Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree OP. The 5 kids at U10 who were the best ball handlers are still the best. The 5 kids who had poor ball skills still have poor skills. There are a few in between who've climbed the ladder somewhat, but I think it's just learning a particular position has allowed them to focus a little more. Thus they seem better than some, but you could not move them to another position or else their lack of true skill would show.

You do need technical ability, there is no doubt. And it is also true that coaching cannot make a massive difference to a kid's technical ability in the short term. Although a coach who emphasizes possession and passing in games and parctise is providing an environment more conducive to the kids developing those skills and kids playing under such a coach will develop faster over time.

But a coach can teach kids soccer IQ - an understanding of the game - where and when to move with and without the ball, how to organize on defense, on offense, and in transition. Where to make runs. How to work together to attack different formations. When to press and how to press. When to look for long balls. How to break lines. How to move to create space for others etc. And this can make a huge difference to the way kids play and their results.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree OP. The 5 kids at U10 who were the best ball handlers are still the best. The 5 kids who had poor ball skills still have poor skills. There are a few in between who've climbed the ladder somewhat, but I think it's just learning a particular position has allowed them to focus a little more. Thus they seem better than some, but you could not move them to another position or else their lack of true skill would show.

You do need technical ability, there is no doubt. And it is also true that coaching cannot make a massive difference to a kid's technical ability in the short term. Although a coach who emphasizes possession and passing in games and parctise is providing an environment more conducive to the kids developing those skills and kids playing under such a coach will develop faster over time.

But a coach can teach kids soccer IQ - an understanding of the game - where and when to move with and without the ball, how to organize on defense, on offense, and in transition. Where to make runs. How to work together to attack different formations. When to press and how to press. When to look for long balls. How to break lines. How to move to create space for others etc. And this can make a huge difference to the way kids play and their results.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is much discussion here about which clubs do the best job developing players. Better teams must have better development and coaches and that's why they win more games? I don't believe it. In the end the only thing that matters is how well the club can attract and retain their players. By and large, the large clubs have top teams because they have a larger player pool. Some smaller clubs have good teams but it's mostly a result of their ability to attract good players. What can attract good players? Marketing, college recruitment success, prestige of participation in certain leagues, name recognition, whatever. It's why clubs form alliances to provide pathway to something so there is more to market. It's all about attracting more players. Given a good set of players, coaches are mostly all decent enough to win. There are plenty of smaller clubs with good coaches, good methodology, blah blah, but it doesn't really matter if they cannot convince good players to join.

The way certain leagues and clubs are handling things right now makes your statement correct. Their business depend on who markets children the most not actually on which league/club developed the most. Leagues with substitution rules for 12-14year olds, best 11 etc... handling things as if these children were already professionals when they are not. Clubs and leagues becoming exclusive and pushing parents to spend more and more. That this player is doing this and that to become Hercules then sign your kid too so he can keep on with the pressure of being in the team.

Development is possible if club and leagues focus more on more playing, more scrimmage, more games and stop with the substitution rules for young’s.

Anonymous wrote:My kids club regularly has its best players poached by ECNL/GA-DA teams that are very close by. They build their teams on the back of players outside their club yet I'm supposed to believe they are great at developing players because they play ECNL or such and compete at a high level. Nonsense.

These clubs cherry pick players and flirt with the parents to get them to come. I know because my kid was one of the players targeted over the years. I didnt make sense to me to change so we never took the bait. Happy we stayed where we are. They dangle college play in front of you as if you must play for them to be seriously considered. Development? I dont think so

Now that my kid is older and I see this now I realize just how tainted this system really is. Youth development is not the core focus. Its a business with a lot of people making money and thats OK. Lets just not kid ourselves and say one club is so much better at developing players than another.

All I see is good individual coaches in some cases and in some unique cases a club that has a curriculum that focuses on teaching the fundamentals. Beyond that XYZ Club is no different than the others when it comes to player development

Anonymous wrote:I agree OP. The 5 kids at U10 who were the best ball handlers are still the best. The 5 kids who had poor ball skills still have poor skills. There are a few in between who've climbed the ladder somewhat, but I think it's just learning a particular position has allowed them to focus a little more. Thus they seem better than some, but you could not move them to another position or else their lack of true skill would show.

Anonymous wrote:There is much discussion here about which clubs do the best job developing players. Better teams must have better development and coaches and that's why they win more games? I don't believe it. In the end the only thing that matters is how well the club can attract and retain their players. By and large, the large clubs have top teams because they have a larger player pool. Some smaller clubs have good teams but it's mostly a result of their ability to attract good players. What can attract good players? Marketing, college recruitment success, prestige of participation in certain leagues, name recognition, whatever. It's why clubs form alliances to provide pathway to something so there is more to market. It's all about attracting more players. Given a good set of players, coaches are mostly all decent enough to win. There are plenty of smaller clubs with good coaches, good methodology, blah blah, but it doesn't really matter if they cannot convince good players to join.

Anonymous wrote:There is much discussion here about which clubs do the best job developing players. Better teams must have better development and coaches and that's why they win more games? I don't believe it. In the end the only thing that matters is how well the club can attract and retain their players. By and large, the large clubs have top teams because they have a larger player pool. Some smaller clubs have good teams but it's mostly a result of their ability to attract good players. What can attract good players? Marketing, college recruitment success, prestige of participation in certain leagues, name recognition, whatever. It's why clubs form alliances to provide pathway to something so there is more to market. It's all about attracting more players. Given a good set of players, coaches are mostly all decent enough to win. There are plenty of smaller clubs with good coaches, good methodology, blah blah, but it doesn't really matter if they cannot convince good players to join.