Reply to Soccer Coach in Northern VA

Forum Index » Soccer

Reply to "Soccer Coach in Northern VA - Ask me anything"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][b]When you bench a kid for the whole game and then lose the game do you realize what a waste it was to burn that kids enthusiasm all for naught.
[/b]
-signed mom of D1 soccer kid who always played the whole game and never understood this mentality[/quote]

not op but it depends on the age group.

teh age groups that i coach, I would never do this

But if i was an u16 or older coach for a competitive team, I would for two reasons.

1. the subbing rules don't train kids here like the rest of the world to prepare them to manage their energy for 90 minutes with only 3 subs.

2. As a very communicative coach, I always try to let kids and parents know where they stand with their development. At the older ages, if a kid is dissapointed they aren't playing and that bleeds into training (even when I explain why), then it isn't a kid that can realistically be developed for the next level. He/She must love training even if they aren't playing.

[/quote]

Unless you are training for World Cup[b] you are developing kids. [/b]When there are 3 games in a weekend for a tournament, you are doing nobody favors by playing certain kids for 3 - 90 minutes sessions and some kids for 0 minutes.

You are taking your U16 way too seriously and the D1 coaches don't think you have given him a capable player, [b]anyway they just know they have an athletic kid who can be developed[/b].[/quote]

First of you are moving the goalposts. In your initial post, you posited the scenario of a kid being benched the entire game. In your response, you talk about a weekend tournament. I would never play any kid, even if I had andres iniesta for 3x-90 in one weekend. Make up your mind, are you talking about a match or a tournament?

Secondly, you are right - i am developing kids. However, at a top club at the u-16 level, i need to maximize the development of the greatest amount of kids that can make it to the next level rather than focus on eeking out a bit of development in the lower 10th of the squad who probably can't go onto the next level. I'll be judged on the track record of how many I can place at what level going forward.

Thirdly - d1 coaches are now behind club coaches in development. D1 coaches get kids too late in the development curve - especially technically.[/quote]

1.  How do feel about the coach adage:  The game is the best teacher.

2.  Should a kid who does not play substantive minutes every game pay the same as kids who do play?

3.  How do you feel about the idea that if a coach puts a kid on a team then they should play every game.  If the coach does not think the kid is capable of playing at that level then why put them on the team?[/quote]

PP you are quoting.

A1: This is a maxim that I do believe in for the most part but every coach at every level (especially the higher levels) struggles with the right balance. In fact I have a contact who does 3rd party analytic work for some youth set ups at european clubs (household names) and clubs really are trying to get a clearer methodology on the optimum time to loan a young player out to a 'lower level' for in-game development or to keep him with the parent club so he can train with 23 other players who are better consistently even if on match day, said player isn't getting minutes on the pitch.

Because of high turn-over of first-team coaches, sporting directors and club chairmen are trying to nail down their own 'secret sauce' proprietary to the club which takes into account psychosocial testing, technical competence, physical characteristics etc that might better help them ascertain the right balance.

As our friendly local coach said in one of his/her prior posts - "The player that wants to be the best he can possibly be no matter what... a player who is #20 on a roster of 20 players will improve more by training day in and day out with 19 players that are better than him rather than being the #1 player on the next level down and even getting significant playing time. If a player is mentally tough and can deal with that, it is the right environment. If not, its the wrong environment 
"

This ties into the original point 2 i wrote on how i am a very communicative coach (i don't have the same level and experience as our OP, but at the clubs i've coached at (in the pacnw primarily), parents have really been happy with the amount of individualized written feedback i provide consistently to my kids - stems from my time at a MBB-consulting shop probably).

I personally was that player as a kid. We didn't have DA as a kid but I loved the game enough where my singular goal was to be the best footballer I could be. If that meant training with a club I never played for rather than playing a level down and 'coasting', I always picked the first option. I get it if kids don't want to be in taht situation.

A2. I hate pay to play. But that's the system we have for 99% of players in this country unfortunately. You aren't paying for game time - you are paying for development. As a parent if you feel another trainer/club/team can train your child better, take them there. It ties back to the answer of question 1. Do you think your child is developing better training with 15-20 other top top players 3x a week or playing more matches at a lower level. I focus on coaching at a younger age where 'quality x frequency' of sessions is a greater determinant of development than match play so i'm biased towards high quality training with the best players possible is the best environment.

However, it really depends on the team. there are teams where the top players are not supportive of the 'bench' players and there are clubs where the 'top players' are really good kids who create a good environment for the lower 1/4th of the team.  I'm very strict on fostering a humble attitude with my players precisely so that slightly weaker players we have stick around to gain high quality training in an inclusive environment.

A3. no. never. even in u10 at strong clubs, the guarantee is over the course of a season everyone gets equal time. at higher age groups in more compteitive teams, that drops for sure. I never said I would freeze out any player under me at u16 or older forever. no way - if they are in the team, it means atleast with one (more like two) of the four pillars (tactical, physical, technical, psychosocial) they are at the level of the competition. That means they can tread water in a match for some period in certain positions. A coach keeps those bench players because he sees the POTENTIAL of possibly growth in the currently sub-standard pillars that could occur with having the so-called weaker player in the squad training with the strong club instead of going back down an age group.

[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics