Possession

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s overrated now. Teams should play much more directly with balls over the top.

As the kids age direct play becomes less and less productive. The defenses are easily able to deal with direct play. The teams have to be able to break down a defense that has stopped forward runs or has packed it in. If you can’t do that you do not score. Watch what happens to your forwards when they are stops in the final third. Let me give you a hint- nothing happens.

I actually agree with everything you said except the premise.

Passing for the sake of maintaining possession is much more valuable for U-littles for their development. Learning to create scoring opportunities through direct ball AFTER learning short passes for maintaining possession is much easier than the other way around.

As they get older, exploiting opportunities and counter-attacking through direct ball is an absolute necessity. But if they don’t have proficiency in short passes, it becomes moot.

At the older ages speed of play and playing in tight space makes things happen. A possession team will not pass up a long, medium or short pass that leads to an opportunity. It is a false argument to state possession teams pass for no purpose and never pass long.

Watch a good possession team and they will get out of pressure with 1-2 passes and 2-3 passes later are outside your box. You turn the ball over against a possession team and in 1-3 passes they are outside your box.

Don’t know if you’re agreeing or disagreeing. If you’re disagreeing, I don’t understand. I am in favor of maintaining possession, and it does serve a purpose including long passes. I’m saying learning to be proficient at short passes should come first.

Passes are almost always short at U-littles no?

Short passes are not necessarily attempted passes that went short. A lot of “passes” at u-little do not count as passes. More like getting rid of the ball. This is why I think they need to be proficient at short passes.

They need to be proficient at ball handling skills
Passing can come way later

Why teach them to treat ball like live grenade instead of having creativity?

This idea that passing can come way later just isn't true. Technical skill encompasses EVERYTHING with the ball. Obviously you start out with dribbling, but how to properly pass is also a part of that development. You all are confusing the act of physically passing the ball with the concept of why we're passing. Every kid should know HOW to properly pass a ball. The earlier they master their technical abilities, the earlier they can start learning the tactical parts of the game that they'll need to play at the next levels. We're sitting here acting like we don't see teams as young as U10 that have a roster full of kids that can take everyone on 1v1 but also can ping the ball around like mini pros.

Never seem a kid with good technical skills who can't pass a ball

We see many ball booters who lack technical skills

[Anonymous]

Here's where playing against better teams/going to higher leagues helps. Many teams that can get away with booting it/relying on their kids athleticism, will do that until they get humbled and realize they need to do more passing if they want to continue to rise up the ladder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s overrated now. Teams should play much more directly with balls over the top.

Clearly a post written to spark a debate, probably for the contrary point. But I will take the bait...

It is proven that there is a direct correlation between touch rate and player development rate in youth football. The more a player touches the ball, the better chance they have at improving as a player. If you play a direct style of football at young ages, like a lot of teams in our area do, you are by default, hurting the kids chances of becoming better players and reaching higher levels of the game because the touch rate for the players decreases dramatically. Players who have played mostly direct soccer in their youth clubs have a ceiling in terms of the levels they can achieve because their skills just won't be able to keep up because they haven't been on the ball enough to make decisions with it or manipulate it under pressure. Sure, will direct football win games? Yes of course. It is the fastest way to the goal. But if you're focused on youth development, and developing pro players , direct football is the killer of that.

Yes, kids need a tactical understanding of the game as they get older for sure. But with playing direct football you're also killing that understanding because they don't know how to move without the ball either (just run fast and hard). When players are pros or older, they play whatever the system requires. If you have only played direct football your entire life, you won't know any other way of playing and you're immediately less valuable of a player. Direct football is the easiest to teach and the quickest way to get results with players that don't know what they are doing or lack skill. If you're saavy about football don't let any youth coach tell you direct football is good for your son or daughter. It isn't.

So well said - on all accounts.

Playing counterattack kick and run football is CYNICAL and proof coach has given up on developing the players at any level other than college.

It is not only the opposite of the beautiful game but one of the major reasons we don’t advance very far in the last fifty World Cups.

It’s this ‘show me the money’ style of coaching that is killing the youth game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s overrated now. Teams should play much more directly with balls over the top.

Clearly a post written to spark a debate, probably for the contrary point. But I will take the bait...

It is proven that there is a direct correlation between touch rate and player development rate in youth football. The more a player touches the ball, the better chance they have at improving as a player. If you play a direct style of football at young ages, like a lot of teams in our area do, you are by default, hurting the kids chances of becoming better players and reaching higher levels of the game because the touch rate for the players decreases dramatically. Players who have played mostly direct soccer in their youth clubs have a ceiling in terms of the levels they can achieve because their skills just won't be able to keep up because they haven't been on the ball enough to make decisions with it or manipulate it under pressure. Sure, will direct football win games? Yes of course. It is the fastest way to the goal. But if you're focused on youth development, and developing pro players , direct football is the killer of that.

Yes, kids need a tactical understanding of the game as they get older for sure. But with playing direct football you're also killing that understanding because they don't know how to move without the ball either (just run fast and hard). When players are pros or older, they play whatever the system requires. If you have only played direct football your entire life, you won't know any other way of playing and you're immediately less valuable of a player. Direct football is the easiest to teach and the quickest way to get results with players that don't know what they are doing or lack skill. If you're saavy about football don't let any youth coach tell you direct football is good for your son or daughter. It isn't.

So well said - on all accounts.

Playing counterattack kick and run football is CYNICAL and proof coach has given up on developing the players at any level other than college.

It is not only the opposite of the beautiful game but one of the major reasons we don’t advance very far in the last fifty World Cups.

It’s this ‘show me the money’ style of coaching that is killing the youth game.

Several of our WC national team players were developed outside the US and some coaches have been foreigners

[Anonymous]

Passing doesn't help you keep possession if your passes lack technical quality, accuracy and proper weight.
If teammates aren't making the right off the ball moves, good passing game ain't happening either

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Passing doesn't help you keep possession if your passes lack technical quality, accuracy and proper weight.
If teammates aren't making the right off the ball moves, good passing game ain't happening either

Teaching kids possession focuses on short passes, which includes “technical quality, accuracy, proper weight”, and a whole lot more. Direct ball does not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Passing doesn't help you keep possession if your passes lack technical quality, accuracy and proper weight.
If teammates aren't making the right off the ball moves, good passing game ain't happening either

Teaching kids possession focuses on short passes, which includes “technical quality, accuracy, proper weight”, and a whole lot more. Direct ball does not.

Hmmmmm
What about dribbling without losing the ball?
What's a direct ball? Ball without a layover?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Passing doesn't help you keep possession if your passes lack technical quality, accuracy and proper weight.
If teammates aren't making the right off the ball moves, good passing game ain't happening either

Teaching kids possession focuses on short passes, which includes “technical quality, accuracy, proper weight”, and a whole lot more. Direct ball does not.

Hmmmmm
What about dribbling without losing the ball?
What's a direct ball? Ball without a layover?

Direct ball= just kicking the ball up the pitch and hoping your fast teammates get to it. Some folks call it kickball. You know, the Loudoun style

Possession includes dribbling without losing the ball. Hence “possession”

[Anonymous]

Using the "direct" style of play, it may be useful at a younger age and may work but as the children age it will become very hard because they have not developed the skill of controlling and possession. For example, my son has been playing with Herndon 2011 for about 4 years. When his team first started playing travel, it was hard, and they lost many games because their coach encouraged them to play with possession. Although at first, they lost many games, this has developed them into one of the best teams in the area and created a great possession team that dominates most teams they play. Through the many years, I have witnessed many teams who used to dominate them in the early years, now become the teams that are being dominated. I just wanted to share that because that has been our experience with the possession game vs the direct game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Using the "direct" style of play, it may be useful at a younger age and may work but as the children age it will become very hard because they have not developed the skill of controlling and possession. For example, my son has been playing with Herndon 2011 for about 4 years. When his team first started playing travel, it was hard, and they lost many games because their coach encouraged them to play with possession. Although at first, they lost many games, this has developed them into one of the best teams in the area and created a great possession team that dominates most teams they play. Through the many years, I have witnessed many teams who used to dominate them in the early years, now become the teams that are being dominated. I just wanted to share that because that has been our experience with the possession game vs the direct game.

💯

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Using the "direct" style of play, it may be useful at a younger age and may work but as the children age it will become very hard because they have not developed the skill of controlling and possession. For example, my son has been playing with Herndon 2011 for about 4 years. When his team first started playing travel, it was hard, and they lost many games because their coach encouraged them to play with possession. Although at first, they lost many games, this has developed them into one of the best teams in the area and created a great possession team that dominates most teams they play. Through the many years, I have witnessed many teams who used to dominate them in the early years, now become the teams that are being dominated. I just wanted to share that because that has been our experience with the possession game vs the direct game.

Useless and doesn't work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One night, I went to a bar, I was with a woman. We walked all night. We laughed, we flirted, I paid for several drinks of hers.

At around 5 am a guy came in, grabbed her by the arm and took her to the bathroom. He made love to her and she left with him. But that doesn't matter, because I had most of the possession on that night.

😂

Reminds me of a Sean Connery line from The Rock

“Losers are always whining about doing their best. Winners go home and f**k the prom queen”