NOVASoccerCoach wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You wrote that "To evaluate if a team is truly a top team, you have to evaluate them from a technical and Soccer IQ standpoint."

How do you evaluate a player from a technical and soccer IQ standpoint? What are you looking for? For technical I would think there are measurable criteria like passes competed, goals, assists. What about soccer IQ?

DD U12 plays in the wings or in mid and makes most assists on her team (sometimes all in a game). What happens to such a player in U13? What position do they end up playing?

Depends on the player. For the most part, the same position will translate over. For technical standpoint, its things like good first touch into space, completing/receiving passes and able to dribble out of trouble if they need to. Soccer IQ takes a more wise eye to evaluate. It's how many times they make the right decision whether it be passing, dribbling etc. It could be do they look to play the ball forward when possible and do they know when they need to just play the supporting player back. Do they know when to dribble vs when to pass. Can they create chances for others from dribbling, etc.

Anonymous wrote:Keep looking, there are a handful of good coaches sprinkled around the area, you just have to keep looking until you find one. Don't be afraid to scout teams an age group or two above too in case none of the good coaches are in your age group. Doesn't take long to tell if a team uses it's midfield or goes over the top of it every time.

US tryouts for those players are a disaster. If you take a high soccer IQ player and put them in the middle of a bunch of players who have only been taught how to kick and run the smart player comes out looking like the stupid one because he/she has a hard time connecting with everyone else. Make sure when you find a decent looking team you get some open practices before and maybe guest play opportunities to give your player and the coach more chance to get to know each other than what can happen in a tryout.

Anonymous wrote:

NOVASoccerCoach wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About this hang up on physicality in American soccer....So I watched the Maradona HBO doc last night and it was the classic 'zero physical advantage so I had to find other ways'. His footwork and smarts unbelievable. Until the addictions. A lot of truly amazing players fall into this category, Messi, Cryuff (said he was slow so had to be faster in his brain), Iniesta, Pep, etc.

At the age of 16 Paul Scholes as he did not possess outstanding power, speed or athletic prowess which – unfortunately – is highly coveted by many misguided individuals involved at the grassroots level of the game. Without question, Scholes could have easily dropped out of the sport at a young age if the Manchester United academy staff were transfixed with short-term “success” and results. If they had been focusing on winning games, and therefore utilizing the capabilities of players who demonstrated greater speed and physicality, Paul Scholes would have been simply left on the bench. This is how Les Kershaw (the former Manchester United Academy Director) describes Paul Scholes and his development:

"He was a little one. He had asthma. No strength. No power. No athleticism. No endurance. 'You've got a bleeding dwarf,' I remember somebody said to Brian Kidd (Former youth-team coach). 'You will eat your words,' said Kidd. If Scholes had been at a lesser club, they would have got rid of him and he would probably not be in the game now. We stuck with Scholes, a wonderful technician.

He ended up one of the best midfielders of all time. Sir Alex Ferguson (former Manchester United manager): “He has a clever football brain. He’s two-footed, has a quick football brain and that marks him out as one of the best players in the game. He`s actually the cleverest midfield player we’ve ever had. To work with him has been an absolute pleasure.”

The US will never be like this because the end game is 18 college. There isn't time for kids to show later potential. The sport is done for them when they could just be coming into their own.

Agree with you 100% the issue is here in America there's not a soccer-infused culture. Kids in other countries start touching a ball at 1-2 years old, they play soccer outside on the streets. In America we play basketball. Imagine if all the basketball courts in the whole country were futsal cages. USA would produce the best soccer players in the world easily.

The US youth system works against developmental of offense midfielders. I see it with my DD at u12. Our club is one of the big athletic club with not much technical skill. She is not as aggressive as your typical top team girl in term on receive the ball, head down and attack regardless if it’s a 1v1 or 1v3. She can do that but it’s not her playing style. Now her passing is very aggressive - dribble to draw in defenders, accurate under pressure, splitting the defense, eliminating one or two defenders, switching play, through ball with the right weight, etc. She likes passing and getting her teams involved. At u10 she said it’s easier to pass and it works better. She knows what type of balls each teammate can handle and who will be in the right position and who drifts. She get frustrated when she passes to another player who puts her head and dribbles when she wants her to make the next pass to the open player. She does not fit in. She is big, fairly fast and really technical. The coaches wants her to just dribble and shoot. I do not think they know what to do with her.

We did one of those “soccer” trips to the UK with the team and those coaches were all over her within 30 minutes. Those coaches gave me the impression they knew what to do with her. I came away thinking what if we lived there? Now tryouts at club ...lol. You can see her technical skill but she style is the antithesis to what is needed to standout at a tryout. I can see how future midfielders get passed over in favor of the typical travel girl. The club tryout system seems good at identifying defenders and strikers but not midfielders.

NOVASoccerCoach wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About this hang up on physicality in American soccer....So I watched the Maradona HBO doc last night and it was the classic 'zero physical advantage so I had to find other ways'. His footwork and smarts unbelievable. Until the addictions. A lot of truly amazing players fall into this category, Messi, Cryuff (said he was slow so had to be faster in his brain), Iniesta, Pep, etc.

At the age of 16 Paul Scholes as he did not possess outstanding power, speed or athletic prowess which – unfortunately – is highly coveted by many misguided individuals involved at the grassroots level of the game. Without question, Scholes could have easily dropped out of the sport at a young age if the Manchester United academy staff were transfixed with short-term “success” and results. If they had been focusing on winning games, and therefore utilizing the capabilities of players who demonstrated greater speed and physicality, Paul Scholes would have been simply left on the bench. This is how Les Kershaw (the former Manchester United Academy Director) describes Paul Scholes and his development:

"He was a little one. He had asthma. No strength. No power. No athleticism. No endurance. 'You've got a bleeding dwarf,' I remember somebody said to Brian Kidd (Former youth-team coach). 'You will eat your words,' said Kidd. If Scholes had been at a lesser club, they would have got rid of him and he would probably not be in the game now. We stuck with Scholes, a wonderful technician.

He ended up one of the best midfielders of all time. Sir Alex Ferguson (former Manchester United manager): “He has a clever football brain. He’s two-footed, has a quick football brain and that marks him out as one of the best players in the game. He`s actually the cleverest midfield player we’ve ever had. To work with him has been an absolute pleasure.”

The US will never be like this because the end game is 18 college. There isn't time for kids to show later potential. The sport is done for them when they could just be coming into their own.

Agree with you 100% the issue is here in America there's not a soccer-infused culture. Kids in other countries start touching a ball at 1-2 years old, they play soccer outside on the streets. In America we play basketball. Imagine if all the basketball courts in the whole country were futsal cages. USA would produce the best soccer players in the world easily.

Anonymous wrote:
When one of my kids was U12 there was one dad on his team who was absurdly obsessed with gotsoccer rankings. He picked me out as someone to talk to about it because I had coached and reffed and knew a lot about soccer and would go off on his wild theories about how we could move up a couple places in the rankings. At U12. I would nod and smile and try to watch the game but OMG please find something to do with your life dude, WTF???? They hadn't even hit puberty yet. His kid wasn't bad but I bet he's quit by now--as soon as he got old enough to tell dad where to stick it.

Anonymous wrote:

Some clubs and coaches equate wins with happy parents, more recruits and money.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the Title should be "Why Results Don't Mean Anything at U12...if your kid wants to play DA at U16 or play HS soccer or play college or pro and your kid is mature enough to understand this at 11-12 years old..." Because I don't give a crap what anyone says...results matter to a 11-12 year old. Kids need to win to stay involved. They are not going to stay with something that they feel they suck at. There are all different teams out there. If your team is losing, find a crappier team to scrimmage or play against to get that all important W! Don't get me wrong, I believe that we all learn more from losing than winning, but don't blanketly state that results don't matter.

it depends on kids. My older one does not really care about game result even when he was at age 9 and continue to work hard regardless. my little one cares a lot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NOVASoccerCoach wrote:All-

NOVA Soccer Coach here. This forum is also filled with discussion about whose the best team and the evidence is always because "this team beat another". I see talk as early as U11/U12.

Here's why you should stop using strictly results:

1. Youth players are extremely inconsistent and will have bad games
Even pros have bad games. The difference is pros have less bad games and are more consistent.

2. Results just don't mean as much without a context of game performance
I've seen plenty of U12 matches where a team just wins because they have the better athletes, not because they are the more technical team. It's why some clubs drop off after certain age groups and some don't. To evaluate if a team is truly a top team, you have to evaluate them from a technical and Soccer IQ standpoint. Of course a 5-0 win with an excellent game performance is good. But if a team loses but they played well, missed a bunch of chances and lost to a team that just had a couple of quick players then you can't really say that team that won is really better than the other.

3. Everything changes at U13 and up
This is extremely important: The field gets bigger and you will see teams that took shortcuts in the 9v9 game just totally drop off in the 11v11 game. It's almost insane to see some of the teams that just got exposed at U13 for 11v11. Not to mention, kids start hitting their growth spurts and if they were technical to begin with at U12, now at U13 they are becoming faster, stronger, etc.

For example: I had a boys team at 9v9 who really struggled. They were very technical but would lose games just because in the 9v9 game if you have fast athletes you can get by with 2-3 pass sequences and send the striker through. When we went 11v11, it flip-flopped. The boys team dominated and the teams that would beat us, we would pummel them. This was a good amount of years ago.

who ever said U12 means anything anyway. what a joke

This tremendous insight is only possible on DCUM

Likewise the need to begin such a stupid post.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NOVASoccerCoach wrote:All-

NOVA Soccer Coach here. This forum is also filled with discussion about whose the best team and the evidence is always because "this team beat another". I see talk as early as U11/U12.

Here's why you should stop using strictly results:

1. Youth players are extremely inconsistent and will have bad games
Even pros have bad games. The difference is pros have less bad games and are more consistent.

2. Results just don't mean as much without a context of game performance
I've seen plenty of U12 matches where a team just wins because they have the better athletes, not because they are the more technical team. It's why some clubs drop off after certain age groups and some don't. To evaluate if a team is truly a top team, you have to evaluate them from a technical and Soccer IQ standpoint. Of course a 5-0 win with an excellent game performance is good. But if a team loses but they played well, missed a bunch of chances and lost to a team that just had a couple of quick players then you can't really say that team that won is really better than the other.

3. Everything changes at U13 and up
This is extremely important: The field gets bigger and you will see teams that took shortcuts in the 9v9 game just totally drop off in the 11v11 game. It's almost insane to see some of the teams that just got exposed at U13 for 11v11. Not to mention, kids start hitting their growth spurts and if they were technical to begin with at U12, now at U13 they are becoming faster, stronger, etc.

For example: I had a boys team at 9v9 who really struggled. They were very technical but would lose games just because in the 9v9 game if you have fast athletes you can get by with 2-3 pass sequences and send the striker through. When we went 11v11, it flip-flopped. The boys team dominated and the teams that would beat us, we would pummel them. This was a good amount of years ago.

who ever said U12 means anything anyway. what a joke

This tremendous insight is only possible on DCUM

Anonymous wrote:About this hang up on physicality in American soccer....So I watched the Maradona HBO doc last night and it was the classic 'zero physical advantage so I had to find other ways'. His footwork and smarts unbelievable. Until the addictions. A lot of truly amazing players fall into this category, Messi, Cryuff (said he was slow so had to be faster in his brain), Iniesta, Pep, etc.

At the age of 16 Paul Scholes as he did not possess outstanding power, speed or athletic prowess which – unfortunately – is highly coveted by many misguided individuals involved at the grassroots level of the game. Without question, Scholes could have easily dropped out of the sport at a young age if the Manchester United academy staff were transfixed with short-term “success” and results. If they had been focusing on winning games, and therefore utilizing the capabilities of players who demonstrated greater speed and physicality, Paul Scholes would have been simply left on the bench. This is how Les Kershaw (the former Manchester United Academy Director) describes Paul Scholes and his development:

"He was a little one. He had asthma. No strength. No power. No athleticism. No endurance. 'You've got a bleeding dwarf,' I remember somebody said to Brian Kidd (Former youth-team coach). 'You will eat your words,' said Kidd. If Scholes had been at a lesser club, they would have got rid of him and he would probably not be in the game now. We stuck with Scholes, a wonderful technician.

He ended up one of the best midfielders of all time. Sir Alex Ferguson (former Manchester United manager): “He has a clever football brain. He’s two-footed, has a quick football brain and that marks him out as one of the best players in the game. He`s actually the cleverest midfield player we’ve ever had. To work with him has been an absolute pleasure.”

The US will never be like this because the end game is 18 college. There isn't time for kids to show later potential. The sport is done for them when they could just be coming into their own.