From your inexpert comments it appears that you know about as much about science as you do coaching. The commonly used assumption is "all other things being equal." Coaching is not science and not research. It is teaching and managing.
Great. You pointed out a typo. I pointed out that you are teaching superstition, not scientific reality, to your players (No advantage for an attacker to be over 5'-6" tall. Rubbish!)
I guess you ignored the rest of the post pointed out that in the real world, a 6'3" Messi would NOT be an otherwise carbon copy of the 5'7" Messi. There have been great 6'+ players over the years but they play DIFFERENTLY than Messi or Maradona because ALL OTHER THINGS ARE NEVER EQUAL. Since you started getting all pseudo-sciency, actions do not take place in a vacuum. If Messi were made to be taller, he would by definition change. He would gain size and probably strength and aerial ability. He would probably lose some of his superhuman agility and balance. When you make a change, all other things do not remain equal. That's science. The truth of the matter is that if somehow there was a 6'3" Messi and a 5'7" Messi identical in every way except height, you, I and every other coach on the planet would take both of them. You're arguing a strictly semantic point that may be true in the abstract but has no relationship to the real world. I don't know why you're wasting your time making it. I'm done bothering to respond.
It depends on the type of team that is holding tryouts. If you are a high school varsity coach, you job as hired is to try to win games and get the best mix of players on your team to help you accomplish that. Having fun, development and future prep. of players (for college/pro) is there of course but its a more indirect focus. If you are a club or recreational U12 or U14, U16 etc. (older ages not U-littles) holding tryouts for a travel team or a team to take to a higher skill level play league, then the focus at tryouts is to select children whom can demonstrate they can play at that skill level you intend to play at and also prove effectiveness against the peer group within the team. I guess Club academy or Olympic development teams you select mostly based on future potential and not the here and now demonstrated playing ability. I really don't know much about this area, but I would hope that it is very fluid model with plenty of opportunities for players to be moved into and out of the academy teams based on demonstrated play, and not just locking in a core group of youngsters for 5-10 years on same team and betting the bank on them to pan out when they are 20. I guess this worked out well for tiny Xavi, but what about the bigger 12 year old boy who felt cheated when he clearly outperformed Xavi during tryout sessions but the coach took Xavi over him just because he liked the potential he sees in him more? If things were more fluid, you'd take the bigger kid at age 12 (because he played better), but give Xavi more looks at 13, 14 and 15 and perhaps Xavi later on proves to be the better player and then you make the switch on roster. Xavi goes on to a great career anyway. What if coach guessed wrong on Xavi's potential at age 12? I would guess that happens much more than guessing right.
Interesting you bring this up. I'm not sure about the Spanish educational system but Xavi was born in January and Iniesta was born in May. Giovincho was born in January.
It's been a long winded thread to ask/answer a simple eye-ball test question: "Can he/she play?" I'm pretty confident, even relative to his surroundings, Xavi could play. It's diff. when we're assessing US youth because for the most part they have gaping holes in their game so it's always a relative judgment. For me, the bigger Xavi question is would he have made it in England as a youth player?
I think the problem stems from our statement of the question. At tryouts for USSF-affiliated club travel teams, the coach is likely asking "Can he/she play?" That, however, is not a development question; instead the question focuses on the goal of selecting a winning team. If I stick to the (USSF) first three zones of development (U12 and below, U14 to U17, U18 plus), I would suggest that state and club managers should be planning on making quality development programs in zone 1 as inclusive as possible, while in comparison the highest quality development opportunities in zone 3 would be the most exclusive, i.e., provided to the most promising, not necessarily the best, players. One way of doing this would be to use an academy based approach in zone 1, a decentralized league/team structure for zone 2 that was "horizontal" (no travel, no vertical stacking of divisions) with additional decentralized "breakout" training available for the more promising players (some ODP works this way except it usually is not decentralized), and layered league structures with the best training opportunities provided to elite teams in zone 3. Keep in mind I am talking about training amatuer players. Professional teams and academies are going to offer great development opportunies to a very few players. So that is operating as an elite level of its own above this. At zone 3, the best male players will generally all be professionals by U20 (and moreso by U23). The best U20 to U23 women players will generally be college players (due to the lack of professional opportunities). So with the above plan the question for each zone would be-- zone 1: there are no teams, so no team tryouts, and no questions. zone 2: all players are in the same pool and in theory getting the same quality training with their teams. The most promising players would be selected for the breakout training, but there is no team/league structure for the breakout players. The selection question will simply be "Who are the most promising players who are interested in the extra training opportunity? zone 3: By U18 for women it will be much easier to predict who the best senior players are going to be, U20 for men. So we can be more exclusive in offering the best training opportunities without increasing the risk of excluding what would have been next Messi. At the National team pool, you wouldn't want to make a mistake like that as you risk losing the player to another country.
This is indeed a very interesting question. “Andres Iniesta and Xavi would never have made it in a British team, when they were youth players,” insisted Wigan's Spanish manager Roberto Martinez. “The first selection is ‘Not tall enough. Not strong enough’. A related question. Today's top play makers/ best passers are not physical players at all, think of Xavi( leads La Liga in passing), Pirlo(leads Seria A), Arteta(leads EPL). Add David Silva, Ozil etc, does that mean less physical players actually have an advantage to be a play maker?
I think it is just a matter of probability. There are a lot more non-physically imposing men in the world than physically imposing. The world is full of guys about 5'8-5'10, there aren't very many Yaya Toure's around. So the odds of having the playmaking brain, and the capacity to work on technique AND being physically imposing are low. With all the guys about 5'8-5'10 much higher odds that there are a few Xavis/Pirlos in the mix. You don't need any physical or development explanation for it, its just straight statistics.
In comment to RCA2's "zone approach", that definitely sounds like the perfect world model for our professsional and national team development. Unfortunately that is only 1 grandeous agenda, and there are so many other agendas (way to many to list out) from U-littles all the way up, that having the one sighted purpose of developing players and making sure none fo the future great players projected by age 20 slip through the cracks in the system could really only become effective in a communist gov't controlled country with officials overseeing all soccer play and training to make sure its done properly by the intentions and goals from the top ranks.
What I mean is , you rarely find a Xavi, Pirlo becoming a top forward or defender. They only strive as a creative midfielder. My question is maybe it's too hard to have both super athletic ability and super creativity in one player. From the discussion, I heard a lot we pick the best athletes and develop them, I am just wondering, with this mentality, maybe we will never have our Xavi or Pirlo.
Why would the US develop a Xavi? None of your teams, MLS or national teams, play that type of possession short-passing game. So you aren't actively looking for players that could fit that mold, or develop to. This is apparently what Jurgenn is trying to change to. Watching his team play he will be pragmatic if it is convenient. The win in Italy being the best example. If all the players around you are faster and bigger you are likely to develop a different skillset to compensate for your lack of size. Meaning, your on the field problem solving skills, feints and ball shielding etc.
So you are saying Xavi would be very inefficient (if not useless) playing for MLS or US national team now?
The "zones" and curriculum are USSF's approach. What is "mine" is the suggestion for doing away with leagues and teams in zone 1, but that is not far off from what USYSA is pushing. What is also "mine" is the suggestion to get rid of travel soccer (the stacking of elite divsions) for zone 2, but that is not far off from what AYSO--the other USSF-affiliated national youth organization--is pushing. The USDA is contrary to what I am suggesting for zone 2, but this is a stop gap measure to make up for the lack of professional club run youth academies in this country. As professional clubs prosper, the USDA function will be replaced by their youth academies. I am not proposing any change to the status quo for zone 3.
I think your ideas are feasible and could be implemented by an academy, professional or grass roots. Question, what type of footballers (first team playing style) would you be looking to develop? I don't think there is a wrong answer, matter of preference, so wondering what is yours.
Look at how hesitant the US is to give chances to JF Torres. When your style is up tempo, counterattacking (in line with the characteristics of the typical American player) a possession player that slows the game down simply doesn't fit.
Quite true, but their public view is forced by the lack of players like Xavi in the pool. On the women's side of the game you can bet that they are concerned about the example set by Japan by focusing on long-term skill development. It is a classic illustration of "the have's versus have not's" difference in views. We are past winners in the women's game and looking to repeat. In the men's game we are long shots to win anything and hoping to make a good showing. Also because of gender differences, skills are relatively more important to success in the women's game.
I think you are drawing the wrong conclusions. Our style of play reflects the pool not the other way around. I am encouraged by the inclusion of Torres in the national team pool. And I think that the fact that he is a holding midfielder for club, but played left wing for the US, illustrates how desperate we are to find attacking players with passing skills. If we had a best 11 in the world player, we would use him. Dempsey is not in that class, but arguably he was one of the best in the EPL last year, which is saying a lot about a US field player. By comparision at the national level we have for decades now had world-class keepers in the men's pool. You don't hear USSF saying world-class keepers aren't necessary to success internationally. And you don't see anyone anxious to be replacing Donovan and Cherundolo on the right flank. Not only are they great players, but they combine like they were on a club team together.
This is established by USSF and their curriculum. My understanding is that we are trying to develop players strong in all four aspects of the game (technical, tactical, physical, and mental). My understanding is that USSF sets out goals by zone and two-year age grouping that has one curriculum for all field players. My view is that a zone 3 player should have the ability to play all styles. My assumption is that USSF shares this view. My understanding of the curriculum is that during development USSF wants a 433 possession style attack to be played, but that is because it will promote faster development than other attacking styles. I don't think USSF has indicated a particular style of defense to be used, other than for a long time a sweeper-stopper defense has been discouraged by just about everyone for development reasons. My view is that this has lead to a lack of training in man marking resulting in professional centerbacks today without adequate marking skills. (All zone defenses become man-to-man when your back is against the wall, figuratively speaking.) My view is that development coaches need to ensure that there is room in their systems for man-marking as well as zonal marking. I indicated what was "my view" to distinguish it from USSF policy, not to suggest that my views are original. I stole all the good ideas I ever had from someone else. I don't steal any bad ideas because I have enough of those already
I apologize. By US Soccer, I meant the whole landscape of youth club, local odp, regional to National. Why these players don't surface? Lack of long term thinking and/or failure to identify this players potential.
What about what caleb porter pore yet has done at Akron? What about that dynamic u11 state champs from California? There is certainly a home for xavi, there just has to be the will to play that way.
Are those the norm or trend? I think also, we have to remember the resources those guys have compared to what even smaller programs in Netherlands or even Spain have.
rca2, the thread was about selection and identification. Sure we are about development but until coaching stops becoming a limited resource we still have to identify talent. "Can he/she play?" Isn't an absolute but could be about if they have potential to be taught. Not every tall fast kid can be taught to play.
Not the norm, but that's a good thing because the general quality of training sucks. If these two independent groups with limited resources can create winning programs in their domain why can't teams with the money? Barcelona USA-the u11 team from California- has sent the first American to la masia. No small feAt. Trying to play an aesthetically pleasing style engenders good will from fans at the Mls level.