Ironically, the ODP region that seems to most consistently come out and "play" is Region III. For what it's worth.
Nope. Hey, I might be wrong. Here's the context. For 6 months I've been saying to myself, "I know that Cheezi kid's type. Hell, I'm the world's expert on that type. Wonderful touch. Amazing small-field player. Sometimes struggles on full field because the great touch is not quite so important (more room to operate), and strength/speed/power/defense become more important." Then I saw the coach's quote and said to myself, aha. No, that's not what I mean. By "table top dancer," I mean a small, technical, agile player who easily create space for himself. The same way any professional midfielder can do, through feints, deception, and very close control on the ball. Oh, I believe that. Don't think that I implied otherwise. I smile because you're the one who is reluctant about publishing U14 results, right? And I am beginning to see the wisdom of this policy. I think that skill was more rewarded at U10 than U14, because at U10 there wasn't the opportunity to overwhelm the opposition by playing an adult-sized man child, and at U14 there is. Sounds like Adam is in good hands, in that his coach is thinking about the future. In most situations, the coaches are pretty much concerned about what's happening today. Agreed. I don't think that I implied otherwise. Heck, I compared him to Tiger Woods! The kid is playing up at club level, up at ODP level, has a Dutch club interested, and you think he plays well. It would be hard for him to have a more impressive resume than that at this stage in his career.
One thing I've noticed though about size and strength comments. Yes ODP coaches do look for it, but many of these kids can still play. I think any of these same coaches would take a smaller player if they can play at pace. I'm not sure size is as much an issue as speed. I've seen many wizards with the ball, great passers, great touch, but their speed makes them a liability in match-ups. I think of all of the things that hurt players, it's their speed. Some average speed players make up for it with smarts and movement off the ball. They position themselves properly when on defense and use the sideline and other teammates to help channel faster players. In the attack they use their change of speed and diagonal runs or other various smart choices of runs to get open in space. To me the one single attribute that can kill a technically sound player isn't their size, it's the pace they play at. Just my thoughts. I try not to catergorize players when i evaluate, but it's hard to pick slow kicks regardless of skill level or the way they play. Oh and gers...i prefer region iv
Can't argue with that. As I wrote earlier, I must be the world's expert in small technical players. For some reason, our club attracts the children of 5' 6" soccer-playing men, whose boys at age 8 have been playing their whole lives and who are firmly on track to being 5' 6" themselves. At 8, they're all successful regardless of athleticism because of their soccer background. At 13, only the fast ones are competing effectively at a high level. And they're doing great. You're right, size/strength is a minor issue, although as I argue it appears to get more important at older ages and higher levels. Small, quick, technical = "A" player Small, slow, technical = "B" player Big, quick, technical = "A" player Big, slow, technical = Borderline A/B player Small, quick, nontechnical = "B" player Big, quick, nontechnical = "A" level defender
I can't argue it besides i think big,slow,technical is still a B Plus the last one Big,quick,nontechnical is right as long as they can tackle and kick the ball 70yards...welcome to the USA
In fairness, if a big, quick, nontechnical player showed up to our U12 team's May tryouts, he would be cut. I don't care if he's Michael Vick II, if he didn't have at least some basic soccer skills, they'd put him on the "B" team. Not the norm in U.S. youth soccer, though.
Uh oh - now I've done it. Just talking about style of play for regional teams, not ability, etc... Everyone knows about California. Definitely agree that most cases re size vs skill are not black and white.
i don't give Cali all the credit...i believe Arizona, Colorado, and believe it or not Washington produce plenty of great players. Never worry Gers....i just like good soccer period.
This big v small, fast v slow, and technical v non-technical argument has always fascinated me. I come from an athletic family. My father was an all big 12 (big 7 in those days) defensive tackle and coached American football. I played football, basketball, baseball and ran track. My son started playing soccer when he was 6. I put him in it because it was the first organized sport he was allowed to play. I thought it would be good for his fitness and teach him some discipline for when he was ready to play "real" sports. He scored 6 goals in his first game and has loved the sport ever since. When he turned 8 he tried out for travel soccer. I did not expect him to make it because he was probably only the 2nd or 3rd best kid on his mediocre rec team. He was picked to be on the last of 3 travel teams that the club had because he was athletic and had a good attitude. Most of the kids picked for the two teams in front of him and half of his team were boys that had been playing soccer since they could walk. Their Dads were from Europe, Africa, and South America. The rest of the boys were like my son, good athletes. I am greatful that he had a big club that was willing to take a chance on him at that young age. I am amzed that most good athletes do not get the encouragement to learn the game. My father always said, "You can't coach speed." He could teach the players skills, help develop instincts, and work outs could make them stronger. Soccer coaches do not seem to have this attitude. My son is now a U-15 and plays in the top division in So Cal. Along the way, I have been shocked at how few coaches were looking for athletes that they could teach. It has always seemed that they wanted players that were already polished. Later in my son's development, he was lucky to find a British coach in Maryland that took him on his D-1 team. He took the time to teach him to trap a ball, to develop a touch and a feel for the game. I have a few theories on why these youth coaches downplay athleticism. Number 1 is soccer snobbery. These coaches in the US, back when they played, were considered second class citizens in the sports world. To counteract this feeling of inadequacy they decided they had "special skills" that resulted in them playing soccer. Therefore, they view good athletes as not having these skills (as opposed to teaching them the skills). They conclude that the youth may be a good athlete but just not a soccer player. Number two, is the theory that you are most likely to pick players that most remind you of yourself. Most of these coaches were smaller guys, often feisty and had good skills. They therefore would take players that fit that mold without doing it consciously. My third theory is the defeatist attitude. I have heard more than one coach say, " Why waste my time on him, he will just go and play football or basketball when he gets older anyway."
Agree with your thoughts, but definitley add the win now mentality. Every coach at every level feels some pressure to win now. That's a big debate for whether bradenton/u-17 should be for the best, most physically ready players or for those that would have a great potential.
Use myself as an example. I only started playing soccer at 16. So that is pretty late, so I only able to make college team and later on a smipro. I am not a fast guy but a quick guy. So I am able to play both withdrawn forward or attacking midfield. If I have start at 4 or 5, and have the physical ability of your son, I would be a star. I think that in your son's case, he doesn't need a game, he needs a ball under his feet for a whole year to be one with the ball.
Actually, I see this more on bigsoccer.com, among naive posters who think that 80% of success in the sport is related to skill, than among coaches. I understand your reference, though. I think the bigger issue was, during their time skill of any level was so rare that they overvalue it today. Certainly some truth to that. My son's previous coach was a monstrously large, fast, and unsubtle soccer player, and he loved massive & direct youth D mids, too.
As I follow a number of sports I see single spectacular moments are always overvalued. In the NBA dunks are cheered but good defense is ignored. In the NFL a WR who makes a leaping catch is praised but one who makes a downfield block which adds 20 yards to a run is ignored. If a kid nutmegs somebody, that's a moment that stands out in your mind. Very true, though sometimes you get an Earl Weaver who likes players unlike himself, who do things he wished he could do.
Yes - but a soccer match is not about a highlight reel. The game is a symphony, not a commercial jingle. Same reason stats tell you VERY little about players and teams, and the attempts to statisticize (i made that one up, yes) the game are futile. The EPL review show is on now, and I notice that the highlight package they show is 3-5 minutes per match, sometimes longer, as opposed to a U.S. package on FSW or ESPN which would be 10-15 seconds, for a 90-minute match. All of this is somethat trvial, except that a lot of amateur player analysis "That kid is great, he nutmegged this guy" isn't based on a player's true ability to influence a game of soccer. I know I am vulnerable to this as well. But this also speaks to something I'm writing about re the ability of our coaching community to evaluate talent. I'm having fun with this one (and I think I'm going to annoy some people mightily with it as well.
How many of the highlights are goals, near goals, or great saves? Do they say things like "Central Defender X was winning everything that came near him?"
Fair enough mtr8967 - I don't mean to be praising the Brits - just pointing some differences in society mindset - but you make a very good point about even that. (btw, i try, when I write articles about matches I watch, to include players from all parts of the field - summaries are usually more goal-related).
Gers - I also look forward to your article. Here's my two cents. You don't want to bash the tricksters too much because they tend to be the best future prospects. I used to watch U9 games and hear people insult the "ball hogs." By and large, those ball hogs became the top U12s. Because the ball hogs were for the most part the fast, skilled players. I have no doubt that I will see the same pattern at U15, U18, etc. At the same time ... I have developed a greater appreciation for the mundane skills. At Surf Cup, they have a feature whereby you can pay $45 and get a CD of one of your team's games. Very enlightening. Watch a match 3x, thinking about what made the difference in the result, and you learn a lot. What I learned was the importance of activity. We had some kids touch the ball 40 times in the match and others 12 times. Playing the same position. Defensively 40x guys tracked back, cut off passing lanes, tackled successfully, did what they could to create havoc. The 12x guys watched. On offense, the 40x guys moved to space. The 12x guys watched. The two goals scored in the 2-1 game? By 12x guys who did little else all game, and who had fairly easy goal scoring opportunities given to them by passes that were fed to their feet inside the box. They got the credit on the CD, though!
Good post. It's sort of a variation of another thread which was something like "work rate vs. skill." One without the other doesn't work well. I love skill (not just fancy ball moves, but also solid fundamental technique such as heading, trapping, etc), but I also want players who want to compete. That's why I think Marvell Wynne has a nice upside despite not being the greatest technician-not just his blazing speed, which is rather obvious. This guy wants to compete. And work rate is tied to competing, really competing, so yeah, gimme the 40x guys.
I have always been amazed that video is not used more as a teaching tool in soccer. Back in my day (LOL) we taped all of our football games and many of our drills. We also taped basketball games. My son has never played on a team that used that as a teaching tool. I do know the MSC Dragons B-U15 in MD tape their games. A player can learn an awful lot about their positioning and the flow of the game by watching themselves play on tape. I do not mean the video my wife takes at games. No close ups.
This is a pet peeve of mine. Statistics tell you a ton about the game of soccer, most notably who wins and loses and who is in first place. Wins? Statistic? Goals Scored? Statistic. Losses, Draws, Goals Allowed, Points? Statistics all. Doing lots of things in a match isn't necessarily more valuable than only doing a couple, if those couple of things are more valuable than the lots of things the other guy does. A baseball example would be the scenario, where a guy fights off several pitches and singles to the opposite field. Then after the pitcher throws over a few times, he steals second. The next guy does his job and moves him over to thrid with a groundball. Now there's a guy on third with 1 out. The next guy swings and misses twice and then hits a 425 foot home run. The efforts of the first player were more numerous. The first player displayed intelligence and perserverance and was a far more active participant in the inning. The guy who homered did nothing except make contact with the ball once. But the guy who homered did more to help his team win. Soccer is very much a game of highlights, because just one piece of brilliance has a chance to tip the balance of the game. A dunk in a basketball game is 2 points out of 200 in the game. But a brilliant goal may be the only goal scored all day. Keeping possession with a square pass is nice, but chances are you're not going to do anything with it, and chances are the other team won't do anything with it if you lose it. Scoring is a hell of a lot more good than not scoring is bad. There's a concept in statistical circles in baseball called "value over replacement." The numbers don't matter for these pruposes, but the concept is transferrable to soccer. The measure of players is not in the number of good things they do, the measure is how much more a guy helps you win than the next available guy at his position. Applying this concept to the USMNT, it becomes clear that Landon Donovan is a better player than Claudio Reyna. While Reyna does all sorts of good things out there that often go unnoticed, the reality is that Kerry Zavagnin does most of them almost as well. There is not, however, a ready replacement for what Donovan brings to the table. Donovan's a better player because your team is considerably worse off if you're forced to replace him than if you're forced to replace Reyna. Hence Donovan's value of his possible replacements is hgiher than Reyna's. As for youth coaching, that really depends on what your goals are. If your goal is to win youth cups or send guys to college than you need all sorts of different types of players. If your goal is to develop maybe one or two National Team regulars? The ballhogs, tricksters, skill masters and speed merchants are your best bets and the hard workers who don't have any of those abilities just aren't of any use to you on that score. Even to the extent that these guys are useful at the higher levels, they are not, however, in short supply. There's no point in focusing on developing Josh Gros type players since they tend to show up eventually regardless (as Gros did basically out of nowhere). The key at the U17 (and younger) national level is not coming up with the 11 best eventual players. The key is coming up with the 3 best eventual players. Yes you still need significant quantity to do that, but the focus should be on developing geniuses. Role players develop themselves.
John great post and exactly what I've been trying to tell a player i train one on one a lot. That she needs to be a 40x players, because she has all the attributes to be a great player. I think I'll share your post with her, to reinforce the things I've been telling her. It's not that she can't be a 40xer, she can. She's at times affraid of being a ball hog. To me there's a difference between flowing correctly with the game and earning touches vs. standing and demanding touches because your good. It's amazing when you have a team of 11 players that flow and work more off the ball then on the ball. One of my biggest points i try to reinforce to my teams is that the player on the ball should be doing very little work, it's the ones of the ball that should be working. making the game easy and simple for the player on the ball. Anyways ...great post.
All I'm saying is this. In baseball there are the following stats that give some very good pictures (not perfect but very good) of what players contribute: On base percentage, runs scored, total bases, RBI, IP, ERA, H+BB/IP - there are other stats that give SOME indication of the same, home runs, stolen bases, strikeouts, saves (i don't mean to argue about which baseball stats are most important). In soccer there is one statistic: goals scored. (assist stats to me can be very unreliable, like some of the baseball stats) Save percentage COULD indicate something about a goalie, but not necessarily. Meanwhile a successful soccer team (the kind that gets the only statistic that really matters in either game at the top level - wins - and you know that's not what I was referring to when I said it wasn't a statistical game) requires players who defend well, players who gain possession, players who keep possession, players who can move the ball, players who can move off the ball - and on and on and on. All of these things are vital - and all of them require skills, and none of them are accurately measured by any statistic. The more skilled the players are who are attempting to perform all of these duties, the better the team. For the most part you see who is good at these things by watching them play, not by looking at numbers. That is much less true in football, basketball and baseball (although each have positions and roles that are not as apparent via stat sheets). And the three player vs 8 player thing - I may not be understanding you entirely, but if I am, I think you are setting the bar way too low for a professional quality player at any position. Saying that, I always enjoy your arguments and the way you present them.