Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you,PP, that is an excellent post.
I have a gritty and technical DD but she is slender build and not tall. She doesn’t have that soccer look with big leg muscles and low center of gravity. So while she is fast, aggressive, and technical, she just looks like she wouldn’t be that strong.
What I have seen from a current coach is that physicality seems more important than the other traits, even when it’s not effective and the player loses the ball 9 times out of 10. So if that is that coach’s personal preference, there isnt much to be done.
What she really wants to know is: is it just that, or are there other gaps that she doesn’t know about? And that is where the request for feedback is falling flat.
It is a school team, so fortunately short season.

You touched upon a very important point. There is very much an unconscious bias when it comes to smaller players. If a big, strong kid loses a ball three times, it's mentally processed as unlucky or good defense. If a tiny kid loses the ball three times, he/she is not big enough to keep possession, pull them out! Even the coaches who are very comfortable rostering and playing smaller players fall victim to this thinking. To some degree, it's human nature. To use a baseball analogy, Jose Altuve hit more home runs one year than Aaron Judge...we can all guess who managers and pitchers thought was the more intimidating of the two.

This is American soccer at its worst. We prioritize the wrong things (speed and strength) and focus on winning only. Eventually the big, strong, fast kids will get caught up by the rest and their technical ability and soccer IQ won't be up to par. Love coaches who are brave enough to go against the grain and find the small, techy players. You know...like the rest of the world.

We have a toxic coach that has stated to parents that he prefers a bigger kid over a more talented one. He wants kids working hitting and pushing more than touch, dribbling, passing or footwork. He’s kinda looked upon by the whole team as a moron.

My small player left that team. lol

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you,PP, that is an excellent post.
I have a gritty and technical DD but she is slender build and not tall. She doesn’t have that soccer look with big leg muscles and low center of gravity. So while she is fast, aggressive, and technical, she just looks like she wouldn’t be that strong.
What I have seen from a current coach is that physicality seems more important than the other traits, even when it’s not effective and the player loses the ball 9 times out of 10. So if that is that coach’s personal preference, there isnt much to be done.
What she really wants to know is: is it just that, or are there other gaps that she doesn’t know about? And that is where the request for feedback is falling flat.
It is a school team, so fortunately short season.

You touched upon a very important point. There is very much an unconscious bias when it comes to smaller players. If a big, strong kid loses a ball three times, it's mentally processed as unlucky or good defense. If a tiny kid loses the ball three times, he/she is not big enough to keep possession, pull them out! Even the coaches who are very comfortable rostering and playing smaller players fall victim to this thinking. To some degree, it's human nature. To use a baseball analogy, Jose Altuve hit more home runs one year than Aaron Judge...we can all guess who managers and pitchers thought was the more intimidating of the two.

This is American soccer at its worst. We prioritize the wrong things (speed and strength) and focus on winning only. Eventually the big, strong, fast kids will get caught up by the rest and their technical ability and soccer IQ won't be up to par. Love coaches who are brave enough to go against the grain and find the small, techy players. You know...like the rest of the world.

We have a toxic coach that has stated to parents that he prefers a bigger kid over a more talented one. He wants kids working hitting and pushing more than touch, dribbling, passing or footwork. He’s kinda looked upon by the whole team as a moron.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you,PP, that is an excellent post.
I have a gritty and technical DD but she is slender build and not tall. She doesn’t have that soccer look with big leg muscles and low center of gravity. So while she is fast, aggressive, and technical, she just looks like she wouldn’t be that strong.
What I have seen from a current coach is that physicality seems more important than the other traits, even when it’s not effective and the player loses the ball 9 times out of 10. So if that is that coach’s personal preference, there isnt much to be done.
What she really wants to know is: is it just that, or are there other gaps that she doesn’t know about? And that is where the request for feedback is falling flat.
It is a school team, so fortunately short season.

You touched upon a very important point. There is very much an unconscious bias when it comes to smaller players. If a big, strong kid loses a ball three times, it's mentally processed as unlucky or good defense. If a tiny kid loses the ball three times, he/she is not big enough to keep possession, pull them out! Even the coaches who are very comfortable rostering and playing smaller players fall victim to this thinking. To some degree, it's human nature. To use a baseball analogy, Jose Altuve hit more home runs one year than Aaron Judge...we can all guess who managers and pitchers thought was the more intimidating of the two.

This is American soccer at its worst. We prioritize the wrong things (speed and strength) and focus on winning only. Eventually the big, strong, fast kids will get caught up by the rest and their technical ability and soccer IQ won't be up to par. Love coaches who are brave enough to go against the grain and find the small, techy players. You know...like the rest of the world.

Yeah, you're exactly right, just look at Haaland and Ronaldo, they're tiny.

Those two players dismantle the whole statement...well done.

You’re right because the greatest of all time, Maradona Pele and Messi are giants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you,PP, that is an excellent post.
I have a gritty and technical DD but she is slender build and not tall. She doesn’t have that soccer look with big leg muscles and low center of gravity. So while she is fast, aggressive, and technical, she just looks like she wouldn’t be that strong.
What I have seen from a current coach is that physicality seems more important than the other traits, even when it’s not effective and the player loses the ball 9 times out of 10. So if that is that coach’s personal preference, there isnt much to be done.
What she really wants to know is: is it just that, or are there other gaps that she doesn’t know about? And that is where the request for feedback is falling flat.
It is a school team, so fortunately short season.

You touched upon a very important point. There is very much an unconscious bias when it comes to smaller players. If a big, strong kid loses a ball three times, it's mentally processed as unlucky or good defense. If a tiny kid loses the ball three times, he/she is not big enough to keep possession, pull them out! Even the coaches who are very comfortable rostering and playing smaller players fall victim to this thinking. To some degree, it's human nature. To use a baseball analogy, Jose Altuve hit more home runs one year than Aaron Judge...we can all guess who managers and pitchers thought was the more intimidating of the two.

This is American soccer at its worst. We prioritize the wrong things (speed and strength) and focus on winning only. Eventually the big, strong, fast kids will get caught up by the rest and their technical ability and soccer IQ won't be up to par. Love coaches who are brave enough to go against the grain and find the small, techy players. You know...like the rest of the world.

This. And it’s why American soccer will never stand up globally.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you,PP, that is an excellent post.
I have a gritty and technical DD but she is slender build and not tall. She doesn’t have that soccer look with big leg muscles and low center of gravity. So while she is fast, aggressive, and technical, she just looks like she wouldn’t be that strong.
What I have seen from a current coach is that physicality seems more important than the other traits, even when it’s not effective and the player loses the ball 9 times out of 10. So if that is that coach’s personal preference, there isnt much to be done.
What she really wants to know is: is it just that, or are there other gaps that she doesn’t know about? And that is where the request for feedback is falling flat.
It is a school team, so fortunately short season.

You touched upon a very important point. There is very much an unconscious bias when it comes to smaller players. If a big, strong kid loses a ball three times, it's mentally processed as unlucky or good defense. If a tiny kid loses the ball three times, he/she is not big enough to keep possession, pull them out! Even the coaches who are very comfortable rostering and playing smaller players fall victim to this thinking. To some degree, it's human nature. To use a baseball analogy, Jose Altuve hit more home runs one year than Aaron Judge...we can all guess who managers and pitchers thought was the more intimidating of the two.

This is American soccer at its worst. We prioritize the wrong things (speed and strength) and focus on winning only. Eventually the big, strong, fast kids will get caught up by the rest and their technical ability and soccer IQ won't be up to par. Love coaches who are brave enough to go against the grain and find the small, techy players. You know...like the rest of the world.

Yeah, you're exactly right, just look at Haaland and Ronaldo, they're tiny.

Those two players dismantle the whole statement...well done.

Anonymous wrote:Thank you,PP, that is an excellent post.
I have a gritty and technical DD but she is slender build and not tall. She doesn’t have that soccer look with big leg muscles and low center of gravity. So while she is fast, aggressive, and technical, she just looks like she wouldn’t be that strong.
What I have seen from a current coach is that physicality seems more important than the other traits, even when it’s not effective and the player loses the ball 9 times out of 10. So if that is that coach’s personal preference, there isnt much to be done.
What she really wants to know is: is it just that, or are there other gaps that she doesn’t know about? And that is where the request for feedback is falling flat.
It is a school team, so fortunately short season.

I don’t think you should give a high school coach’s coaching decisions much weight. HS soccer is terrible. Primary goal is to win and there will never be enough technically competent players with soccer IQ to win using different plays. It’s always going to be kick ball in HS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you,PP, that is an excellent post.
I have a gritty and technical DD but she is slender build and not tall. She doesn’t have that soccer look with big leg muscles and low center of gravity. So while she is fast, aggressive, and technical, she just looks like she wouldn’t be that strong.
What I have seen from a current coach is that physicality seems more important than the other traits, even when it’s not effective and the player loses the ball 9 times out of 10. So if that is that coach’s personal preference, there isnt much to be done.
What she really wants to know is: is it just that, or are there other gaps that she doesn’t know about? And that is where the request for feedback is falling flat.
It is a school team, so fortunately short season.

You touched upon a very important point. There is very much an unconscious bias when it comes to smaller players. If a big, strong kid loses a ball three times, it's mentally processed as unlucky or good defense. If a tiny kid loses the ball three times, he/she is not big enough to keep possession, pull them out! Even the coaches who are very comfortable rostering and playing smaller players fall victim to this thinking. To some degree, it's human nature. To use a baseball analogy, Jose Altuve hit more home runs one year than Aaron Judge...we can all guess who managers and pitchers thought was the more intimidating of the two.

This is American soccer at its worst. We prioritize the wrong things (speed and strength) and focus on winning only. Eventually the big, strong, fast kids will get caught up by the rest and their technical ability and soccer IQ won't be up to par. Love coaches who are brave enough to go against the grain and find the small, techy players. You know...like the rest of the world.

Yeah, you're exactly right, just look at Haaland and Ronaldo, they're tiny.

Small keepers are why US Youth losing. They are great in practice because they know where the ball is coming from and then get chipped all game. Dumb

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you,PP, that is an excellent post.
I have a gritty and technical DD but she is slender build and not tall. She doesn’t have that soccer look with big leg muscles and low center of gravity. So while she is fast, aggressive, and technical, she just looks like she wouldn’t be that strong.
What I have seen from a current coach is that physicality seems more important than the other traits, even when it’s not effective and the player loses the ball 9 times out of 10. So if that is that coach’s personal preference, there isnt much to be done.
What she really wants to know is: is it just that, or are there other gaps that she doesn’t know about? And that is where the request for feedback is falling flat.
It is a school team, so fortunately short season.

You touched upon a very important point. There is very much an unconscious bias when it comes to smaller players. If a big, strong kid loses a ball three times, it's mentally processed as unlucky or good defense. If a tiny kid loses the ball three times, he/she is not big enough to keep possession, pull them out! Even the coaches who are very comfortable rostering and playing smaller players fall victim to this thinking. To some degree, it's human nature. To use a baseball analogy, Jose Altuve hit more home runs one year than Aaron Judge...we can all guess who managers and pitchers thought was the more intimidating of the two.

This is American soccer at its worst. We prioritize the wrong things (speed and strength) and focus on winning only. Eventually the big, strong, fast kids will get caught up by the rest and their technical ability and soccer IQ won't be up to par. Love coaches who are brave enough to go against the grain and find the small, techy players. You know...like the rest of the world.

Anonymous wrote:Thank you,PP, that is an excellent post.
I have a gritty and technical DD but she is slender build and not tall. She doesn’t have that soccer look with big leg muscles and low center of gravity. So while she is fast, aggressive, and technical, she just looks like she wouldn’t be that strong.
What I have seen from a current coach is that physicality seems more important than the other traits, even when it’s not effective and the player loses the ball 9 times out of 10. So if that is that coach’s personal preference, there isnt much to be done.
What she really wants to know is: is it just that, or are there other gaps that she doesn’t know about? And that is where the request for feedback is falling flat.
It is a school team, so fortunately short season.

You touched upon a very important point. There is very much an unconscious bias when it comes to smaller players. If a big, strong kid loses a ball three times, it's mentally processed as unlucky or good defense. If a tiny kid loses the ball three times, he/she is not big enough to keep possession, pull them out! Even the coaches who are very comfortable rostering and playing smaller players fall victim to this thinking. To some degree, it's human nature. To use a baseball analogy, Jose Altuve hit more home runs one year than Aaron Judge...we can all guess who managers and pitchers thought was the more intimidating of the two.

^^to add: think Paige Matayer, not Chloe Ricketts.

Thank you,PP, that is an excellent post.
I have a gritty and technical DD but she is slender build and not tall. She doesn’t have that soccer look with big leg muscles and low center of gravity. So while she is fast, aggressive, and technical, she just looks like she wouldn’t be that strong.
What I have seen from a current coach is that physicality seems more important than the other traits, even when it’s not effective and the player loses the ball 9 times out of 10. So if that is that coach’s personal preference, there isnt much to be done.
What she really wants to know is: is it just that, or are there other gaps that she doesn’t know about? And that is where the request for feedback is falling flat.
It is a school team, so fortunately short season.

Anonymous wrote:This is a good question to DCUM crowdsource, actually. Let’s say your kid is a serious player. Let’s say they are very good but relative to comparable peers, aren’t playing that much. Let’s say coaches have no true feedback despite requests. Let’s say you are not a player yourself. Who can help sort out what is going on? Is it coach bias, or a real gap?

This is very relevant question. I am a coach, a ref, a soccer parent and I do not coach my own kid. I have seen 3 different travel coaches do less than an adequate job of providing feedback to my player. I have been surprised that the clubs (I have been with, only 2) do not seem to provide an adequate feedback session to the players individually. With all 3 coaches, I have had to ask them to tell my player specifically what areas they should work on to make it to the next level.

The feedback my kid has received has ranged from a.) An end of fall season 'face to face' player performance review going over a list of skills that are good at or they could improve on. -to- b.) An e-mailed form with a list of skills, all marked "adequate" on it. In all cases, there was no follow-up counseling, unless I otherwise asked for it and there was nothing about how to make it to the next level (or make the starting line-up or get more playing time).

Coach bias is real. Coaches value player traits differently. I would recommend asking for 2-3 feedback sessions for your player from the coach. Preface the request as, "My player want to know what it will take to earn more playing time and get to the next level, my player wants to put in more work." Also, consider asking for feedback in 4 areas: Technical, Tactical, Physical and Mental I know my player is 'Great' in Technical and Physical, but Tactical and Mental need improvement and thus stops advancement to the next level.

When making your request, you might be surprised to learn your coach does not have an evaluation sheet. They may have to reach out to their Tech Director to get one to use for feedback. And, if they don't offer feedback to the players, then e-mail the Tech Director and suggest that they do so. Feedback, should be effective and not just a "check the box" portion of being on a travel team, especially one that touts they have an Academy in their club. -Good luck!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a good question to DCUM crowdsource, actually. Let’s say your kid is a serious player. Let’s say they are very good but relative to comparable peers, aren’t playing that much. Let’s say coaches have no true feedback despite requests. Let’s say you are not a player yourself. Who can help sort out what is going on? Is it coach bias, or a real gap?

That's the million-dollar question.

It's also the million dollar question most coaches aren't prepared to answer 4-6 weeks into a season as they may be getting to know the players and their strengths and weaknesses

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a good question to DCUM crowdsource, actually. Let’s say your kid is a serious player. Let’s say they are very good but relative to comparable peers, aren’t playing that much. Let’s say coaches have no true feedback despite requests. Let’s say you are not a player yourself. Who can help sort out what is going on? Is it coach bias, or a real gap?

FWIW, I think parents of players who get all the minutes are also asking the questions as to why their kid is playing the most and rarely if ever subbed out, because you want to make sure you’re reinforcing whatever those are and continue to be able to play a lot.

And I think the answer consists of multiple factors. Some gaps that do show up among equally skilled players are how do they actually implement those skills in a match and under pressure. Like are they connecting with their teammates? Are they always making a difference whenever they get the ball?

There are also differences in soccer IQ
and decision making.

There may also be a difference in composure and grit (being able to play ur best even when ur down for example).

There will also be differences in quickness, speed and endurance.

It just becomes really hard to separate yourself on top competitive teams (ECNL and MLSNext for example) where there is a high base of soccer competency already so I’ve noticed the above as the difference makers.

I wanted to add that yes, there is likely a gap, but also likely a tiny gap.