Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, what a great Rage Bait post! Before you get the sheep all stirred up, can you define what 'development' means to you?

Not OP, but as a coach from Europe this is my take (in short):

Training > Games (in early years)
Technique > Tactics (before puberty)
Intelligence > Physicality
Long-term planning > Weekend results
Access > Economics
Coaching education > Marketing

Growth and development in soccer are not about producing winning youth teams. They are about producing adaptable, intelligent, technically superior adults. If the system rewards short-term visibility, trophies, and physical dominance, it will produce good youth teams. If the system rewards patience, mastery, and intelligence, it will produce professionals. That is the difference.

To build off PP’s comment above, when people here talk about “growth and development” in soccer, most of the time they’re actually talking about winning. They’re talking about rankings, showcases, trophies, travel schedules, and who’s getting recruited. That’s not development. That’s competition. And those two things are not the same.

Growth is about what the individual player becomes over time. Not this season. Not this tournament. Not by eighth grade. Real growth is measured years down the line. When I think about a ten-year-old, I’m not thinking about how many games his team won. I’m thinking about whether he’s comfortable on the ball, whether he can solve problems under pressure, whether he can use both feet, whether he understands space, and whether he’s brave enough to try things.

In most serious European environments, the early years are obsessed with the ball. Small-sided games, tight spaces, constant repetition, lots of 1v1 situations. Kids rotate positions. They’re encouraged to dribble. They’re allowed to make mistakes. If an eleven-year-old loses the ball trying something creative, that’s part of the process. You can’t ask for creativity at twenty if you punished it at ten.

In the U.S., too often I see the opposite. Kids are locked into positions early. Coaches spend large chunks of training organizing shape and structure. There’s constant sideline instruction. Parents care about standings. Clubs market trophies. The whole environment subtly tells the player that winning now matters more than improving long term. That shifts the focus away from mastery and toward results. Development, on a bigger level, is about the system around the player. It’s about whether the structure supports long-term progress or short-term visibility. In much of Europe, academies have a defined philosophy from the youngest age group all the way to the first team. There’s alignment. There’s patience. There’s an understanding that physical dominance at thirteen doesn’t predict professional success.

In the U.S., the pay-to-play model complicates everything. When families are investing thousands of dollars a year, they understandably expect something in return. That “return” often becomes wins, exposure, and external validation. Clubs feel pressure to deliver visible success. But real development is slow and sometimes messy. It doesn’t always look impressive in the short term. When parents are customers, the environment can drift toward satisfaction instead of long-term formation.

Another issue is the physical bias. In American youth soccer, the early maturing kids often dominate. They’re bigger, faster, stronger, and they win games. Naturally, they get selected. But many elite professionals were not physically dominant at thirteen. They were technically secure and intelligent. Systems that overvalue early physical advantage risk losing late bloomers who might have had higher ceilings.
There’s also a difference in how competition is approached. In many American environments, kids play an enormous number of games every year, travel constantly, and spend more time competing than training. In many European systems, there’s more emphasis on training blocks, repetition, and deliberate practice. The game is the test, not the classroom. If most of the learning is supposed to happen during competition, you’re leaving too much to chance.

And then there’s over-coaching. One of the most damaging habits I see is constant instruction from the sideline. When a coach dictates every decision, the player never learns to read the game independently. Football is about perception and decision-making under pressure. If a player grows up waiting for instructions, he won’t develop autonomy. Intelligence in the game comes from solving problems, not from being told the answers.

Culturally, the difference is even deeper. In much of Europe, football is embedded in daily life. Kids play informally. They negotiate rules themselves. They experiment. They fail without consequence. In the U.S., everything is organized, scheduled, supervised, and monetized. Structure isn’t bad, but when there’s no room for organic play, something important gets lost.

The hard truth is that winning at twelve doesn’t mean much. Being the best team in the state at fourteen doesn’t guarantee anything later. Youth trophies are a poor predictor of elite adult performance. What matters is technical quality, decision-making ability, adaptability, and resilience built over years. If we’re serious about growth and development, the guiding question has to shift. Instead of asking how to win this weekend, we should be asking what this player needs in order to be excellent at nineteen or twenty-two. That shift in mindset changes training design, selection criteria, competition structure, and even how we talk to kids after games.

This isn’t anti-American. It’s just an honest assessment from someone who has seen both systems. The United States has an enormous talent pool and incredible athletic potential. But until the culture consistently values long-term player formation over short-term success, it will keep producing strong youth teams and fewer truly world-class players than it should.

That’s the difference between competing and developing. Just my two cents, as you commonly say on this side of the pond.

Hope this helps answer your question, OP!

Way too long
Sheesh

Anyways, one thing you said which is a common falsehood is that European clubs don't have physically dominant players at younger ages.
It's not an American thing to pick the bigger early bloomers. It's international

That's why so many RAE studies are done by European organizations

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, what a great Rage Bait post! Before you get the sheep all stirred up, can you define what 'development' means to you?

Not OP, but as a coach from Europe this is my take (in short):

Training > Games (in early years)
Technique > Tactics (before puberty)
Intelligence > Physicality
Long-term planning > Weekend results
Access > Economics
Coaching education > Marketing

Growth and development in soccer are not about producing winning youth teams. They are about producing adaptable, intelligent, technically superior adults. If the system rewards short-term visibility, trophies, and physical dominance, it will produce good youth teams. If the system rewards patience, mastery, and intelligence, it will produce professionals. That is the difference.

To build off PP’s comment above, when people here talk about “growth and development” in soccer, most of the time they’re actually talking about winning. They’re talking about rankings, showcases, trophies, travel schedules, and who’s getting recruited. That’s not development. That’s competition. And those two things are not the same.

Growth is about what the individual player becomes over time. Not this season. Not this tournament. Not by eighth grade. Real growth is measured years down the line. When I think about a ten-year-old, I’m not thinking about how many games his team won. I’m thinking about whether he’s comfortable on the ball, whether he can solve problems under pressure, whether he can use both feet, whether he understands space, and whether he’s brave enough to try things.

In most serious European environments, the early years are obsessed with the ball. Small-sided games, tight spaces, constant repetition, lots of 1v1 situations. Kids rotate positions. They’re encouraged to dribble. They’re allowed to make mistakes. If an eleven-year-old loses the ball trying something creative, that’s part of the process. You can’t ask for creativity at twenty if you punished it at ten.

In the U.S., too often I see the opposite. Kids are locked into positions early. Coaches spend large chunks of training organizing shape and structure. There’s constant sideline instruction. Parents care about standings. Clubs market trophies. The whole environment subtly tells the player that winning now matters more than improving long term. That shifts the focus away from mastery and toward results. Development, on a bigger level, is about the system around the player. It’s about whether the structure supports long-term progress or short-term visibility. In much of Europe, academies have a defined philosophy from the youngest age group all the way to the first team. There’s alignment. There’s patience. There’s an understanding that physical dominance at thirteen doesn’t predict professional success.

In the U.S., the pay-to-play model complicates everything. When families are investing thousands of dollars a year, they understandably expect something in return. That “return” often becomes wins, exposure, and external validation. Clubs feel pressure to deliver visible success. But real development is slow and sometimes messy. It doesn’t always look impressive in the short term. When parents are customers, the environment can drift toward satisfaction instead of long-term formation.

Another issue is the physical bias. In American youth soccer, the early maturing kids often dominate. They’re bigger, faster, stronger, and they win games. Naturally, they get selected. But many elite professionals were not physically dominant at thirteen. They were technically secure and intelligent. Systems that overvalue early physical advantage risk losing late bloomers who might have had higher ceilings.
There’s also a difference in how competition is approached. In many American environments, kids play an enormous number of games every year, travel constantly, and spend more time competing than training. In many European systems, there’s more emphasis on training blocks, repetition, and deliberate practice. The game is the test, not the classroom. If most of the learning is supposed to happen during competition, you’re leaving too much to chance.

And then there’s over-coaching. One of the most damaging habits I see is constant instruction from the sideline. When a coach dictates every decision, the player never learns to read the game independently. Football is about perception and decision-making under pressure. If a player grows up waiting for instructions, he won’t develop autonomy. Intelligence in the game comes from solving problems, not from being told the answers.

Culturally, the difference is even deeper. In much of Europe, football is embedded in daily life. Kids play informally. They negotiate rules themselves. They experiment. They fail without consequence. In the U.S., everything is organized, scheduled, supervised, and monetized. Structure isn’t bad, but when there’s no room for organic play, something important gets lost.

The hard truth is that winning at twelve doesn’t mean much. Being the best team in the state at fourteen doesn’t guarantee anything later. Youth trophies are a poor predictor of elite adult performance. What matters is technical quality, decision-making ability, adaptability, and resilience built over years. If we’re serious about growth and development, the guiding question has to shift. Instead of asking how to win this weekend, we should be asking what this player needs in order to be excellent at nineteen or twenty-two. That shift in mindset changes training design, selection criteria, competition structure, and even how we talk to kids after games.

This isn’t anti-American. It’s just an honest assessment from someone who has seen both systems. The United States has an enormous talent pool and incredible athletic potential. But until the culture consistently values long-term player formation over short-term success, it will keep producing strong youth teams and fewer truly world-class players than it should.

That’s the difference between competing and developing. Just my two cents, as you commonly say on this side of the pond.

Hope this helps answer your question, OP!

Way too long
Sheesh

Anyways, one thing you said which is a common falsehood is that European clubs don't have physically dominant players at younger ages.
It's not an American thing to pick the bigger early bloomers. It's international

That's why so many RAE studies are done by European organizations

‘Tis lengthy indeed. But, you shouldn’t have many problems to read it if your brain isn’t rotted by screens and big tech.

By the way, in 2010 Spain won the World Cup with the shortest average players ever recorded.

Europeans really do not care about bigger early bloomers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, what a great Rage Bait post! Before you get the sheep all stirred up, can you define what 'development' means to you?

Not OP, but as a coach from Europe this is my take (in short):

Training > Games (in early years)
Technique > Tactics (before puberty)
Intelligence > Physicality
Long-term planning > Weekend results
Access > Economics
Coaching education > Marketing

Growth and development in soccer are not about producing winning youth teams. They are about producing adaptable, intelligent, technically superior adults. If the system rewards short-term visibility, trophies, and physical dominance, it will produce good youth teams. If the system rewards patience, mastery, and intelligence, it will produce professionals. That is the difference.

To build off PP’s comment above, when people here talk about “growth and development” in soccer, most of the time they’re actually talking about winning. They’re talking about rankings, showcases, trophies, travel schedules, and who’s getting recruited. That’s not development. That’s competition. And those two things are not the same.

Growth is about what the individual player becomes over time. Not this season. Not this tournament. Not by eighth grade. Real growth is measured years down the line. When I think about a ten-year-old, I’m not thinking about how many games his team won. I’m thinking about whether he’s comfortable on the ball, whether he can solve problems under pressure, whether he can use both feet, whether he understands space, and whether he’s brave enough to try things.

In most serious European environments, the early years are obsessed with the ball. Small-sided games, tight spaces, constant repetition, lots of 1v1 situations. Kids rotate positions. They’re encouraged to dribble. They’re allowed to make mistakes. If an eleven-year-old loses the ball trying something creative, that’s part of the process. You can’t ask for creativity at twenty if you punished it at ten.

In the U.S., too often I see the opposite. Kids are locked into positions early. Coaches spend large chunks of training organizing shape and structure. There’s constant sideline instruction. Parents care about standings. Clubs market trophies. The whole environment subtly tells the player that winning now matters more than improving long term. That shifts the focus away from mastery and toward results. Development, on a bigger level, is about the system around the player. It’s about whether the structure supports long-term progress or short-term visibility. In much of Europe, academies have a defined philosophy from the youngest age group all the way to the first team. There’s alignment. There’s patience. There’s an understanding that physical dominance at thirteen doesn’t predict professional success.

In the U.S., the pay-to-play model complicates everything. When families are investing thousands of dollars a year, they understandably expect something in return. That “return” often becomes wins, exposure, and external validation. Clubs feel pressure to deliver visible success. But real development is slow and sometimes messy. It doesn’t always look impressive in the short term. When parents are customers, the environment can drift toward satisfaction instead of long-term formation.

Another issue is the physical bias. In American youth soccer, the early maturing kids often dominate. They’re bigger, faster, stronger, and they win games. Naturally, they get selected. But many elite professionals were not physically dominant at thirteen. They were technically secure and intelligent. Systems that overvalue early physical advantage risk losing late bloomers who might have had higher ceilings.
There’s also a difference in how competition is approached. In many American environments, kids play an enormous number of games every year, travel constantly, and spend more time competing than training. In many European systems, there’s more emphasis on training blocks, repetition, and deliberate practice. The game is the test, not the classroom. If most of the learning is supposed to happen during competition, you’re leaving too much to chance.

And then there’s over-coaching. One of the most damaging habits I see is constant instruction from the sideline. When a coach dictates every decision, the player never learns to read the game independently. Football is about perception and decision-making under pressure. If a player grows up waiting for instructions, he won’t develop autonomy. Intelligence in the game comes from solving problems, not from being told the answers.

Culturally, the difference is even deeper. In much of Europe, football is embedded in daily life. Kids play informally. They negotiate rules themselves. They experiment. They fail without consequence. In the U.S., everything is organized, scheduled, supervised, and monetized. Structure isn’t bad, but when there’s no room for organic play, something important gets lost.

The hard truth is that winning at twelve doesn’t mean much. Being the best team in the state at fourteen doesn’t guarantee anything later. Youth trophies are a poor predictor of elite adult performance. What matters is technical quality, decision-making ability, adaptability, and resilience built over years. If we’re serious about growth and development, the guiding question has to shift. Instead of asking how to win this weekend, we should be asking what this player needs in order to be excellent at nineteen or twenty-two. That shift in mindset changes training design, selection criteria, competition structure, and even how we talk to kids after games.

This isn’t anti-American. It’s just an honest assessment from someone who has seen both systems. The United States has an enormous talent pool and incredible athletic potential. But until the culture consistently values long-term player formation over short-term success, it will keep producing strong youth teams and fewer truly world-class players than it should.

That’s the difference between competing and developing. Just my two cents, as you commonly say on this side of the pond.

Hope this helps answer your question, OP!

Way too long
Sheesh

Anyways, one thing you said which is a common falsehood is that European clubs don't have physically dominant players at younger ages.
It's not an American thing to pick the bigger early bloomers. It's international

That's why so many RAE studies are done by European organizations

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, what a great Rage Bait post! Before you get the sheep all stirred up, can you define what 'development' means to you?

Not OP, but as a coach from Europe this is my take (in short):

Training > Games (in early years)
Technique > Tactics (before puberty)
Intelligence > Physicality
Long-term planning > Weekend results
Access > Economics
Coaching education > Marketing

Growth and development in soccer are not about producing winning youth teams. They are about producing adaptable, intelligent, technically superior adults. If the system rewards short-term visibility, trophies, and physical dominance, it will produce good youth teams. If the system rewards patience, mastery, and intelligence, it will produce professionals. That is the difference.

To build off PP’s comment above, when people here talk about “growth and development” in soccer, most of the time they’re actually talking about winning. They’re talking about rankings, showcases, trophies, travel schedules, and who’s getting recruited. That’s not development. That’s competition. And those two things are not the same.

Growth is about what the individual player becomes over time. Not this season. Not this tournament. Not by eighth grade. Real growth is measured years down the line. When I think about a ten-year-old, I’m not thinking about how many games his team won. I’m thinking about whether he’s comfortable on the ball, whether he can solve problems under pressure, whether he can use both feet, whether he understands space, and whether he’s brave enough to try things.

In most serious European environments, the early years are obsessed with the ball. Small-sided games, tight spaces, constant repetition, lots of 1v1 situations. Kids rotate positions. They’re encouraged to dribble. They’re allowed to make mistakes. If an eleven-year-old loses the ball trying something creative, that’s part of the process. You can’t ask for creativity at twenty if you punished it at ten.

In the U.S., too often I see the opposite. Kids are locked into positions early. Coaches spend large chunks of training organizing shape and structure. There’s constant sideline instruction. Parents care about standings. Clubs market trophies. The whole environment subtly tells the player that winning now matters more than improving long term. That shifts the focus away from mastery and toward results. Development, on a bigger level, is about the system around the player. It’s about whether the structure supports long-term progress or short-term visibility. In much of Europe, academies have a defined philosophy from the youngest age group all the way to the first team. There’s alignment. There’s patience. There’s an understanding that physical dominance at thirteen doesn’t predict professional success.

In the U.S., the pay-to-play model complicates everything. When families are investing thousands of dollars a year, they understandably expect something in return. That “return” often becomes wins, exposure, and external validation. Clubs feel pressure to deliver visible success. But real development is slow and sometimes messy. It doesn’t always look impressive in the short term. When parents are customers, the environment can drift toward satisfaction instead of long-term formation.

Another issue is the physical bias. In American youth soccer, the early maturing kids often dominate. They’re bigger, faster, stronger, and they win games. Naturally, they get selected. But many elite professionals were not physically dominant at thirteen. They were technically secure and intelligent. Systems that overvalue early physical advantage risk losing late bloomers who might have had higher ceilings.
There’s also a difference in how competition is approached. In many American environments, kids play an enormous number of games every year, travel constantly, and spend more time competing than training. In many European systems, there’s more emphasis on training blocks, repetition, and deliberate practice. The game is the test, not the classroom. If most of the learning is supposed to happen during competition, you’re leaving too much to chance.

And then there’s over-coaching. One of the most damaging habits I see is constant instruction from the sideline. When a coach dictates every decision, the player never learns to read the game independently. Football is about perception and decision-making under pressure. If a player grows up waiting for instructions, he won’t develop autonomy. Intelligence in the game comes from solving problems, not from being told the answers.

Culturally, the difference is even deeper. In much of Europe, football is embedded in daily life. Kids play informally. They negotiate rules themselves. They experiment. They fail without consequence. In the U.S., everything is organized, scheduled, supervised, and monetized. Structure isn’t bad, but when there’s no room for organic play, something important gets lost.

The hard truth is that winning at twelve doesn’t mean much. Being the best team in the state at fourteen doesn’t guarantee anything later. Youth trophies are a poor predictor of elite adult performance. What matters is technical quality, decision-making ability, adaptability, and resilience built over years. If we’re serious about growth and development, the guiding question has to shift. Instead of asking how to win this weekend, we should be asking what this player needs in order to be excellent at nineteen or twenty-two. That shift in mindset changes training design, selection criteria, competition structure, and even how we talk to kids after games.

This isn’t anti-American. It’s just an honest assessment from someone who has seen both systems. The United States has an enormous talent pool and incredible athletic potential. But until the culture consistently values long-term player formation over short-term success, it will keep producing strong youth teams and fewer truly world-class players than it should.

That’s the difference between competing and developing. Just my two cents, as you commonly say on this side of the pond.

Hope this helps answer your question, OP!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, what a great Rage Bait post! Before you get the sheep all stirred up, can you define what 'development' means to you?

Not OP, but as a coach from Europe this is my take (in short):

Training > Games (in early years)
Technique > Tactics (before puberty)
Intelligence > Physicality
Long-term planning > Weekend results
Access > Economics
Coaching education > Marketing

Growth and development in soccer are not about producing winning youth teams. They are about producing adaptable, intelligent, technically superior adults. If the system rewards short-term visibility, trophies, and physical dominance, it will produce good youth teams. If the system rewards patience, mastery, and intelligence, it will produce professionals. That is the difference.

Anonymous wrote:Wow, what a great Rage Bait post! Before you get the sheep all stirred up, can you define what 'development' means to you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of you are getting scammed by claimed or perceived "development" at clubs. How much development do you think is happening during 3 training sessions a week and a workout? With 20+ kids to care about? Maybe a little bit of film study? How many clubs have more than one coach per team? How many coaches have more than one team! Think about it and wake up...development happens outside of clubs.

For those who are serious believers in their club's "development" (you are the perfect customer!), what are some examples of your player developing strictly because of your club?

Kids get more development playing pickup soccer than most of these clubs.

Sure. Philly Union Academy is the same at DCU. Barcelona Academy is the same as Villareal. Got it. No difference. All of the Philly Union and Barcelona results are because the kids were playing alot more pickup. Let me go signup for the closest club to me. Thanks for the advice.

Barcelona is sending a constant consistent steady stream of players to the top division clubs in top leagues and to top national teams.
Why are you comparing any MLS academy to them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of you are getting scammed by claimed or perceived "development" at clubs. How much development do you think is happening during 3 training sessions a week and a workout? With 20+ kids to care about? Maybe a little bit of film study? How many clubs have more than one coach per team? How many coaches have more than one team! Think about it and wake up...development happens outside of clubs.

For those who are serious believers in their club's "development" (you are the perfect customer!), what are some examples of your player developing strictly because of your club?

Kids get more development playing pickup soccer than most of these clubs.

Sure. Philly Union Academy is the same at DCU. Barcelona Academy is the same as Villareal. Got it. No difference. All of the Philly Union and Barcelona results are because the kids were playing alot more pickup. Let me go signup for the closest club to me. Thanks for the advice.

This takes the cake as the dumbest response. Couple quick ones...the kids at those academies in Spain have played TONS of pickup in the streets and at school. Still that isn't the point. The point is these clubs are not academies so stop thinking they are and developing kids. Go take a nap. The kids that get to those academies have been developed outside of the club environment.

If you're in the top academies in Europe, like Barcelona for example, and you're U8 or U9, you're not playing tons of pickup street ball for as long as you're there.

This is literally the opposite of so many stories that the pros tell about their lives. Outside of the US, kids play all the time.

As they walked barefoot uphill both ways for 15 kilometers to training?

You're not at Real Madrid academy at U13 and playing a lot of pickup ball.
It's not even allowed for one and two, where is the free time?

Ugh…you don’t know that much about academies apparently.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of you are getting scammed by claimed or perceived "development" at clubs. How much development do you think is happening during 3 training sessions a week and a workout? With 20+ kids to care about? Maybe a little bit of film study? How many clubs have more than one coach per team? How many coaches have more than one team! Think about it and wake up...development happens outside of clubs.

For those who are serious believers in their club's "development" (you are the perfect customer!), what are some examples of your player developing strictly because of your club?

Kids get more development playing pickup soccer than most of these clubs.

Sure. Philly Union Academy is the same at DCU. Barcelona Academy is the same as Villareal. Got it. No difference. All of the Philly Union and Barcelona results are because the kids were playing alot more pickup. Let me go signup for the closest club to me. Thanks for the advice.

This takes the cake as the dumbest response. Couple quick ones...the kids at those academies in Spain have played TONS of pickup in the streets and at school. Still that isn't the point. The point is these clubs are not academies so stop thinking they are and developing kids. Go take a nap. The kids that get to those academies have been developed outside of the club environment.

If you're in the top academies in Europe, like Barcelona for example, and you're U8 or U9, you're not playing tons of pickup street ball for as long as you're there.

This is literally the opposite of so many stories that the pros tell about their lives. Outside of the US, kids play all the time.

As they walked barefoot uphill both ways for 15 kilometers to training?

You're not at Real Madrid academy at U13 and playing a lot of pickup ball.
It's not even allowed for one and two, where is the free time?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of you are getting scammed by claimed or perceived "development" at clubs. How much development do you think is happening during 3 training sessions a week and a workout? With 20+ kids to care about? Maybe a little bit of film study? How many clubs have more than one coach per team? How many coaches have more than one team! Think about it and wake up...development happens outside of clubs.

For those who are serious believers in their club's "development" (you are the perfect customer!), what are some examples of your player developing strictly because of your club?

Kids get more development playing pickup soccer than most of these clubs.

Darn, your kid that bad. Speaking for yourself I see

No clown. My son has developed very nicely outside of the club environment. I don't expect anything in development out of clubs because I have a brain.

If no club is a part of development, then Ajax, Arsenal, Barcelona, Benfica etc should close their academies

OPhere…do you think I mean Barcelona when I say “club”? Professional academies are not part of this conversation. I’m talking about pay to play clubs. Did you think I’m asking a general question to DCUM on the state of development at La Masia? This has to be a joke comment right?

All pay to play clubs are not the same because coaches and management are different

There are p2p clubs in the DC area with quality youth coaches who will do a much better job with your kid than only playing pickup

I don’t think anyone is arguing for just playing pickup.

It was literally said

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is happening at practice 3-4 days a week and at games if not "development" ?

I agree, practicing with a team for 6 hours a week - if your child is not developing then something is wrong. There should be development happening, speed of play, 1v1, tactical, etc.

If your child wants to be a standout on a top team, consider adding another 2-4 hours of individual technical skill, strength and fitness.

Of course there are exceptions, early bloomers whose athletic traits compensate for a lack of technical skill or dedication. But the majority of these players are reeled back in to the pack.

This is why people don't have honest conversations about serious development because the amount of work a high-level baller puts in does not appear reasonable and appears obsessive. A highly motivated kid will replace all of your standard Roblox, video game and doom scrolling time with touches and still maintaining pristine grades. The result is an extra 1-3 hours EVERY day on top of team training. That not factoring in informal small sided games after school or organized on the weekends and organically. Team training should be focused on high-level development, not "scrimmaging" against the best of the best. Fitness, ball mastery and small-sided free play should all take place outside of team training.

We have a player like that on our team. The amount of extra work done to be a "high level baller" is at the top end of your spectrum... Still probably the slowest, least athletic player on the team but can juggle in the thousands!

Slow and unathletic like Busquets, what a loser!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of you are getting scammed by claimed or perceived "development" at clubs. How much development do you think is happening during 3 training sessions a week and a workout? With 20+ kids to care about? Maybe a little bit of film study? How many clubs have more than one coach per team? How many coaches have more than one team! Think about it and wake up...development happens outside of clubs.

For those who are serious believers in their club's "development" (you are the perfect customer!), what are some examples of your player developing strictly because of your club?

Kids get more development playing pickup soccer than most of these clubs.

Darn, your kid that bad. Speaking for yourself I see

No clown. My son has developed very nicely outside of the club environment. I don't expect anything in development out of clubs because I have a brain.

If no club is a part of development, then Ajax, Arsenal, Barcelona, Benfica etc should close their academies

OPhere…do you think I mean Barcelona when I say “club”? Professional academies are not part of this conversation. I’m talking about pay to play clubs. Did you think I’m asking a general question to DCUM on the state of development at La Masia? This has to be a joke comment right?

All pay to play clubs are not the same because coaches and management are different

There are p2p clubs in the DC area with quality youth coaches who will do a much better job with your kid than only playing pickup

I don’t think anyone is arguing for just playing pickup.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of you are getting scammed by claimed or perceived "development" at clubs. How much development do you think is happening during 3 training sessions a week and a workout? With 20+ kids to care about? Maybe a little bit of film study? How many clubs have more than one coach per team? How many coaches have more than one team! Think about it and wake up...development happens outside of clubs.

For those who are serious believers in their club's "development" (you are the perfect customer!), what are some examples of your player developing strictly because of your club?

Kids get more development playing pickup soccer than most of these clubs.

Sure. Philly Union Academy is the same at DCU. Barcelona Academy is the same as Villareal. Got it. No difference. All of the Philly Union and Barcelona results are because the kids were playing alot more pickup. Let me go signup for the closest club to me. Thanks for the advice.

This takes the cake as the dumbest response. Couple quick ones...the kids at those academies in Spain have played TONS of pickup in the streets and at school. Still that isn't the point. The point is these clubs are not academies so stop thinking they are and developing kids. Go take a nap. The kids that get to those academies have been developed outside of the club environment.

If you're in the top academies in Europe, like Barcelona for example, and you're U8 or U9, you're not playing tons of pickup street ball for as long as you're there.

This is literally the opposite of so many stories that the pros tell about their lives. Outside of the US, kids play all the time.

Anonymous wrote:This whole thing has been a cute little advertisement for outside trainers and trainer services. Well played, OP!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of you are getting scammed by claimed or perceived "development" at clubs. How much development do you think is happening during 3 training sessions a week and a workout? With 20+ kids to care about? Maybe a little bit of film study? How many clubs have more than one coach per team? How many coaches have more than one team! Think about it and wake up...development happens outside of clubs.

For those who are serious believers in their club's "development" (you are the perfect customer!), what are some examples of your player developing strictly because of your club?

Kids get more development playing pickup soccer than most of these clubs.

Darn, your kid that bad. Speaking for yourself I see

No clown. My son has developed very nicely outside of the club environment. I don't expect anything in development out of clubs because I have a brain.

If no club is a part of development, then Ajax, Arsenal, Barcelona, Benfica etc should close their academies

OPhere…do you think I mean Barcelona when I say “club”? Professional academies are not part of this conversation. I’m talking about pay to play clubs. Did you think I’m asking a general question to DCUM on the state of development at La Masia? This has to be a joke comment right?

All pay to play clubs are not the same because coaches and management are different

There are p2p clubs in the DC area with quality youth coaches who will do a much better job with your kid than only playing pickup