Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1) Player development =/= winning games (not necessarily, anyways). In an ideal world, a coach who does a great job of player development will send the best/most talented/most dedicated players on to bigger/better teams, so they're not doing it to win stupid EDP games. A youth coach who discourages players from moving to bigger and better teams when they have the opportunity in order to produce a good win-loss record is a poor coach. A harmful coach. No shortage of these little cults of personality centered on individual coaches. Also, player development occurs by playing against people who are bigger/faster/better. If you have a team of 15-year-old all-stars who smoke everyone else in a tournament, get them into a higher bracket, or a higher year, or a different tournament. Move the more advanced players to a higher level team. Force other players to step up and take a larger role.

2) Technical skills are a part of player development, but can't be the responsibility of the team's coach. Players have to do this on their own, and they have to do it A LOT. If you're gucci enough to hire a personal trainer, well, wow. I'm not gonna hate, but just remember that there are plenty of kids out there kicking a ball against a wall with no one looking over their shoulder.

3) Play, Play, Play. This is the best form of player development. I love how Alexandria has built futsal courts all over the place. Pickup. Play with older people and learn their techniques. Play with younger people and help teach them.

4) The goal of player development matters. It matters a lot. If the goal is to use football as an application point to a good college or even a scholarship--a perfectly valid goal--then building athleticism (the foundation of the college game), stability in teams (for a recommendation from a youth coach), and getting into more competitive leagues and tournaments (for exposure to college scouts) matter a lot. If a kid wants to be a pro, there's a whole different skill set. They need to be a self-motivator, able to play different positions, accept different coaching styles, and be ok with being the worst player on a team (hopefully temporarily).
To live by yourself, play on crappy fields, maybe not be able to communicate well with teammates, and stay motivated for ~$300/month + room & board is a lifestyle that DMV teams (and most US teams, to be fair) don't prepare kids for.

Great post, especially 1 and 2. Best mentors and coaches always encourage their protégés and players to go to better opportunities if appropriate.

Anonymous wrote:1) Player development =/= winning games (not necessarily, anyways). In an ideal world, a coach who does a great job of player development will send the best/most talented/most dedicated players on to bigger/better teams, so they're not doing it to win stupid EDP games. A youth coach who discourages players from moving to bigger and better teams when they have the opportunity in order to produce a good win-loss record is a poor coach. A harmful coach. No shortage of these little cults of personality centered on individual coaches. Also, player development occurs by playing against people who are bigger/faster/better. If you have a team of 15-year-old all-stars who smoke everyone else in a tournament, get them into a higher bracket, or a higher year, or a different tournament. Move the more advanced players to a higher level team. Force other players to step up and take a larger role.

2) Technical skills are a part of player development, but can't be the responsibility of the team's coach. Players have to do this on their own, and they have to do it A LOT. If you're gucci enough to hire a personal trainer, well, wow. I'm not gonna hate, but just remember that there are plenty of kids out there kicking a ball against a wall with no one looking over their shoulder.

3) Play, Play, Play. This is the best form of player development. I love how Alexandria has built futsal courts all over the place. Pickup. Play with older people and learn their techniques. Play with younger people and help teach them.

4) The goal of player development matters. It matters a lot. If the goal is to use football as an application point to a good college or even a scholarship--a perfectly valid goal--then building athleticism (the foundation of the college game), stability in teams (for a recommendation from a youth coach), and getting into more competitive leagues and tournaments (for exposure to college scouts) matter a lot. If a kid wants to be a pro, there's a whole different skill set. They need to be a self-motivator, able to play different positions, accept different coaching styles, and be ok with being the worst player on a team (hopefully temporarily).
To live by yourself, play on crappy fields, maybe not be able to communicate well with teammates, and stay motivated for ~$300/month + room & board is a lifestyle that DMV teams (and most US teams, to be fair) don't prepare kids for.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes it does. We played a certain ECNL team this weekend and they were a very good team. I only saw a couple standout individual players, but together they were awesome to watch. A little robotic in their patterns of play, but they beat us, so can't really criticize.

Care to share which team?[/quote

RU