Player development is a myth

[Anonymous]

I agree OP. I see this in another travel sport my kid is in (a team sport).

The "best" clubs have cherry-picked or recruited over time the most talented/most trained kids - my theory is there is a tipping point where they attract a certain type of parent who looks for that and who gets their kids lots of private lessons to be the most competitive.

But, I also agree there is some nuance to this and some coaches can improve teams and even individuals, so it's not a total myth.

[Anonymous]

The "best" clubs have cherry-picked or recruited over time the most talented/most trained kids - my theory is there is a tipping point where they attract a certain type of parent who looks for that and who gets their kids lots of private lessons to be the most competitive.

That's not how it works (meaning that the most training makes you the best player). I have two girls, and have paid for the exact same amount of training for each of them. One is just a better player than the other - I love them both equally as daughters, but this is a fact.

[Anonymous]

Don’t think that most-trained ever meant most talented. You read that wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Kick and run” is played at every level. See Haaland, E.

You are nuts if you think Dortmund plays that way or he needs to do so. His vision, runs and combo passing are absolutely top of the charts. No top team plays kick and run professionally. None.

None do however I wouldn't be against it if I had the biggest strongest fastest athletes. The object is to score the most goals and a good coach wins first and develops second. Thats just common sense.

Ah yeah, but at the pro level that doesn’t work, and at the youngest ages, these players would learn nothing. Most importantly, none of the supporting cast (read midfielders) learn how to play properly when buildout is goalie to center forward or goalie-wing-center forward. It’s garbage.

All it takes is a once in a lifetime or generational type player to dominate at a certain position. If that happens everyone else follows trying to replicate that dominance and the trend of that position changes. Its all cycles and everyone is always chasing there trend. To say the system predicted the players you select isn't always true. There isn't a single coach in the world who would take Messi in his prime because he didn't fit the system The system is tweaked to make the talent you have successful. The most true statement in sports is told to coaches who complain. they are told "Coach what you have not what you want".

Look travel soccer does not coach what they have. They try to replace what they have. This is considered development. If you win that is the only thing the current parents remember. Most of the clubs have a style of play and select kids based on that style. They do not select for good soccer players but for players who fit the system. If your club is a K&R type midfield is not a priority. You do not need a classic midfield(great touch, great ball handling skills, great vision, high soccer iq, etc). You need a someone to play defense and win balls. It’s prescriptive-ball to the wings, not in the center of the field, no back passing and not a lot of touches in midfield. Messi would be a waste in that system.

I have seen “star” strikers leave a team with a good midfield to play for K&R type teams. Guess what? The player struggles because they are no longer getting the good ball to his/her feet. The good passes are replaced by hard waist high balls in the general area of the striker who now has to win the ball. I have seen non starters leave one club and become stars at another club because of style of play. If your player is technical they need other technical players around them.

Bottom line do not depend on the coach to make a place for your good player on their team. The only positions that this does not apply to are defensive backs and goalies. The other positions are style dependent.

Describes DS to a fault. He played on a K&R style team and didn't do near as good as moving to another club that prioritized possession and technicality in the midfield. He's flourished on this new team.

[Anonymous]

I’ve asked this before, is kick and run the same as breaking lines with through balls and direct play? I dont think they are.

But i think the team that over emphasizes the over the top or through ball to the flag for the fast forwards from the half line every... single... time , while exciting for a 40 yard dash, is stale and lacking in development.

[Anonymous]

Don’t think that most-trained ever meant most talented. You read that wrong.

No, I disagree. See bolded.

The "best" clubs have cherry-picked or recruited over time the most talented/most trained kids - my theory is there is a tipping point where they attract a certain type of parent who looks for that and who gets their kids lots of private lessons to be the most competitive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve asked this before, is kick and run the same as breaking lines with through balls and direct play? I dont think they are.

But i think the team that over emphasizes the over the top or through ball to the flag for the fast forwards from the half line every... single... time , while exciting for a 40 yard dash, is stale and lacking in development.

Yes. The point is that long ball soccer, while an effective tactic for winning games especially if you have the personnel (fast forwards) and are playing against a team that has also not developed its players and playing style, is not conducive to kids developing skills they need to play any other way. The kids don't get asked to control the ball, play in tight spaces, make and recieve passes etc. So since the kids never get to practise these skills, they don't develop them either.

[Anonymous]

OP, you are a rich or upper middle class white person, right? I am a rich or upper middle class black person, and I am constantly shocked at how my white contemporaries baby their kids and expect them not to receive criticism from adults, or view any such criticism as inappropriate. I think it stems from the privilege that you anticipate that your kid will receive as they grown and mature, vs. the lack of privilage that I anticipate, even as an afflient person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, you are a rich or upper middle class white person, right? I am a rich or upper middle class black person, and I am constantly shocked at how my white contemporaries baby their kids and expect them not to receive criticism from adults, or view any such criticism as inappropriate. I think it stems from the privilege that you anticipate that your kid will receive as they grown and mature, vs. the lack of privilage that I anticipate, even as an afflient person.

Fair observation. Not sure its totally a white / black thing. It think it is upbringing and multi-generational wealth more than race, albeit obviously certain races (black) in this country have had a very disproportionate experience with lower economic status, hence the expectations you have vs. the privileged (rich/upper middle class) parents and kids. I am now upper middle class and white, but my parents were military so we were squarely middle class and for NOVA definitely not upper. That made me understand how you had to work hard and bite your tongue and deal with criticism and a lot of that as rubbed off on my kid (but not all). When she is older and has kids, I believe that two generations of upper middle class will have set in and her and her kids may act like a lot of the snobby, entitled parents you see today. But, to your point, since you are black there will always be those in a position of authority that might look down upon your kid / grandkids, or even stranger, assume that the kid is going to be super athletic because they are black and give them a hard time if they turn out not to be and then attribute it to laziness vs. the slow white kid who works hard and has IQ but is just slow. Yes, we still have a ways to go in overcoming stereotypes ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, you are a rich or upper middle class white person, right? I am a rich or upper middle class black person, and I am constantly shocked at how my white contemporaries baby their kids and expect them not to receive criticism from adults, or view any such criticism as inappropriate. I think it stems from the privilege that you anticipate that your kid will receive as they grown and mature, vs. the lack of privilage that I anticipate, even as an afflient person.

What total nonsense. And what on earth has it got to with the OP's post?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, you are a rich or upper middle class white person, right? I am a rich or upper middle class black person, and I am constantly shocked at how my white contemporaries baby their kids and expect them not to receive criticism from adults, or view any such criticism as inappropriate. I think it stems from the privilege that you anticipate that your kid will receive as they grown and mature, vs. the lack of privilage that I anticipate, even as an afflient person.

No idea who you are or what color your skin is - but what you are doing is not good. Why did you say what you just said? Do you enjoy spreading hatred and dividing people agianst each other? Are you paid to do it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you are a rich or upper middle class white person, right? I am a rich or upper middle class black person, and I am constantly shocked at how my white contemporaries baby their kids and expect them not to receive criticism from adults, or view any such criticism as inappropriate. I think it stems from the privilege that you anticipate that your kid will receive as they grown and mature, vs. the lack of privilage that I anticipate, even as an afflient person.

Fair observation. Not sure its totally a white / black thing. It think it is upbringing and multi-generational wealth more than race, albeit obviously certain races (black) in this country have had a very disproportionate experience with lower economic status, hence the expectations you have vs. the privileged (rich/upper middle class) parents and kids. I am now upper middle class and white, but my parents were military so we were squarely middle class and for NOVA definitely not upper. That made me understand how you had to work hard and bite your tongue and deal with criticism and a lot of that as rubbed off on my kid (but not all). When she is older and has kids, I believe that two generations of upper middle class will have set in and her and her kids may act like a lot of the snobby, entitled parents you see today. But, to your point, since you are black there will always be those in a position of authority that might look down upon your kid / grandkids, or even stranger, assume that the kid is going to be super athletic because they are black and give them a hard time if they turn out not to be and then attribute it to laziness vs. the slow white kid who works hard and has IQ but is just slow. Yes, we still have a ways to go in overcoming stereotypes ...

No it's not a fair observation. This is a racist comment.

[Anonymous]

I’ve seen POC girls for soccer get fair looks and perhaps even more opportunity from the coaches i’ve been around than their nonPOC counterparts for competitive league teams. I am fairly positive about it as I believe it’s individual development as needed but theres a point when it was obvious that coaches were trying really hard to take advantage of something that wasnt there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve seen POC girls for soccer get fair looks and perhaps even more opportunity from the coaches i’ve been around than their nonPOC counterparts for competitive league teams. I am fairly positive about it as I believe it’s individual development as needed but theres a point when it was obvious that coaches were trying really hard to take advantage of something that wasnt there.

So what? You're being just as divisive as the other guy. Maybe you're the same guy trolling hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve seen POC girls for soccer get fair looks and perhaps even more opportunity from the coaches i’ve been around than their nonPOC counterparts for competitive league teams. I am fairly positive about it as I believe it’s individual development as needed but theres a point when it was obvious that coaches were trying really hard to take advantage of something that wasnt there.

So what? You're being just as divisive as the other guy. Maybe you're the same guy trolling hard.

Definitely not same poster. Not being divisive. I’ve seen awesome players regardless of color. Seen some awful players regardless of color. Just noted who i saw got the nod for another look and it was usually when a coach thought the player could develop with better technical skills. Often didnt happen. The ratio was definitely there. What was acceptable at a younger age for one was different for another at much older ages. I am unconcerned as long as i see opportunity and development.

Not being divisive, just relaying what i saw on rosters.