Timed mile for high school soccer tryouts?

[Anonymous]

All of the soccer players at our State Champ (boys and girls) HS ran indoor track. Everyone played on a Club team too.

So many of us ended up running marathons in our 20s/30s post-college careers —-especially the midfielders like me .

I was middle distance (midfielder) in track. My striker friend was an incredible sprinter. I remember my brother going out for track and first meet set a record in the 200 m even though he’d never had been out of the blocks prior.

You showed up in shape or you weren’t put on the team. Everyone did pre-season training on their own.

[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.

Played soccer, coached soccer for a long time. Ran. Lifted weights. Juggled. Played a lot of pickup, travel, school ball, etc. Watched a lot too. Probably have forgotten more soccer than you’ve experienced. Anyhow, there is no one answer, but yes many soccer players run a mile or two at a fast pace for their endurance training session and then also mix in strength and power (explosion) training as well as a mix of sprint, rest, jog, sprint, rest routines. I’ll agree that running more than a mile or two is not as useful.

[Anonymous]

experienced players will all make the time. if they all make the time, what's the point of running it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:experienced players will all make the time. if they all make the time, what's the point of running it?

Because less than half of them do. Goals in the last 20 minutes count as much as the goals in the first 20.

[Anonymous]

It’s kind of hilarious how self-assured so many parents on this thread are about what makes a good soccer player. The American UMC obsession with soccer itself is also hilarious. (Since apparently most of you haven’t noticed, America sucks at soccer 🤣)

But I’m sure when the English Premier League signs kids at like 13-14, it’s only after making sure they can run a mile in a given amount of time. Probably has nothing to do with experienced scouts/coaches being able to identify an innate talent and having the confidence to know that fitness levels can always be improved...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This seems insane to me and a lot like lazy coaching.

Like OP said - it's HIGH SCHOOL! It would be easier to just be friends with the coach or have your parents be friends

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s kind of hilarious how self-assured so many parents on this thread are about what makes a good soccer player. The American UMC obsession with soccer itself is also hilarious. (Since apparently most of you haven’t noticed, America sucks at soccer 🤣)

But I’m sure when the English Premier League signs kids at like 13-14, it’s only after making sure they can run a mile in a given amount of time. Probably has nothing to do with experienced scouts/coaches being able to identify an innate talent and having the confidence to know that fitness levels can always be improved...

Last time I checked America has won more women’s World Cups than any other country, so if we suck ... we’ll what does that say about the rest of the world? Yes, our men aren’t very good. True. It’s still easy enough to watch and read about SA and Euro soccer pros and what makes them great. As many PPs here have said, it is not the ONLY thing, but it is a thing.

By the way, last time I checked the Man U test, which comes from Man U, which is in England last time I checked, ends up with the participant running several miles in a designated amount of time. So, does Man U not know what they’re doing? Are you smarter than that club? Please educate us oh superior soccer mind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s kind of hilarious how self-assured so many parents on this thread are about what makes a good soccer player. The American UMC obsession with soccer itself is also hilarious. (Since apparently most of you haven’t noticed, America sucks at soccer 🤣)

But I’m sure when the English Premier League signs kids at like 13-14, it’s only after making sure they can run a mile in a given amount of time. Probably has nothing to do with experienced scouts/coaches being able to identify an innate talent and having the confidence to know that fitness levels can always be improved...

Last time I checked America has won more women’s World Cups than any other country, so if we suck ... we’ll what does that say about the rest of the world? Yes, our men aren’t very good. True. It’s still easy enough to watch and read about SA and Euro soccer pros and what makes them great. As many PPs here have said, it is not the ONLY thing, but it is a thing.

By the way, last time I checked the Man U test, which comes from Man U, which is in England last time I checked, ends up with the participant running several miles in a designated amount of time. So, does Man U not know what they’re doing? Are you smarter than that club? Please educate us oh superior soccer mind.

Whoa! Clearly touched a nerve! But to answer your first question, it says that women in other countries either haven’t been playing soccer as long as women in the US, or they don’t play at all. The US has always been very progressive in terms of women’s sport - does not imply innate superior soccer talent.

And to your second question, isn’t the Man U test a bunch of sprints? Kind of like what one might do while playing soccer? I wonder if they would have not been interested in a player who, oh I don’t know, could score directly from a corner kick if he didn’t complete this precious timed running trial??

Should the goalie be held to the same speed standard as a striker? Are the endurance standards the same for strikers as midfielders? Maybe they should be, I don’t know. But it sounds like box-checking lazy coaching to me...

[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.

Played soccer, coached soccer for a long time. Ran. Lifted weights. Juggled. Played a lot of pickup, travel, school ball, etc. Watched a lot too. Probably have forgotten more soccer than you’ve experienced. Anyhow, there is no one answer, but yes many soccer players run a mile or two at a fast pace for their endurance training session and then also mix in strength and power (explosion) training as well as a mix of sprint, rest, jog, sprint, rest routines. I’ll agree that running more than a mile or two is not as useful.

You seem fixated on this. I’ll try and be clear one last time.

Being fit is certainly a part of the game. But having a metric as a selection criteria is silly. Having the metric as an expectation of the selected team is mostly fine.

But it is not unexpected that HS coaches who many know little about the game choose players based on the idea that we will outrun and outwork our opponents. If HS soccer had a reputation of playing quality soccer this would not stick out. But the fact is, HS soccer is mostly known for its poor quality overall, it’s overly aggressive style and sloppy play it stands to reason that coaches are relying on stop watches to select their team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:.

Being fit is certainly a part of the game. But having a metric as a selection criteria is silly. Having the metric as an expectation of the selected team is mostly fine.

DP but this seems reasonable. Select the kids who are good at soccer, then make sure they are in shape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:.

Being fit is certainly a part of the game. But having a metric as a selection criteria is silly. Having the metric as an expectation of the selected team is mostly fine.

DP but this seems reasonable. Select the kids who are good at soccer, then make sure they are in shape.

This.

By HS it is a hell of a lot easier to improve the fitness of a already good soccer player than it is to improve the quality of a fit but mediocre soccer player.

This whole timed run just had it backwards when you are compiling a team in a short period of time for a equally short season.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s kind of hilarious how self-assured so many parents on this thread are about what makes a good soccer player. The American UMC obsession with soccer itself is also hilarious. (Since apparently most of you haven’t noticed, America sucks at soccer 🤣)

But I’m sure when the English Premier League signs kids at like 13-14, it’s only after making sure they can run a mile in a given amount of time. Probably has nothing to do with experienced scouts/coaches being able to identify an innate talent and having the confidence to know that fitness levels can always be improved...

No EPL team would sign a kid who couldn't be bothered to train enough to get fit. They look for a lot more than just technical ability. They look for attitude, leadership, willingness to work etc. Any kid who can't do as his coach asks would not make it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:.

Being fit is certainly a part of the game. But having a metric as a selection criteria is silly. Having the metric as an expectation of the selected team is mostly fine.

DP but this seems reasonable. Select the kids who are good at soccer, then make sure they are in shape.

This.

By HS it is a hell of a lot easier to improve the fitness of a already good soccer player than it is to improve the quality of a fit but mediocre soccer player.

This whole timed run just had it backwards when you are compiling a team in a short period of time for a equally short season.

Why do you think the timed run had it backwards? The coach has explicitly said he's not going to cut kids based just on that. It is simply one of the things he will be considering. As it should be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:.

Being fit is certainly a part of the game. But having a metric as a selection criteria is silly. Having the metric as an expectation of the selected team is mostly fine.

DP but this seems reasonable. Select the kids who are good at soccer, then make sure they are in shape.

This.

By HS it is a hell of a lot easier to improve the fitness of a already good soccer player than it is to improve the quality of a fit but mediocre soccer player.

This whole timed run just had it backwards when you are compiling a team in a short period of time for a equally short season.

Why do you think the timed run had it backwards? The coach has explicitly said he's not going to cut kids based just on that. It is simply one of the things he will be considering. As it should be.

Because this test simply does not correlate to actual soccer fitness. It is not predictive of soccer performance or soccer ability.

It is a waste of an entire session running kids through it.

Spending time in practice, working towards fitness through running and sprints will also not yield any positive soccer results in a short 3 month season at the expense of working on specific soccer training.

These kids already play soccer mostly year round. They are in soccer shape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:.

Being fit is certainly a part of the game. But having a metric as a selection criteria is silly. Having the metric as an expectation of the selected team is mostly fine.

DP but this seems reasonable. Select the kids who are good at soccer, then make sure they are in shape.

This.

By HS it is a hell of a lot easier to improve the fitness of a already good soccer player than it is to improve the quality of a fit but mediocre soccer player.

This whole timed run just had it backwards when you are compiling a team in a short period of time for a equally short season.

Why do you think the timed run had it backwards? The coach has explicitly said he's not going to cut kids based just on that. It is simply one of the things he will be considering. As it should be.

Because this test simply does not correlate to actual soccer fitness. It is not predictive of soccer performance or soccer ability.

It is a waste of an entire session running kids through it.

Spending time in practice, working towards fitness through running and sprints will also not yield any positive soccer results in a short 3 month season at the expense of working on specific soccer training.

These kids already play soccer mostly year round. They are in soccer shape.

So spending perhaps 10 minutes on this is a waste of an entire session?

Okay.