Anonymous wrote:Coach - very interesting thread - thanks! Two questions:

You have made multiple references to getting kids evaluated by a "qualified" outsider. Who does this and how do we find them?

Also, I've heard that private coaches can help kids move to the next level. Where do we find these folks?

Anonymous wrote:I have a U12 who has been playing mostly striker with the occasional time in wing for his entire career. I've been concerned because I feel like he's been playing this/these so long he's lost out on valuable developmental time. I want to ask the coach to play him elsewhere but he loves playing up top and wants me to let it be. FWIW all the parents on the team think he's a "natural forward" and don't understand why I am worried. Next year at U13 will they add a second striker position to the field? I'm concerned a better striker will wander in and he will end up on the bench or cut. Thoughts?

Anonymous wrote:Coach - what's the most successful drills you've used to help U9/10 keep their head up when receiving/dribbling/passing the ball? Thanks!

Anonymous wrote:As a parent of a versatile player, who excels at multiple positions, I wonder what positions coaches of high level teams (DA and ECNL) consider to be the hardest to fill?

Anonymous wrote:

NOVASoccerCoach wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coach, my U13 kid has been playing for a small club’s top team for a few years now and had several coaches. He has a slender build, is fast with the ball, has better than average footwork and better than average vision in passing. He is good in cutting in and intercept but is usually not aggressive or persistent in defense. He enjoys nutmegging more than shooting, and he provides lots of assists. All coaches put him in the wings, and he seems happy about it. The coaches told me his biggest weakness is shooting, but he doesn’t get the chances to shoot playing winger. Is always playing winger the best thing for his development? What would be your advice? Thanks.

Around U13 is when positional specialization starts to be nailed down. Obviously I've never seen your kid play before but if he is quick and technical, then he should be able to cut inside and shoot on his preferred foot. I don't think him playing as a winger is hampering his development if he's good at it. If he wants to get more shooting chances, he should watch Youtube videos of wingers like Hazard, Robben, Ronaldo and watch how they cut inside from the wing and create shooting opportunities for themselves

Thank you for your insight and advice, coach. He watches Jordi Alba every week. I’ll tell him to watch more Hazard. He hates Ronaldo so I wouldn’t push him on that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coach here (OP)

Geez this thread took off. My response to some of the comments.

1. If you are in ECNL, of course you have a D1 chance. ECNL teams usually are the best select of the club. Usually these are the most athletic/technical/intelligent players (hopefully). I never said ECNL player to D1 is rare. My main point was by U12 if your player isn't at the appropriate technical level it's going to be difficult.

2. There are a lot of freak athletes, you'd be surprised how many there are across the nation.

3. I agree with the anecdotes about academics. However, if your player would like a career in soccer (coaching, admin, etc)in the future, playing college ball gives them a lot of connections and credible resume

No there aren't that many athletic freaks to fill 25% of D1 rosters. They are definitely above average, on the whole, but not years in advance of others. You are thinking of kids who hit their growth spurts early. Many of these at the u12 age you are thinking of (for girls) actually stop growing sooner than the delayed growth kids. Kids who enter menarche sooner (and therefore have an earlier growth spurt) end up smaller than average by the time the group is fully mature.

Coaches who size up kids at 11 with respect to their ability to make a D1 roster (or national/pro team) are part of the problem in this country, not part of the solution.

The coach is talking about technical ability at U12, not size. At U13 ECNL and DA rosters are filled with early growers who are done growing at 12/13. They are living their glory days right now because the delayed growth players that make it will end up bigger, faster and stronger and will take their spots by graduation and beyond. However, if those late growers also lack skill at this age they probably won't make it playing to their growth spurt. Or will not have the experience with the ECNL or DA level speed of play to compete at the top level in college.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coach here (OP)

Geez this thread took off. My response to some of the comments.

1. If you are in ECNL, of course you have a D1 chance. ECNL teams usually are the best select of the club. Usually these are the most athletic/technical/intelligent players (hopefully). I never said ECNL player to D1 is rare. My main point was by U12 if your player isn't at the appropriate technical level it's going to be difficult.

2. There are a lot of freak athletes, you'd be surprised how many there are across the nation.

3. I agree with the anecdotes about academics. However, if your player would like a career in soccer (coaching, admin, etc)in the future, playing college ball gives them a lot of connections and credible resume

No there aren't that many athletic freaks to fill 25% of D1 rosters. They are definitely above average, on the whole, but not years in advance of others. You are thinking of kids who hit their growth spurts early. Many of these at the u12 age you are thinking of (for girls) actually stop growing sooner than the delayed growth kids. Kids who enter menarche sooner (and therefore have an earlier growth spurt) end up smaller than average by the time the group is fully mature.

Coaches who size up kids at 11 with respect to their ability to make a D1 roster (or national/pro team) are part of the problem in this country, not part of the solution.

The coach is talking about technical ability at U12, not size. At U13 ECNL and DA rosters are filled with early growers who are done growing at 12/13. They are living their glory days right now because the delayed growth players that make it will end up bigger, faster and stronger and will take their spots by graduation and beyond. However, if those late growers also lack skill at this age they probably won't make it playing to their growth spurt. Or will not have the experience with the ECNL or DA level speed of play to compete at the top level in college.

Technical ability is easily gained from 12-18. Alex Morgan is an example of that; anyone can increase their technical abilities by practicing at home every day, religiously.

Again, based on experience, there is very little correlation between 9-11 yo ability and 19 yo ability. Many of the 9-11 stars burn out, and many "uncoordinated" 9-11's shine after they have fully matured.

The fact that someone is attempting to make final determinations on a 10 or 11 year old kid is the problem here.

Technical ability is not easier to gain from 12-18. Alex Morgan does not prove that to be the case. She has never been accused of being a technical player, she is an athlete who can simply beast and that is about it. What Alex Morgan has you cannot coach. There are other players on that team far more technical than Morgan is and all of them demonstrated that technical ability at much younger ages than 12.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coach here (OP)

Geez this thread took off. My response to some of the comments.

1. If you are in ECNL, of course you have a D1 chance. ECNL teams usually are the best select of the club. Usually these are the most athletic/technical/intelligent players (hopefully). I never said ECNL player to D1 is rare. My main point was by U12 if your player isn't at the appropriate technical level it's going to be difficult.

2. There are a lot of freak athletes, you'd be surprised how many there are across the nation.

3. I agree with the anecdotes about academics. However, if your player would like a career in soccer (coaching, admin, etc)in the future, playing college ball gives them a lot of connections and credible resume

No there aren't that many athletic freaks to fill 25% of D1 rosters. They are definitely above average, on the whole, but not years in advance of others. You are thinking of kids who hit their growth spurts early. Many of these at the u12 age you are thinking of (for girls) actually stop growing sooner than the delayed growth kids. Kids who enter menarche sooner (and therefore have an earlier growth spurt) end up smaller than average by the time the group is fully mature.

Coaches who size up kids at 11 with respect to their ability to make a D1 roster (or national/pro team) are part of the problem in this country, not part of the solution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I have two kids playing soccer in college right now with scholarships, one in D1, and I can tell you no local coaches thought anything of either of them at U12--they were still playing on their club's B team with the better coach at that age. They didn't even get selected for district ODP at U12. I noticed a difference, and sure, maybe a different coach could have picked them out, but none of the ones who saw them thought they were anything special so I have my reservations about your theory. Maybe you are the one coach who would have seen their potential at that age.

As a parent with a couple kids playing soccer in college whose been through the whole youth soccer cycle--if your kid is playing soccer for a scholarship and not for the love of the game you're wasting their time and yours. If your reasons are financial put the thousands you spend on elite soccer each season into a college fund and you'll be much better off. I know multiple players who chose to play club soccer in college or dropped off the team after the first year because when they got there they realized they just didn't love it that much.

College soccer here is miserable. Terrible coaching with too many games crammed into too short of a season. At the end of the season half the team is nursing overuse injuries if they're lucky enough to escape actual injuries. If they got good coaching as a youth player and really understand the game and how to play it--college soccer will probably make them dumber not smarter. With a handful of exceptions it's pretty much high school soccer at a faster pace. They ones that realized they didn't want it that bad and chose to play club or do something else are the lucky ones. Please don't push your kids into that unless they are so passionate they can survive four years of that without losing their passion. The vast majority of seniors I have talked to don't want to ever touch a ball again after they graduate. Hopefully after some time away from the game they'll come back around to it, but if you're pushing your kid to play college soccer that's the reality of what you're pushing them into.

This is helpful, thanks. My DC is under extraordinary peer pressure to accept one of several D1 offers but is strongly leaning towards a D3 school. I'm all for it for a number of reasons but also fear that for a high-level, dedicated player, the D3 experience won't be fun at all because of the "high school soccer" aspect you reference...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I have two kids playing soccer in college right now with scholarships, one in D1, and I can tell you no local coaches thought anything of either of them at U12--they were still playing on their club's B team with the better coach at that age. They didn't even get selected for district ODP at U12. I noticed a difference, and sure, maybe a different coach could have picked them out, but none of the ones who saw them thought they were anything special so I have my reservations about your theory. Maybe you are the one coach who would have seen their potential at that age.

As a parent with a couple kids playing soccer in college whose been through the whole youth soccer cycle--if your kid is playing soccer for a scholarship and not for the love of the game you're wasting their time and yours. If your reasons are financial put the thousands you spend on elite soccer each season into a college fund and you'll be much better off. I know multiple players who chose to play club soccer in college or dropped off the team after the first year because when they got there they realized they just didn't love it that much.

College soccer here is miserable. Terrible coaching with too many games crammed into too short of a season. At the end of the season half the team is nursing overuse injuries if they're lucky enough to escape actual injuries. If they got good coaching as a youth player and really understand the game and how to play it--college soccer will probably make them dumber not smarter. With a handful of exceptions it's pretty much high school soccer at a faster pace. They ones that realized they didn't want it that bad and chose to play club or do something else are the lucky ones. Please don't push your kids into that unless they are so passionate they can survive four years of that without losing their passion. The vast majority of seniors I have talked to don't want to ever touch a ball again after they graduate. Hopefully after some time away from the game they'll come back around to it, but if you're pushing your kid to play college soccer that's the reality of what you're pushing them into.

I believe you are referencing my theory, which I think you and the Andi Sullivan poster misunderstand. In no way am I claiming that the average coach can predict which U12 or U13 player will make it to college or the pros--even generously compensated pro scouts at the world's top clubs have a poor track record with this, which is in no way surprising given how many things have to line up for a kid to make it to and at those levels. What most coaches can do is assess which kids do not have the baseline athletic ability to play at a high level. Puberty does of course make a big difference in kids' athletic abilities, but it almost never will make a massive difference for a kid who has terrible balance and no coordination. Some kids are just not athletes no matter how much they may enjoy the game. This is very different from a coach saying your kid, or mine, or young Andi Sullivan is "nothing special". By that they could mean that they don't like the way the kid plays for any number of reasons, including that they prefer big fast players to small technical ones (or vice versa), that the kid doesn't fit the coach's system, or that other, flashier players catch their eye more for whatever reason. Every kid who has played in college or beyond has had a coach tell him or her that they think the kid is overrated (at least all the ones I know have had this happen to them).

I too have a kid playing D1, and while I wouldn't say all of college soccer is uniformly miserable, there are huge structural problems with the way it is set up. I absolutely support the idea of a 10 month season, and hope that the NCAA someday changes the rules to permit it.

Anonymous wrote:
I have two kids playing soccer in college right now with scholarships, one in D1, and I can tell you no local coaches thought anything of either of them at U12--they were still playing on their club's B team with the better coach at that age. They didn't even get selected for district ODP at U12. I noticed a difference, and sure, maybe a different coach could have picked them out, but none of the ones who saw them thought they were anything special so I have my reservations about your theory. Maybe you are the one coach who would have seen their potential at that age.

As a parent with a couple kids playing soccer in college whose been through the whole youth soccer cycle--if your kid is playing soccer for a scholarship and not for the love of the game you're wasting their time and yours. If your reasons are financial put the thousands you spend on elite soccer each season into a college fund and you'll be much better off. I know multiple players who chose to play club soccer in college or dropped off the team after the first year because when they got there they realized they just didn't love it that much.

College soccer here is miserable. Terrible coaching with too many games crammed into too short of a season. At the end of the season half the team is nursing overuse injuries if they're lucky enough to escape actual injuries. If they got good coaching as a youth player and really understand the game and how to play it--college soccer will probably make them dumber not smarter. With a handful of exceptions it's pretty much high school soccer at a faster pace. They ones that realized they didn't want it that bad and chose to play club or do something else are the lucky ones. Please don't push your kids into that unless they are so passionate they can survive four years of that without losing their passion. The vast majority of seniors I have talked to don't want to ever touch a ball again after they graduate. Hopefully after some time away from the game they'll come back around to it, but if you're pushing your kid to play college soccer that's the reality of what you're pushing them into.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ummmm, all I had to read was your first post in the other thread to know not to read anything you advise. I'd also recommend that for anyone here.

Any coach who says a kids potential is fully realized before age 12 is not intelligent when it comes to sports. My goodness. This is especially true for girls who develop in a a completely different manner than boys both physically and mentally.

I did not read past the first post in the other thread. I could see that reasoning at U15 for girls and U16 for boys.

Don't you have Instagram account to attend to?

Are you thinking of the same Insta account I am?

Anonymous wrote:

NOVASoccerCoach wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ummmm, all I had to read was your first post in the other thread to know not to read anything you advise. I'd also recommend that for anyone here.

Any coach who says a kids potential is fully realized before age 12 is not intelligent when it comes to sports. My goodness. This is especially true for girls who develop in a a completely different manner than boys both physically and mentally.

I did not read past the first post in the other thread. I could see that reasoning at U15 for girls and U16 for boys.

Don't you have Instagram account to attend to?

As I said in my intro if you don't care for my opinions just go somewhere else. My point in the first thread was to say that if your kid isn't technically sound by U12 it's going to be a difficult road if you as a parent have D1 aspirations for them. This isn't me pulling info out of my ass. I've worked with D1 coaches, scouted alongside them and that's just the harsh truth. Will some kids at U12 play D1 if they are technically behind? Yes there's a chance if they work their tails off every single day but for the most part if your kid at U12 isn't technically sound and shows no signs of growing athleticism, it's going to be difficult

different poster... That's not what you said at all:

"Here's what I have to say about all your ECNL dreams for your kid. Harsh reality is by U12 most can already make an assessment on whether your kid will be good enough for D1."

Kids can absolutely improve technically after 12 years old if they put in the work. And some players that are technically superior at U-little ages plateau and others catch up. Add in puberty (some kids will get stronger and faster, some will go the other way) and the mental side of things and you have WAY too many variables between 12 years old and 16/17 to make this determination that early.

Anonymous wrote:

NOVASoccerCoach wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coach,

How important is being proficient with both feet (dribbling, passing and kicking) for U12 Girls? Are most or all ECNL U12/13 girls proficient with both feet?

Extremely important. You've got to have two good feet, especially for passing. Imagine being a midfielder and only being able to use your right foot. That means you can only open your body up to the right say. So essentially, you are one-dimensional. You've got to be able to receive the ball on both feet to be able to have the option to play either side. Now you definitely don't have to have shooting prowess with both feet but you've got to be able to dribble and pass with two feet. Also, the weak foot doesn't get better over time. It has to be worked on and practiced every single day. That's why using both feet is supposed to be highly emphasize when players are really young because its much easier to get both feet improving at that age compared to as they get older.

So are all or most ECNL girls proficient with both feet then, Coach?