early in concepts that are not age appropriate is poorly designed and likely to fail. With regard to the Alexandria approach, is this something they just made up or has some reputable third party validated the approach?

The possession-based approach is used by teams in professional soccer - for example, by Barcelona. Certainly not all teams. But, it is not something that Alexandria made up.

In terms of whether it is developmentally appropriate to teach this system, the system itself is not that complicated in theory. Any kids U9 and up should be able to grasp the general idea. However, it can be difficult to implement, because it involves making judgment calls (can I move up the pitch or do I need to pass backwards? Is this particular pass in the area near my goal too risky?). But, some of the way of learning this is making mistakes. When the kids are younger, they will often lose, especially against teams that kick it long.

And again, no matter how well you learn and implement it, if you are outmatched by much faster and more athletic opponents, it'll be difficult.

I don’t think this is about the possession system, every club teaches that and has been teaching that for a decade (they just don’t market it like Alexandria). It’s about wasting valuable development time by teaching systems at U9 - something that seems to be unique to Alexandria. FWIW, using Barcelona’s system to validate a U9 approach is a bit of an apple to oranges comparison and I hope parents don’t fall for that line. But back to the debate of age appropriate, who has established that U9 players ‘should be able to grasp the general idea’? Was this Alexandria Staff? Was this pediatric psychologist? It seems that if this was a validated approach it would be adopted by more clubs.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think this is about the possession system, every club teaches that and has been teaching that for a decade (they just don’t market it like Alexandria). It’s about wasting valuable development time by teaching systems at U9 - something that seems to be unique to Alexandria. FWIW, using Barcelona’s system to validate a U9 approach is a bit of an apple to oranges comparison and I hope parents don’t fall for that line. But back to the debate of age appropriate, who has established that U9 players ‘should be able to grasp the general idea’? Was this Alexandria Staff? Was this pediatric psychologist? It seems that if this was a validated approach it would be adopted by more clubs.

Ok, you don't agree with the way that the club does things, which is fine. No one is compelling you to work for them or have a kid play for them, whichever is applicable to you. I am not sure why you feel the need to debate this here. Others have evaluated and made their own decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The real question is at what age do the Alexandria players transition to full automatons. Does it take one or two years to strip them of creativity and joy for the game? I guess if you keep telling kids they are wrong if they don’t play the style we tell them, you can probably get it done in one season. If I remember my Star Trek, the borg was pretty efficient at this kind of thing.

I get your point here. I agree that Alexandria does seem to teach a little to much to a system - and that, as a consequence they become predictable which inhibits their results at older age groups, but that does not invalidate the fact that the kids develop good technical skills. And I doubt that they permanently drive creativity out of the kids.

I think the failure comes at trying to run before one can walk. I can teach a 10 year old how to go through the motions of algebra and get most of the questions correct; however, he won’t know any of the underlying concepts or be able to answer the question why. On top of that it will take a lot more effort and time just to have him look like he’s doing algebra. Now if I wait until the kid has developed in the basics of math, he’ll know both how and why he should use algebra. As an added bonus he will have spent a lot more time at the basics and will both be more proficient at those and will learn algebra more quickly. Any system that invests a lot of time early in concepts that are not age appropriate is poorly designed and likely to fail. With regard to the Alexandria approach, is this something they just made up or has some reputable third party validated the approach? Are the meh results at older ages a consequence spending too much time on non-age appropriate activities in the younger years instead of fully developing basic skills and concepts? I’ve always found the lack of understanding child development and eduction one of the more frustrating things about these ‘professional’ youth coaches. I think parents should not assume that because someone has given themselves a title that the person actually knows what they are doing. If your paying several thousand dollars a year to these clubs, ask questions and get fact driven answers.

Is this actually a serious question? This is generally how soccer is taught elsewhere, not just Spain, at U8 up, at least at high levels. I guess you could call third-party validation of a sort. Same with MLS Next adding them as one of 17 out of 175 applicants this summer (along with SYC and Achilles in this area). On the meh results, I honestly don't know what you are talking about - their U13s are #1, their U14s are #1 (and won east regional cup two years ago), their U15s are #4 (and lost players to DC United), and their U16s won State Cup. Is there something else you had in mind?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Any system that invests a lot of time early in concepts that are not age appropriate is poorly designed and likely to fail. With regard to the Alexandria approach, is this something they just made up or has some reputable third party validated the approach?

The possession-based approach is used by teams in professional soccer - for example, by Barcelona. Certainly not all teams. But, it is not something that Alexandria made up.

In terms of whether it is developmentally appropriate to teach this system, the system itself is not that complicated in theory. Any kids U9 and up should be able to grasp the general idea. However, it can be difficult to implement, because it involves making judgment calls (can I move up the pitch or do I need to pass backwards? Is this particular pass in the area near my goal too risky?). But, some of the way of learning this is making mistakes. When the kids are younger, they will often lose, especially against teams that kick it long.

And again, no matter how well you learn and implement it, if you are outmatched by much faster and more athletic opponents, it'll be difficult.

I don’t think this is about the possession system, every club teaches that and has been teaching that for a decade (they just don’t market it like Alexandria). It’s about wasting valuable development time by teaching systems at U9 - something that seems to be unique to Alexandria. FWIW, using Barcelona’s system to validate a U9 approach is a bit of an apple to oranges comparison and I hope parents don’t fall for that line. But back to the debate of age appropriate, who has established that U9 players ‘should be able to grasp the general idea’? Was this Alexandria Staff? Was this pediatric psychologist? It seems that if this was a validated approach it would be adopted by more clubs.

OK, you are in whackadoodle territory here - pediatric psychologist? Are you suggesting that every or any style of play taught at any club needs validation by pediatric psychologists? Are you suggesting that everybody not doing the same thing is suspect?

[Anonymous]

I wonder about this a lot. My son is a U11 at a club (not Alexandria) that plays a "possession style." They do not, however, spend any time at practice on tactics, per se. They practice 3 times a week and very rarely play full field scrimmages (sometimes at the end of one practice, and mostly for fun). The season matches are 9v9 but practices concentrate on 3v3 or fewer. Most of the time is spent on individual skill, passing and receiving, turns, moving into space, playing quickly, etc. When they play 3v3, they are short games (often one possession) with hands-on coaching encouraging quick decisions. This year's winter training is on tennis courts.

I was recently discussing with some parents another club that teaches specific formations and tactics in addition to individual and small side work. Folks are satisfied with their training as well. I think, at age 10, I'm happy to have my son concentrate on learning individual skill, pass execution, playing quickly with teammates, and moving into space more generally. I'm sure the team results suffer a bit, but my feeling is that individual skill will translate to any style more than learning a specific system would.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The real question is at what age do the Alexandria players transition to full automatons. Does it take one or two years to strip them of creativity and joy for the game? I guess if you keep telling kids they are wrong if they don’t play the style we tell them, you can probably get it done in one season. If I remember my Star Trek, the borg was pretty efficient at this kind of thing.

I get your point here. I agree that Alexandria does seem to teach a little to much to a system - and that, as a consequence they become predictable which inhibits their results at older age groups, but that does not invalidate the fact that the kids develop good technical skills. And I doubt that they permanently drive creativity out of the kids.

I think the failure comes at trying to run before one can walk. I can teach a 10 year old how to go through the motions of algebra and get most of the questions correct; however, he won’t know any of the underlying concepts or be able to answer the question why. On top of that it will take a lot more effort and time just to have him look like he’s doing algebra. Now if I wait until the kid has developed in the basics of math, he’ll know both how and why he should use algebra. As an added bonus he will have spent a lot more time at the basics and will both be more proficient at those and will learn algebra more quickly. Any system that invests a lot of time early in concepts that are not age appropriate is poorly designed and likely to fail. With regard to the Alexandria approach, is this something they just made up or has some reputable third party validated the approach? Are the meh results at older ages a consequence spending too much time on non-age appropriate activities in the younger years instead of fully developing basic skills and concepts? I’ve always found the lack of understanding child development and eduction one of the more frustrating things about these ‘professional’ youth coaches. I think parents should not assume that because someone has given themselves a title that the person actually knows what they are doing. If your paying several thousand dollars a year to these clubs, ask questions and get fact driven answers.

Is this actually a serious question? This is generally how soccer is taught elsewhere, not just Spain, at U8 up, at least at high levels. I guess you could call third-party validation of a sort. Same with MLS Next adding them as one of 17 out of 175 applicants this summer (along with SYC and Achilles in this area). On the meh results, I honestly don't know what you are talking about - their U13s are #1, their U14s are #1 (and won east regional cup two years ago), their U15s are #4 (and lost players to DC United), and their U16s won State Cup. Is there something else you had in mind?

Which state cup was that? Sorry, there are so many these days, I may have missed the one Alexandria U16 won.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The real question is at what age do the Alexandria players transition to full automatons. Does it take one or two years to strip them of creativity and joy for the game? I guess if you keep telling kids they are wrong if they don’t play the style we tell them, you can probably get it done in one season. If I remember my Star Trek, the borg was pretty efficient at this kind of thing.

I get your point here. I agree that Alexandria does seem to teach a little to much to a system - and that, as a consequence they become predictable which inhibits their results at older age groups, but that does not invalidate the fact that the kids develop good technical skills. And I doubt that they permanently drive creativity out of the kids.

I think the failure comes at trying to run before one can walk. I can teach a 10 year old how to go through the motions of algebra and get most of the questions correct; however, he won’t know any of the underlying concepts or be able to answer the question why. On top of that it will take a lot more effort and time just to have him look like he’s doing algebra. Now if I wait until the kid has developed in the basics of math, he’ll know both how and why he should use algebra. As an added bonus he will have spent a lot more time at the basics and will both be more proficient at those and will learn algebra more quickly. Any system that invests a lot of time early in concepts that are not age appropriate is poorly designed and likely to fail. With regard to the Alexandria approach, is this something they just made up or has some reputable third party validated the approach? Are the meh results at older ages a consequence spending too much time on non-age appropriate activities in the younger years instead of fully developing basic skills and concepts? I’ve always found the lack of understanding child development and eduction one of the more frustrating things about these ‘professional’ youth coaches. I think parents should not assume that because someone has given themselves a title that the person actually knows what they are doing. If your paying several thousand dollars a year to these clubs, ask questions and get fact driven answers.

Is this actually a serious question? This is generally how soccer is taught elsewhere, not just Spain, at U8 up, at least at high levels. I guess you could call third-party validation of a sort. Same with MLS Next adding them as one of 17 out of 175 applicants this summer (along with SYC and Achilles in this area). On the meh results, I honestly don't know what you are talking about - their U13s are #1, their U14s are #1 (and won east regional cup two years ago), their U15s are #4 (and lost players to DC United), and their U16s won State Cup. Is there something else you had in mind?

Which state cup was that? Sorry, there are so many these days, I may have missed the one Alexandria U16 won.

Please provide proof that this ‘is generally how soccer is taught elsewhere.’ I know you’re Alexandria staff and just defending your program, but providing empty statements without proof is what we have all come to expect from the club. Here are examples of facts: Alexandria has said that their approach is the right way to play soccer and is the gold standard. Alexandria has said that it may be painful early on, but players will be dominating when they get older. Alexandria has been pushing this for at least 6 years. Alexandria has no top team at the older ages. Alexandria as a club is not dominating anything, even though this is what was sold to the parents. Alexandria has no track record of players playing beyond High School. More facts: Boys and Girls who are serious about soccer leave the club. Those kids tend to go onto to play in college. And finally, the most interesting fact. If you leave Alexandria, you have a higher probability of playing beyond HS than if you stay.

[Anonymous]

Please provide proof that this ‘is generally how soccer is taught elsewhere.’ I know you’re Alexandria staff and just defending your program, but providing empty statements without proof is what we have all come to expect from the club. Here are examples of facts: Alexandria has said that their approach is the right way to play soccer and is the gold standard. Alexandria has said that it may be painful early on, but players will be dominating when they get older. Alexandria has been pushing this for at least 6 years. Alexandria has no top team at the older ages. Alexandria as a club is not dominating anything, even though this is what was sold to the parents. Alexandria has no track record of players playing beyond High School. More facts: Boys and Girls who are serious about soccer leave the club. Those kids tend to go onto to play in college. And finally, the most interesting fact. If you leave Alexandria, you have a higher probability of playing beyond HS than if you stay.

Yes, we get it, you don't think Alexandria is a good club or like them. That's fine. Time to move on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Please provide proof that this ‘is generally how soccer is taught elsewhere.’ I know you’re Alexandria staff and just defending your program, but providing empty statements without proof is what we have all come to expect from the club. Here are examples of facts: Alexandria has said that their approach is the right way to play soccer and is the gold standard. Alexandria has said that it may be painful early on, but players will be dominating when they get older. Alexandria has been pushing this for at least 6 years. Alexandria has no top team at the older ages. Alexandria as a club is not dominating anything, even though this is what was sold to the parents. Alexandria has no track record of players playing beyond High School. More facts: Boys and Girls who are serious about soccer leave the club. Those kids tend to go onto to play in college. And finally, the most interesting fact. If you leave Alexandria, you have a higher probability of playing beyond HS than if you stay.

Yes, we get it, you don't think Alexandria is a good club or like them. That's fine. Time to move on.

Maybe Alexandria should change?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The real question is at what age do the Alexandria players transition to full automatons. Does it take one or two years to strip them of creativity and joy for the game? I guess if you keep telling kids they are wrong if they don’t play the style we tell them, you can probably get it done in one season. If I remember my Star Trek, the borg was pretty efficient at this kind of thing.

I get your point here. I agree that Alexandria does seem to teach a little to much to a system - and that, as a consequence they become predictable which inhibits their results at older age groups, but that does not invalidate the fact that the kids develop good technical skills. And I doubt that they permanently drive creativity out of the kids.

I think the failure comes at trying to run before one can walk. I can teach a 10 year old how to go through the motions of algebra and get most of the questions correct; however, he won’t know any of the underlying concepts or be able to answer the question why. On top of that it will take a lot more effort and time just to have him look like he’s doing algebra. Now if I wait until the kid has developed in the basics of math, he’ll know both how and why he should use algebra. As an added bonus he will have spent a lot more time at the basics and will both be more proficient at those and will learn algebra more quickly. Any system that invests a lot of time early in concepts that are not age appropriate is poorly designed and likely to fail. With regard to the Alexandria approach, is this something they just made up or has some reputable third party validated the approach? Are the meh results at older ages a consequence spending too much time on non-age appropriate activities in the younger years instead of fully developing basic skills and concepts? I’ve always found the lack of understanding child development and eduction one of the more frustrating things about these ‘professional’ youth coaches. I think parents should not assume that because someone has given themselves a title that the person actually knows what they are doing. If your paying several thousand dollars a year to these clubs, ask questions and get fact driven answers.

Is this actually a serious question? This is generally how soccer is taught elsewhere, not just Spain, at U8 up, at least at high levels. I guess you could call third-party validation of a sort. Same with MLS Next adding them as one of 17 out of 175 applicants this summer (along with SYC and Achilles in this area). On the meh results, I honestly don't know what you are talking about - their U13s are #1, their U14s are #1 (and won east regional cup two years ago), their U15s are #4 (and lost players to DC United), and their U16s won State Cup. Is there something else you had in mind?

Which state cup was that? Sorry, there are so many these days, I may have missed the one Alexandria U16 won.

Please provide proof that this ‘is generally how soccer is taught elsewhere.’ I know you’re Alexandria staff and just defending your program, but providing empty statements without proof is what we have all come to expect from the club. Here are examples of facts: Alexandria has said that their approach is the right way to play soccer and is the gold standard. Alexandria has said that it may be painful early on, but players will be dominating when they get older. Alexandria has been pushing this for at least 6 years. Alexandria has no top team at the older ages. Alexandria as a club is not dominating anything, even though this is what was sold to the parents. Alexandria has no track record of players playing beyond High School. More facts: Boys and Girls who are serious about soccer leave the club. Those kids tend to go onto to play in college. And finally, the most interesting fact. If you leave Alexandria, you have a higher probability of playing beyond HS than if you stay.

That could all be true without invalidating what Alexandria do. Like it or not we have a fragmented league system without pro/rel here in the US - so the best kids pretty much have to move to where the competition and scouts are - and the very best kids move to DCU. If Alexandria are supplying plenty of those kids (and they do seem to supply more than many clubs although that's just my subjective view of course - I haven't done a rigorous study) then that would also validate their program wouldn't it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The real question is at what age do the Alexandria players transition to full automatons. Does it take one or two years to strip them of creativity and joy for the game? I guess if you keep telling kids they are wrong if they don’t play the style we tell them, you can probably get it done in one season. If I remember my Star Trek, the borg was pretty efficient at this kind of thing.

I get your point here. I agree that Alexandria does seem to teach a little to much to a system - and that, as a consequence they become predictable which inhibits their results at older age groups, but that does not invalidate the fact that the kids develop good technical skills. And I doubt that they permanently drive creativity out of the kids.

I think the failure comes at trying to run before one can walk. I can teach a 10 year old how to go through the motions of algebra and get most of the questions correct; however, he won’t know any of the underlying concepts or be able to answer the question why. On top of that it will take a lot more effort and time just to have him look like he’s doing algebra. Now if I wait until the kid has developed in the basics of math, he’ll know both how and why he should use algebra. As an added bonus he will have spent a lot more time at the basics and will both be more proficient at those and will learn algebra more quickly. Any system that invests a lot of time early in concepts that are not age appropriate is poorly designed and likely to fail. With regard to the Alexandria approach, is this something they just made up or has some reputable third party validated the approach? Are the meh results at older ages a consequence spending too much time on non-age appropriate activities in the younger years instead of fully developing basic skills and concepts? I’ve always found the lack of understanding child development and eduction one of the more frustrating things about these ‘professional’ youth coaches. I think parents should not assume that because someone has given themselves a title that the person actually knows what they are doing. If your paying several thousand dollars a year to these clubs, ask questions and get fact driven answers.

Is this actually a serious question? This is generally how soccer is taught elsewhere, not just Spain, at U8 up, at least at high levels. I guess you could call third-party validation of a sort. Same with MLS Next adding them as one of 17 out of 175 applicants this summer (along with SYC and Achilles in this area). On the meh results, I honestly don't know what you are talking about - their U13s are #1, their U14s are #1 (and won east regional cup two years ago), their U15s are #4 (and lost players to DC United), and their U16s won State Cup. Is there something else you had in mind?

Which state cup was that? Sorry, there are so many these days, I may have missed the one Alexandria U16 won.

Think was the previous year.