Travel Soccer teams around NOVA let's discuss

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These discussions on the tryout selection process have me marvelling (again) at how coaches pick teams. From my years of navigating the process, most tryout formats I've seen are pretty flawed, and that's assuming there is no incumbency factor or politics going in.

It might sound impersonal but why don't clubs go to a metrics based approach to add some objectivity to the process? I still recall the year when my ds tried out for Virginia Stars (baseball, not soccer) and they put him through what amounted to a baseball combine one afternoon. He didn't make the team, but that was the first time we got a good explanation from the coach about why, and which specific areas he needed to work on. DS is now playing HS ball, and although it was tough to hear then, I think it was very valuable motivation for him. Parents can never provide this.

Soccer is less individual than baseball so you couldn't make your entire criteria based on simple drills, but properly implemented, it would help expose some key attributes. One could concoct a suite of representative drills, and actually measure according to some criteria... time dribbling through cones, circuits around a 4 cone drill in a minute, juggling touches in a minute, sprint times, passing through a gate from a run etc. Combine that with a subjective phase of one-on-ones against a known good defender, etc, and then top it off with the short sided scrimmage. Take notes, record the scores. Send it to Johnny's parents with the results. Lot of work? Sure. Most of us spend more than $2k per year, this should not be too much to ask.

I like that soccer tryouts don't include stopwatches at all.

They'll use stopwatches for distance running when they tryout for a HS team...of course, that is years away for your little ones.

Well---at least my Fall bday kids will win back their bday advantage by being older Freshmen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These discussions on the tryout selection process have me marvelling (again) at how coaches pick teams. From my years of navigating the process, most tryout formats I've seen are pretty flawed, and that's assuming there is no incumbency factor or politics going in.

It might sound impersonal but why don't clubs go to a metrics based approach to add some objectivity to the process? I still recall the year when my ds tried out for Virginia Stars (baseball, not soccer) and they put him through what amounted to a baseball combine one afternoon. He didn't make the team, but that was the first time we got a good explanation from the coach about why, and which specific areas he needed to work on. DS is now playing HS ball, and although it was tough to hear then, I think it was very valuable motivation for him. Parents can never provide this.

Soccer is less individual than baseball so you couldn't make your entire criteria based on simple drills, but properly implemented, it would help expose some key attributes. One could concoct a suite of representative drills, and actually measure according to some criteria... time dribbling through cones, circuits around a 4 cone drill in a minute, juggling touches in a minute, sprint times, passing through a gate from a run etc. Combine that with a subjective phase of one-on-ones against a known good defender, etc, and then top it off with the short sided scrimmage. Take notes, record the scores. Send it to Johnny's parents with the results. Lot of work? Sure. Most of us spend more than $2k per year, this should not be too much to ask.

I like that soccer tryouts don't include stopwatches at all.

They'll use stopwatches for distance running when they tryout for a HS team...of course, that is years away for your little ones.

Well---at least my Fall bday kids will win back their bday advantage by being older Freshmen.

yea--they will have many years of playing in an age group higher than the kids the birth year behind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These discussions on the tryout selection process have me marvelling (again) at how coaches pick teams. From my years of navigating the process, most tryout formats I've seen are pretty flawed, and that's assuming there is no incumbency factor or politics going in.

I like that soccer tryouts don't include stopwatches at all.

They'll use stopwatches for distance running when they tryout for a HS team...of course, that is years away for your little ones.

Well---at least my Fall bday kids will win back their bday advantage by being older Freshmen.

yea--they will have many years of playing in an age group higher than the kids the birth year behind.

Unfortunately, it was never an advantage for my son who has a fall birthday...HS coach was still more interested in his physical size than his skill and even being a few months older than others his year, he wasn't the same size until 11th-12th grade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These discussions on the tryout selection process have me marvelling (again) at how coaches pick teams. From my years of navigating the process, most tryout formats I've seen are pretty flawed, and that's assuming there is no incumbency factor or politics going in.

It might sound impersonal but why don't clubs go to a metrics based approach to add some objectivity to the process? I still recall the year when my ds tried out for Virginia Stars (baseball, not soccer) and they put him through what amounted to a baseball combine one afternoon. He didn't make the team, but that was the first time we got a good explanation from the coach about why, and which specific areas he needed to work on. DS is now playing HS ball, and although it was tough to hear then, I think it was very valuable motivation for him. Parents can never provide this.

Soccer is less individual than baseball so you couldn't make your entire criteria based on simple drills, but properly implemented, it would help expose some key attributes. One could concoct a suite of representative drills, and actually measure according to some criteria... time dribbling through cones, circuits around a 4 cone drill in a minute, juggling touches in a minute, sprint times, passing through a gate from a run etc. Combine that with a subjective phase of one-on-ones against a known good defender, etc, and then top it off with the short sided scrimmage. Take notes, record the scores. Send it to Johnny's parents with the results. Lot of work? Sure. Most of us spend more than $2k per year, this should not be too much to ask.

I like that soccer tryouts don't include stopwatches at all.

Don't understand your comment. Maybe you're saying something like 'I'm glad they're not over-emphasizing the importance of speed by actually timing kids'. I agree with the OP... I'd rather have an objective measurement of any skill that's a factor in a player's performance than a subjective evaluation from a coach trying to do similar observations for 50 kids without taking a single note (what happens at most club tryouts). Speed/quickness is maybe the easiest attribute to measure.

[Anonymous]

^^^soccer speed is not measured by a stopwatch. In todays game, speed has become an obsession in youth development and overstated. mostly as a result of the influence of unknowing players, coaches, parents and trainers who place a premium on physical speed. It has also been encouraged by coaches who thrive on winning, many of whom would rather see their team win by physically dominate vs develop as players. When you hear a coach asking for fast athletic players then you know they wont be teaching much technique or tactical understanding to their players.

A main objective of a player should be to try and be as fast with the ball as they are without the ball. So when I see young players going to speed gyms to do only running specific exercises with no inclusion of the ball, I see them 'barking up the wrong tree'. Pure speed and absolute, linear speed has limited value on the soccer field. The way a player coordinates themselves on the ball is very different off the ball and many fast people are slow with the ball.

The most important speed is speed of all is 'speed of recognition', which is not a physical speed at all. To have good speed of recognition a player understands what his/her teammates are trying to do with the ball technically and how players are reacting in their physical environment: Are they going to bend the ball; drive it; chip it; take a soft touch; play off their first touch; take 2 touches; cross or play a dialgonal ball? Reading the technique is important and you need to be able to identify the technique before a player chooses the technique they will use and what type of movement will enable them to make the connection. Technique is the 'glue' and the main ingredient and foundation on which everything is based it cannot be separated from any aspect of the game. In fact without being able to read the game tactically and if you have a poor touch or feel for the ball then you will need to be an incredible good athlete just to stay on the field.

The 3 types of soccer speed (not measured by watches, nonetheless):

Technical speed. The abilty to dominate the ball with all part of the body e.g bringing the ball under control cleanly and quickly and execute passing, receiving, dribbling with precision.

Speed of thought and recognition. The ability to read the game based on tactical understanding of opponent and teammate. Situational awareness, focus, concentration and simply being aware of surroundings e.g where are threats and opportunities etc.

Physical Speed. Change of direction speed, llinear speed. Deceleration

The speed of the mind and the ability to read the game as well as art of deception, the ability to change pace and direction are far more important. This is all determined by how well a player and team can read the game, i.e. their anticipation skills and preparedness for the upcoming movements and possibilities that may result in a play or action. Reading the game can best be learned through constantly playing games (informal or formal) and not in a gymnasium or a track where the fabricated and unrealistic environment doesn't lend itself to realistic competition, i.e. a player can develop speed by simply playing (provided they are being corrected and taught by peers and coaches).

Rivaldo, Figo and Zidane were recognized as the best players in the world, all 3 of them winning the World Player of the year award 4 consecutive years. None of them were considered physically fast. In fact Zidane and Figo both publicly stated that they were physically 'slow' players. Zidane admired Francescoli as a player and commented that he always wanted to have the speed that Francescoli had I'm certain that Francescoli wouldnt have minded having some of Zidanes attributes either. However, few could argue their pace on the ball and their ability to mesmerize players on the dribble with the drop of a shoulder, or a stepover here and there to shake a defender while they surveyed their options. All of them read the game exceptionally well, have tremendous first touch, change of pace and direction on the ball, possessed the art of deception and displayed a mastery of the ball bordering perfection. None were spectacular goalscorers but all could change the game with a deft touch or flick.

[Anonymous]

^ I am going to guess that you aren't affiliated with one of the big clubs. They look purely for raw speed and size and do shit for teaching technique.

[Anonymous]

Listen up, the person who posted at 22:37 is a very experienced person in the game to know what he (or she) knows.

[Anonymous]

Well said 22:37 too bad many others don't see it that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:These discussions on the tryout selection process have me marvelling (again) at how coaches pick teams. From my years of navigating the process, most tryout formats I've seen are pretty flawed, and that's assuming there is no incumbency factor or politics going in.

It might sound impersonal but why don't clubs go to a metrics based approach to add some objectivity to the process? I still recall the year when my ds tried out for Virginia Stars (baseball, not soccer) and they put him through what amounted to a baseball combine one afternoon. He didn't make the team, but that was the first time we got a good explanation from the coach about why, and which specific areas he needed to work on. DS is now playing HS ball, and although it was tough to hear then, I think it was very valuable motivation for him. Parents can never provide this.

Soccer is less individual than baseball so you couldn't make your entire criteria based on simple drills, but properly implemented, it would help expose some key attributes. One could concoct a suite of representative drills, and actually measure according to some criteria... time dribbling through cones, circuits around a 4 cone drill in a minute, juggling touches in a minute, sprint times, passing through a gate from a run etc. Combine that with a subjective phase of one-on-ones against a known good defender, etc, and then top it off with the short sided scrimmage. Take notes, record the scores. Send it to Johnny's parents with the results. Lot of work? Sure. Most of us spend more than $2k per year, this should not be too much to ask.

I like that soccer tryouts don't include stopwatches at all.

Don't understand your comment. Maybe you're saying something like 'I'm glad they're not over-emphasizing the importance of speed by actually timing kids'. I agree with the OP... I'd rather have an objective measurement of any skill that's a factor in a player's performance than a subjective evaluation from a coach trying to do similar observations for 50 kids without taking a single note (what happens at most club tryouts). Speed/quickness is maybe the easiest attribute to measure.

Tom Brady's 40 yard dash at the combine

https://youtu.be/kxx_u67eUSA

[Anonymous]

^^^exactly. The US comes at soccer with an American football mindset. 22.37 is absolutely correct.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Listen up, the person who posted at 22:37 is a very experienced person in the game to know what he (or she) knows.

Yes, they copied it from an internet interview. Google it. Blah, blah, blah. Fool.

[Anonymous]

Yep. All the pro/rel guys on Twitter bash MLS for having a combine like the NFL. It's completely irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listen up, the person who posted at 22:37 is a very experienced person in the game to know what he (or she) knows.

Yes, they copied it from an internet interview. Google it. Blah, blah, blah. Fool.

Was that when you were googling to find out who Zidane, Figo and Rivaldo were ?

[Anonymous]

You are measuring 7-8 year olds. What soccer cognitive skills do you think they have? Majority of them are coming from rec ball. Let's be real.

[Anonymous]

We attended a tryout where the evaluators where from a 3rd party and not part of the coaching staff. They had clip boards and every so often when they saw a player that stood out they would come to the parent and ask 1 or 2 questions. We ultimately didnt join this club however it did seem to me this was a good way to get an impartial review of the kids. They started with the skills assessments then small sided scrimmages. It was for U littles. Just thought I would share.