Timed mile for high school soccer tryouts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is stupid. No professional soccer player ever out-jogs someone to the ball. It is sprint and recover, which does not translate to a long distance timed run.

I guarantee neither Messi nor Ronaldo come anywhere close to the best 2-mile timed run on their own team. We all know Maradona was a marathoner.

Why not do a sprint and cut the slowest kids who can't run an 11 second 100m? Both metrics are physically unattainable for a certain population of kids, and both are a poor measure of how the athlete will perform on the field.

Do you know anything that you are talking about? Boys HS record for 100M is 10.0 recorded in 2014 (T and F News). I don’t think many 9th graders are going to be running 11.0 100m.
“...the slowest kids who can’t run an 11 second 100m...” Geesh.

On the other hand a 5:30 mile is highly achievable and that endurance capacity is also highly desirable in a sport like soccer. If an athlete can’t immediately achieve 5:30, he or she can train toward it. The goal of the coach presumably is to build sheer endurance, yes, but also to develop an athlete who is able to perform with some level of power after being tired. That would mean fast acceleration and sustained sprints and fast lateral movements ... not simply 11 second in the 100m.
Soccer requires a kind of endurance that is not just the body going on, but also endurance that allows the brain to function quickly and alertly in a physically stressed state, responding to the play on the field.

The bar he is setting seems reasonable, perhaps one part of a mosaic of fitness he wishes to see in his athletes. After all, it’s the Beautiful Game.

Why would you train for something that has no real practical use in a actual soccer game? Nobody runs flat out for a mile in a soccer game ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is stupid. No professional soccer player ever out-jogs someone to the ball. It is sprint and recover, which does not translate to a long distance timed run.

I guarantee neither Messi nor Ronaldo come anywhere close to the best 2-mile timed run on their own team. We all know Maradona was a marathoner.

Why not do a sprint and cut the slowest kids who can't run an 11 second 100m? Both metrics are physically unattainable for a certain population of kids, and both are a poor measure of how the athlete will perform on the field.

Do you know anything that you are talking about? Boys HS record for 100M is 10.0 recorded in 2014 (T and F News). I don’t think many 9th graders are going to be running 11.0 100m.
“...the slowest kids who can’t run an 11 second 100m...” Geesh.

On the other hand a 5:30 mile is highly achievable and that endurance capacity is also highly desirable in a sport like soccer. If an athlete can’t immediately achieve 5:30, he or she can train toward it. The goal of the coach presumably is to build sheer endurance, yes, but also to develop an athlete who is able to perform with some level of power after being tired. That would mean fast acceleration and sustained sprints and fast lateral movements ... not simply 11 second in the 100m.
Soccer requires a kind of endurance that is not just the body going on, but also endurance that allows the brain to function quickly and alertly in a physically stressed state, responding to the play on the field.

The bar he is setting seems reasonable, perhaps one part of a mosaic of fitness he wishes to see in his athletes. After all, it’s the Beautiful Game.

Why would you train for something that has no real practical use in a actual soccer game? Nobody runs flat out for a mile in a soccer game ever.

No one does 10 reps of a bench press in a football game either ... but. No one does mountain climbers in a basketball game either ... but. Clearly you’re not an athlete and have never been one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is stupid. No professional soccer player ever out-jogs someone to the ball. It is sprint and recover, which does not translate to a long distance timed run.

I guarantee neither Messi nor Ronaldo come anywhere close to the best 2-mile timed run on their own team. We all know Maradona was a marathoner.

Why not do a sprint and cut the slowest kids who can't run an 11 second 100m? Both metrics are physically unattainable for a certain population of kids, and both are a poor measure of how the athlete will perform on the field.

Do you know anything that you are talking about? Boys HS record for 100M is 10.0 recorded in 2014 (T and F News). I don’t think many 9th graders are going to be running 11.0 100m.
“...the slowest kids who can’t run an 11 second 100m...” Geesh.

On the other hand a 5:30 mile is highly achievable and that endurance capacity is also highly desirable in a sport like soccer. If an athlete can’t immediately achieve 5:30, he or she can train toward it. The goal of the coach presumably is to build sheer endurance, yes, but also to develop an athlete who is able to perform with some level of power after being tired. That would mean fast acceleration and sustained sprints and fast lateral movements ... not simply 11 second in the 100m.
Soccer requires a kind of endurance that is not just the body going on, but also endurance that allows the brain to function quickly and alertly in a physically stressed state, responding to the play on the field.

The bar he is setting seems reasonable, perhaps one part of a mosaic of fitness he wishes to see in his athletes. After all, it’s the Beautiful Game.

Why would you train for something that has no real practical use in a actual soccer game? Nobody runs flat out for a mile in a soccer game ever.

No one does 10 reps of a bench press in a football game either ... but. No one does mountain climbers in a basketball game either ... but. Clearly you’re not an athlete and have never been one.

Clearly you're not a soccer player or you not believe this is at all useful in finding who is good at soccer.

Generally, quality club soccer players are already "fit".

And, why do HS soccer coaches bother with this as a metric if much of their practice time is always spent running sprints, laps and bleachers with very little soccer?

Your first cut should be this simple, "What travel team and what league do you play in?"

Then you make up teams and small size scrimmage. Next cut, two teams and full scrimmage and done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is stupid. No professional soccer player ever out-jogs someone to the ball. It is sprint and recover, which does not translate to a long distance timed run.

I guarantee neither Messi nor Ronaldo come anywhere close to the best 2-mile timed run on their own team. We all know Maradona was a marathoner.

Why not do a sprint and cut the slowest kids who can't run an 11 second 100m? Both metrics are physically unattainable for a certain population of kids, and both are a poor measure of how the athlete will perform on the field.

Do you know anything that you are talking about? Boys HS record for 100M is 10.0 recorded in 2014 (T and F News). I don’t think many 9th graders are going to be running 11.0 100m.
“...the slowest kids who can’t run an 11 second 100m...” Geesh.

On the other hand a 5:30 mile is highly achievable and that endurance capacity is also highly desirable in a sport like soccer. If an athlete can’t immediately achieve 5:30, he or she can train toward it. The goal of the coach presumably is to build sheer endurance, yes, but also to develop an athlete who is able to perform with some level of power after being tired. That would mean fast acceleration and sustained sprints and fast lateral movements ... not simply 11 second in the 100m.
Soccer requires a kind of endurance that is not just the body going on, but also endurance that allows the brain to function quickly and alertly in a physically stressed state, responding to the play on the field.

The bar he is setting seems reasonable, perhaps one part of a mosaic of fitness he wishes to see in his athletes. After all, it’s the Beautiful Game.

Why would you train for something that has no real practical use in a actual soccer game? Nobody runs flat out for a mile in a soccer game ever.

No one does 10 reps of a bench press in a football game either ... but. No one does mountain climbers in a basketball game either ... but. Clearly you’re not an athlete and have never been one.

Clearly you're not a soccer player or you not believe this is at all useful in finding who is good at soccer.

Generally, quality club soccer players are already "fit".

And, why do HS soccer coaches bother with this as a metric if much of their practice time is always spent running sprints, laps and bleachers with very little soccer?

Your first cut should be this simple, "What travel team and what league do you play in?"

Then you make up teams and small size scrimmage. Next cut, two teams and full scrimmage and done.

If you believe they are all fit, you clearly haven't watched a lot of top level girls games -- can't speak for the boys. But on the girls side, I mean ECNL/DA, even showcase top grouping level. Yes, there are fit girls. But there are also many that are gassed after 30 minutes or less. A big problem especially with the more limited subbing (worst in DA in the past with no return once subbed out.). Doesn't matter how great your foot skills are, how big or strong or fast you are. If you can't get to the ball, you can't show any of the rest of that.

Fitness is the one thing you can just decide to work on and improve. Put the darn time in. Juggle 300 times instead of 1000 and go run a few miles. Then when you have the opportunity to make a long run and bring a ball down out of the air with your amazing touch, you'll actually get there and do it. If the choice was a kid who was exceptionally fit (endurance and speed) and solid with the ball, or exceptionally skilled (great touch, dribbling ability, agility) but only average in speed AND endurance, I'd take the fit kid every time. Tired kids play slow and think slow regardless of their skill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is stupid. No professional soccer player ever out-jogs someone to the ball. It is sprint and recover, which does not translate to a long distance timed run.

I guarantee neither Messi nor Ronaldo come anywhere close to the best 2-mile timed run on their own team. We all know Maradona was a marathoner.

Why not do a sprint and cut the slowest kids who can't run an 11 second 100m? Both metrics are physically unattainable for a certain population of kids, and both are a poor measure of how the athlete will perform on the field.

Do you know anything that you are talking about? Boys HS record for 100M is 10.0 recorded in 2014 (T and F News). I don’t think many 9th graders are going to be running 11.0 100m.
“...the slowest kids who can’t run an 11 second 100m...” Geesh.

On the other hand a 5:30 mile is highly achievable and that endurance capacity is also highly desirable in a sport like soccer. If an athlete can’t immediately achieve 5:30, he or she can train toward it. The goal of the coach presumably is to build sheer endurance, yes, but also to develop an athlete who is able to perform with some level of power after being tired. That would mean fast acceleration and sustained sprints and fast lateral movements ... not simply 11 second in the 100m.
Soccer requires a kind of endurance that is not just the body going on, but also endurance that allows the brain to function quickly and alertly in a physically stressed state, responding to the play on the field.

The bar he is setting seems reasonable, perhaps one part of a mosaic of fitness he wishes to see in his athletes. After all, it’s the Beautiful Game.

Why would you train for something that has no real practical use in a actual soccer game? Nobody runs flat out for a mile in a soccer game ever.

No one does 10 reps of a bench press in a football game either ... but. No one does mountain climbers in a basketball game either ... but. Clearly you’re not an athlete and have never been one.

Clearly you're not a soccer player or you not believe this is at all useful in finding who is good at soccer.

Generally, quality club soccer players are already "fit".

And, why do HS soccer coaches bother with this as a metric if much of their practice time is always spent running sprints, laps and bleachers with very little soccer?

Your first cut should be this simple, "What travel team and what league do you play in?"

Then you make up teams and small size scrimmage. Next cut, two teams and full scrimmage and done.

If you believe they are all fit, you clearly haven't watched a lot of top level girls games -- can't speak for the boys. But on the girls side, I mean ECNL/DA, even showcase top grouping level. Yes, there are fit girls. But there are also many that are gassed after 30 minutes or less. A big problem especially with the more limited subbing (worst in DA in the past with no return once subbed out.). Doesn't matter how great your foot skills are, how big or strong or fast you are. If you can't get to the ball, you can't show any of the rest of that.

Fitness is the one thing you can just decide to work on and improve. Put the darn time in. Juggle 300 times instead of 1000 and go run a few miles. Then when you have the opportunity to make a long run and bring a ball down out of the air with your amazing touch, you'll actually get there and do it. If the choice was a kid who was exceptionally fit (endurance and speed) and solid with the ball, or exceptionally skilled (great touch, dribbling ability, agility) but only average in speed AND endurance, I'd take the fit kid every time. Tired kids play slow and think slow regardless of their skill.

And so what if they get gassed after 30 minutes in HS? Subbing rules are very generous. But the style of HS soccer forces kids to be gassed because it is mostly send it and chase it for 90 minutes. If the coach had actually selected soccer players who could move the ball around and posses the coach might find the need to run sprint after sprint chasing a ball to be quite unnecessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is stupid. No professional soccer player ever out-jogs someone to the ball. It is sprint and recover, which does not translate to a long distance timed run.

I guarantee neither Messi nor Ronaldo come anywhere close to the best 2-mile timed run on their own team. We all know Maradona was a marathoner.

Why not do a sprint and cut the slowest kids who can't run an 11 second 100m? Both metrics are physically unattainable for a certain population of kids, and both are a poor measure of how the athlete will perform on the field.

Do you know anything that you are talking about? Boys HS record for 100M is 10.0 recorded in 2014 (T and F News). I don’t think many 9th graders are going to be running 11.0 100m.
“...the slowest kids who can’t run an 11 second 100m...” Geesh.

On the other hand a 5:30 mile is highly achievable and that endurance capacity is also highly desirable in a sport like soccer. If an athlete can’t immediately achieve 5:30, he or she can train toward it. The goal of the coach presumably is to build sheer endurance, yes, but also to develop an athlete who is able to perform with some level of power after being tired. That would mean fast acceleration and sustained sprints and fast lateral movements ... not simply 11 second in the 100m.
Soccer requires a kind of endurance that is not just the body going on, but also endurance that allows the brain to function quickly and alertly in a physically stressed state, responding to the play on the field.

The bar he is setting seems reasonable, perhaps one part of a mosaic of fitness he wishes to see in his athletes. After all, it’s the Beautiful Game.

Why would you train for something that has no real practical use in a actual soccer game? Nobody runs flat out for a mile in a soccer game ever.

No one does 10 reps of a bench press in a football game either ... but. No one does mountain climbers in a basketball game either ... but. Clearly you’re not an athlete and have never been one.

Clearly you're not a soccer player or you not believe this is at all useful in finding who is good at soccer.

Generally, quality club soccer players are already "fit".

And, why do HS soccer coaches bother with this as a metric if much of their practice time is always spent running sprints, laps and bleachers with very little soccer?

Your first cut should be this simple, "What travel team and what league do you play in?"

Then you make up teams and small size scrimmage. Next cut, two teams and full scrimmage and done.

If you believe they are all fit, you clearly haven't watched a lot of top level girls games -- can't speak for the boys. But on the girls side, I mean ECNL/DA, even showcase top grouping level. Yes, there are fit girls. But there are also many that are gassed after 30 minutes or less. A big problem especially with the more limited subbing (worst in DA in the past with no return once subbed out.). Doesn't matter how great your foot skills are, how big or strong or fast you are. If you can't get to the ball, you can't show any of the rest of that.

Fitness is the one thing you can just decide to work on and improve. Put the darn time in. Juggle 300 times instead of 1000 and go run a few miles. Then when you have the opportunity to make a long run and bring a ball down out of the air with your amazing touch, you'll actually get there and do it. If the choice was a kid who was exceptionally fit (endurance and speed) and solid with the ball, or exceptionally skilled (great touch, dribbling ability, agility) but only average in speed AND endurance, I'd take the fit kid every time. Tired kids play slow and think slow regardless of their skill.

I have no doubt that you would pick a fit kid over a kid who could play soccer.

Of the things that any dumb coach can improve upon is fitness moron. But a dumb coach can't make a bad soccer player better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is stupid. No professional soccer player ever out-jogs someone to the ball. It is sprint and recover, which does not translate to a long distance timed run.

I guarantee neither Messi nor Ronaldo come anywhere close to the best 2-mile timed run on their own team. We all know Maradona was a marathoner.

Why not do a sprint and cut the slowest kids who can't run an 11 second 100m? Both metrics are physically unattainable for a certain population of kids, and both are a poor measure of how the athlete will perform on the field.

Do you know anything that you are talking about? Boys HS record for 100M is 10.0 recorded in 2014 (T and F News). I don’t think many 9th graders are going to be running 11.0 100m.
“...the slowest kids who can’t run an 11 second 100m...” Geesh.

On the other hand a 5:30 mile is highly achievable and that endurance capacity is also highly desirable in a sport like soccer. If an athlete can’t immediately achieve 5:30, he or she can train toward it. The goal of the coach presumably is to build sheer endurance, yes, but also to develop an athlete who is able to perform with some level of power after being tired. That would mean fast acceleration and sustained sprints and fast lateral movements ... not simply 11 second in the 100m.
Soccer requires a kind of endurance that is not just the body going on, but also endurance that allows the brain to function quickly and alertly in a physically stressed state, responding to the play on the field.

The bar he is setting seems reasonable, perhaps one part of a mosaic of fitness he wishes to see in his athletes. After all, it’s the Beautiful Game.

Why would you train for something that has no real practical use in a actual soccer game? Nobody runs flat out for a mile in a soccer game ever.

No one does 10 reps of a bench press in a football game either ... but. No one does mountain climbers in a basketball game either ... but. Clearly you’re not an athlete and have never been one.

Clearly you're not a soccer player or you not believe this is at all useful in finding who is good at soccer.

Generally, quality club soccer players are already "fit".

And, why do HS soccer coaches bother with this as a metric if much of their practice time is always spent running sprints, laps and bleachers with very little soccer?

Your first cut should be this simple, "What travel team and what league do you play in?"

Then you make up teams and small size scrimmage. Next cut, two teams and full scrimmage and done.

If you believe they are all fit, you clearly haven't watched a lot of top level girls games -- can't speak for the boys. But on the girls side, I mean ECNL/DA, even showcase top grouping level. Yes, there are fit girls. But there are also many that are gassed after 30 minutes or less. A big problem especially with the more limited subbing (worst in DA in the past with no return once subbed out.). Doesn't matter how great your foot skills are, how big or strong or fast you are. If you can't get to the ball, you can't show any of the rest of that.

Fitness is the one thing you can just decide to work on and improve. Put the darn time in. Juggle 300 times instead of 1000 and go run a few miles. Then when you have the opportunity to make a long run and bring a ball down out of the air with your amazing touch, you'll actually get there and do it. If the choice was a kid who was exceptionally fit (endurance and speed) and solid with the ball, or exceptionally skilled (great touch, dribbling ability, agility) but only average in speed AND endurance, I'd take the fit kid every time. Tired kids play slow and think slow regardless of their skill.

I have no doubt that you would pick a fit kid over a kid who could play soccer.

Of the things that any dumb coach can improve upon is fitness moron. But a dumb coach can't make a bad soccer player better.

Not PP, but I don't think he was saying pick a fit kid over one that could play soccer. Pick a fit kid who can play soccer over a non-fit kid who can play soccer. And if you really can play soccer, why are you worrying about HS anyway?

[Anonymous]

When I lived in Portugal, there was an old man that used to be out conditioning his 12-year old son. Kid was jumping on benches doing all kinds of fitness. Got to talking and grandpa was a former pro player.

He said: every kid in this country has technical ability. The difference is conditioning.

When I played as a kid, we were brutally conditioned at start of season and as punishment. You were expected to arrive for.

Every practice had wind sprints, shuttle runs, Indian runs, etc.

Started were expected to be full out running 90 min. Subs were limited. Our team was undefeated for years, 5 State Champs/Regionals, etc., lots of technical training —-but in Elite competition —the team that is in better condition will make the difference.

I’m appalled at the condition of some of the kids on my son’s U13 team. Some can barely run 20 min. My U16s team is better, but the rosters are so big nobody is getting full 90 min of game play which is needed to be a top player.

[Anonymous]

Imagine thinking that having the physical and mental endurance needed to run a sub 6-minute mile (or *gasp* two in a row) in addition to being a good or even just decent player wouldn't be beneficial to playing soccer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is stupid. No professional soccer player ever out-jogs someone to the ball. It is sprint and recover, which does not translate to a long distance timed run.

I guarantee neither Messi nor Ronaldo come anywhere close to the best 2-mile timed run on their own team. We all know Maradona was a marathoner.

Why not do a sprint and cut the slowest kids who can't run an 11 second 100m? Both metrics are physically unattainable for a certain population of kids, and both are a poor measure of how the athlete will perform on the field.

Do you know anything that you are talking about? Boys HS record for 100M is 10.0 recorded in 2014 (T and F News). I don’t think many 9th graders are going to be running 11.0 100m.
“...the slowest kids who can’t run an 11 second 100m...” Geesh.

On the other hand a 5:30 mile is highly achievable and that endurance capacity is also highly desirable in a sport like soccer. If an athlete can’t immediately achieve 5:30, he or she can train toward it. The goal of the coach presumably is to build sheer endurance, yes, but also to develop an athlete who is able to perform with some level of power after being tired. That would mean fast acceleration and sustained sprints and fast lateral movements ... not simply 11 second in the 100m.
Soccer requires a kind of endurance that is not just the body going on, but also endurance that allows the brain to function quickly and alertly in a physically stressed state, responding to the play on the field.

The bar he is setting seems reasonable, perhaps one part of a mosaic of fitness he wishes to see in his athletes. After all, it’s the Beautiful Game.

Why would you train for something that has no real practical use in a actual soccer game? Nobody runs flat out for a mile in a soccer game ever.

No one does 10 reps of a bench press in a football game either ... but. No one does mountain climbers in a basketball game either ... but. Clearly you’re not an athlete and have never been one.

Clearly you're not a soccer player or you not believe this is at all useful in finding who is good at soccer.

Generally, quality club soccer players are already "fit".

And, why do HS soccer coaches bother with this as a metric if much of their practice time is always spent running sprints, laps and bleachers with very little soccer?

Your first cut should be this simple, "What travel team and what league do you play in?"

Then you make up teams and small size scrimmage. Next cut, two teams and full scrimmage and done.

The coach isn't cutting anyone because they don't make the time. He has even made this clear to the kids. He has set the time as a goal for his team to make to encourage them to get in shape if they are not already. This is perfectly sensible and absolutely standard for all high school team sports.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is stupid. No professional soccer player ever out-jogs someone to the ball. It is sprint and recover, which does not translate to a long distance timed run.

I guarantee neither Messi nor Ronaldo come anywhere close to the best 2-mile timed run on their own team. We all know Maradona was a marathoner.

Why not do a sprint and cut the slowest kids who can't run an 11 second 100m? Both metrics are physically unattainable for a certain population of kids, and both are a poor measure of how the athlete will perform on the field.

Do you know anything that you are talking about? Boys HS record for 100M is 10.0 recorded in 2014 (T and F News). I don’t think many 9th graders are going to be running 11.0 100m.
“...the slowest kids who can’t run an 11 second 100m...” Geesh.

On the other hand a 5:30 mile is highly achievable and that endurance capacity is also highly desirable in a sport like soccer. If an athlete can’t immediately achieve 5:30, he or she can train toward it. The goal of the coach presumably is to build sheer endurance, yes, but also to develop an athlete who is able to perform with some level of power after being tired. That would mean fast acceleration and sustained sprints and fast lateral movements ... not simply 11 second in the 100m.
Soccer requires a kind of endurance that is not just the body going on, but also endurance that allows the brain to function quickly and alertly in a physically stressed state, responding to the play on the field.

The bar he is setting seems reasonable, perhaps one part of a mosaic of fitness he wishes to see in his athletes. After all, it’s the Beautiful Game.

Why would you train for something that has no real practical use in a actual soccer game? Nobody runs flat out for a mile in a soccer game ever.

No one does 10 reps of a bench press in a football game either ... but. No one does mountain climbers in a basketball game either ... but. Clearly you’re not an athlete and have never been one.

Clearly you're not a soccer player or you not believe this is at all useful in finding who is good at soccer.

Generally, quality club soccer players are already "fit".

And, why do HS soccer coaches bother with this as a metric if much of their practice time is always spent running sprints, laps and bleachers with very little soccer?

Your first cut should be this simple, "What travel team and what league do you play in?"

Then you make up teams and small size scrimmage. Next cut, two teams and full scrimmage and done.

If you believe they are all fit, you clearly haven't watched a lot of top level girls games -- can't speak for the boys. But on the girls side, I mean ECNL/DA, even showcase top grouping level. Yes, there are fit girls. But there are also many that are gassed after 30 minutes or less. A big problem especially with the more limited subbing (worst in DA in the past with no return once subbed out.). Doesn't matter how great your foot skills are, how big or strong or fast you are. If you can't get to the ball, you can't show any of the rest of that.

Fitness is the one thing you can just decide to work on and improve. Put the darn time in. Juggle 300 times instead of 1000 and go run a few miles. Then when you have the opportunity to make a long run and bring a ball down out of the air with your amazing touch, you'll actually get there and do it. If the choice was a kid who was exceptionally fit (endurance and speed) and solid with the ball, or exceptionally skilled (great touch, dribbling ability, agility) but only average in speed AND endurance, I'd take the fit kid every time. Tired kids play slow and think slow regardless of their skill.

I have no doubt that you would pick a fit kid over a kid who could play soccer.

Of the things that any dumb coach can improve upon is fitness moron. But a dumb coach can't make a bad soccer player better.

Not PP, but I don't think he was saying pick a fit kid over one that could play soccer. Pick a fit kid who can play soccer over a non-fit kid who can play soccer. And if you really can play soccer, why are you worrying about HS anyway?

Because playing HS sports is part of growing up?

[Anonymous]

Running a mile in 5:30 does not mean you have good fitness for soccer. It means you can run a mile in 5:30 and nothing more. Soccer fitness is fitness in the context of soccer. A player performs actions upon actions in a game, some of them runs, some of them sprints, some of them may not involve much movement. A player's ability to maintain good actions through 90 mins is soccer fitness. Without defenders, a ball, a goal, and a direction, you don't have any of the context of a game. Stop breaking the game down into neat "sections" you can someone improve individually of each other. You don't get better at chess by playing checkers.

The issue here is that the US is obsessed with the fitness industry and rarely looks beyond that in sports. It's why Adama Traore's arms where newsworthy on ESPN. All of you who buy this as a good measure of fitness, or say that it was done in the past, which is why it must be good, you're just making the same thinking errors that have been made here for 40 years. The US national team has never lacked players who are fast, strong, or whatever other bs term you want to attach to non contextual fitness. Go do crossfit, where the fittest people in the world apparently can only compete at... crossfit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Running a mile in 5:30 does not mean you have good fitness for soccer.

Actually it's not a bad proxy. A kid who can run a mile in 5:30 is probably in reasonable soccer shape too. Could I devise a better test? Sure. Could I devise a better test given the time, resources and equipment available to a high school soccer coach? No - not one that would make sense. He wants two things
(a) a goal to set his kids to encourage them to get in shape.
(b) a very easy to administer trial process that he can get out of the way in ten minutes at the start of his first tryout session so he can focus on watching the kids play soccer for the rest of the week.

Soccer fitness is fitness in the context of soccer. A player performs actions upon actions in a game, some of them runs, some of them sprints, some of them may not involve much movement. A player's ability to maintain good actions through 90 mins is soccer fitness.

None of that changes the fact that there will be a high correlation between a middle distance run and soccer fitness. The two activities pose similar challenges to the body's systems and training to improve one will improve the other. Is it as perfect match? No. But it will work pretty well as a quick and dirty measure.

Without defenders, a ball, a goal, and a direction, you don't have any of the context of a game. Stop breaking the game down into neat "sections" you can someone improve individually of each other. You don't get better at chess by playing checkers.

The issue here is that the US is obsessed with the fitness industry and rarely looks beyond that in sports. It's why Adama Traore's arms where newsworthy on ESPN. All of you who buy this as a good measure of fitness, or say that it was done in the past, which is why it must be good, you're just making the same thinking errors that have been made here for 40 years. The US national team has never lacked players who are fast, strong, or whatever other bs term you want to attach to non contextual fitness. Go do crossfit, where the fittest people in the world apparently can only compete at... crossfit.

What has any of this got to do with this high school coach? He has asked his players to get fit. Seems perfectly sensible to me. A bunch of you have then assumed, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, that that means he knows nothing about soccer, is going to pick all the wrong players etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Running a mile in 5:30 does not mean you have good fitness for soccer. It means you can run a mile in 5:30 and nothing more. Soccer fitness is fitness in the context of soccer. A player performs actions upon actions in a game, some of them runs, some of them sprints, some of them may not involve much movement. A player's ability to maintain good actions through 90 mins is soccer fitness. Without defenders, a ball, a goal, and a direction, you don't have any of the context of a game. Stop breaking the game down into neat "sections" you can someone improve individually of each other. You don't get better at chess by playing checkers.

The issue here is that the US is obsessed with the fitness industry and rarely looks beyond that in sports. It's why Adama Traore's arms where newsworthy on ESPN. All of you who buy this as a good measure of fitness, or say that it was done in the past, which is why it must be good, you're just making the same thinking errors that have been made here for 40 years. The US national team has never lacked players who are fast, strong, or whatever other bs term you want to attach to non contextual fitness. Go do crossfit, where the fittest people in the world apparently can only compete at... crossfit.

Running a mile in 5:30 absolutely means you have an excellent fitness base upon which you build or improve soccer fitness. This should not be so difficult to understand. Teams at every level all over the world use some sort of endurance test at least once a season that involves distance running to gauge the players' fitness level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Running a mile in 5:30 does not mean you have good fitness for soccer. It means you can run a mile in 5:30 and nothing more. Soccer fitness is fitness in the context of soccer. A player performs actions upon actions in a game, some of them runs, some of them sprints, some of them may not involve much movement. A player's ability to maintain good actions through 90 mins is soccer fitness. Without defenders, a ball, a goal, and a direction, you don't have any of the context of a game. Stop breaking the game down into neat "sections" you can someone improve individually of each other. You don't get better at chess by playing checkers.

The issue here is that the US is obsessed with the fitness industry and rarely looks beyond that in sports. It's why Adama Traore's arms where newsworthy on ESPN. All of you who buy this as a good measure of fitness, or say that it was done in the past, which is why it must be good, you're just making the same thinking errors that have been made here for 40 years. The US national team has never lacked players who are fast, strong, or whatever other bs term you want to attach to non contextual fitness. Go do crossfit, where the fittest people in the world apparently can only compete at... crossfit.

I’m going to venture a guess that no one here (other than you and I (after a little google session)) are familiar with Adama Traore and his over-developed arms. While I think most HS soccer coaches focus on the wrong things, there are worse things to look at as winnowing factors than endurance. My kid’s HS coach cared only about size and aggression, and the season ended with an unusual number of broken bones. I wish there were higher standards for HS coaches in all sports.