We can start a thread "English Coaches" I have a file at least 12-13 years old on the topic. I appreciate your opinions, but if you are going to try and convince us that they are an asset to our youth development, that they have been an asset and not the single most destructive, negative force that has set us years behind in where we could have been if we just did it with good intentioned American coaches. If you believe that their "invasion" didn't stagnate the progress from the immediate spike of WC 94. Then there is much to debate.
Count me out of that one. This is the point, a file of coaching horror stories twelve or thirteen years old is not relevant to what is happening now. You think things haven't evolved in England over the past 13 years? You are living in the past, and I would rather read the opinions of those that want to look to the future.
Mirizam...did you read the Carthright article..just scan the blog commenets on several different articles in there. The anwser for US technical development isn't coming from the Three lions. Have things changed..sure..but its not "fixed".
The point is that the coaching in England may have changed, but the English coaches (that aren't in your club) that are in America are the throwbacks. The ones that couldn't hack it in England, so they came to America where they could say anything they wanted because they "invented the game," and mom and dad would believe them. Then they could earn a living driving their porches around to the different fields flirting with the influential mom on the team. I have even heard parents of players in these English-ran clubs claim that they ran a possession-oriented game when it was clear that all the kids were taught to do is kick the ball down to the big kid. All the coach had to say is that they were developing kids to possess the ball and it did not matter what happened on the field. The point is that the game has regressed in the last 10 years because of the throwback (not your son's club) English coaches, and that is 10 years that we can't get back. They cause the problem, now we think that they are helping with the solution? That sounds like crazy talk to me.
I confess I didn't read the article, but I will. I don't think for one minute English coaches are the answer to the US technical development, nor should they be. But what gets me is the across the board claim that the Brits single handily have ruined US soccer, judging from the American coaches we have come across, they are doing a pretty good job and keeping US soccer mediocre. There are some very good English coaches out there that teach state of the art technical skills, they aren't all tarred with the same brush.
You have samples of every English-lead team in the United States and Canada? Or are you referring only to your very own experiences? Your sweeping statements deman you have research, and have observed nationwide how English coaches are working (or in your opinion, not).
Here we go. Over the past 13 years, then until now, I have collected every decent thing I can get my hands on, have filed it, and have scanned it into a digital filing and folder system. Four Four Two, Champions, World Soccer, Soccer America, The Internet, etc... has long chronicled the situation with the quality of English soccer coaches. Why they are so poor? Why they can't get the good jobs in their own country (they aren't good enough)? Why it is better that none of them even get close to coaching their own country, England? There is so much material on poor English coaching that if I was to start a thread on it we would need years to get through it. Listen, you can say what you want. But, I have my own opinion on what good coaching is. Whether it be soccer, football, basketball, you name it. David Armstrong and Clive Charles are two good English soccer coaches, who had a heart for developing American kids and did a good job. Do you want me to start a list of the schiesters, ripoffs, and posers who were/are complete and total crap? They can't even get the best jobs in their own country -- "the home of football." Your measly little points aren't going to change something that much of the world knows as fact. You can wail away till the cows come home.
My point is, that you made my point for me. You recognize there are some good English coaches. Your sweeping statements that England has ruined American soccer is ridiculous. You can also wail away until the cows come home. I know there are good coaches from England. I know this from first-hand experience, not from reading articles. I also know there are better coaches - so don't go assuming I think England has the best coaches bar none.
Re: Development needs to replace winning If coaches/teams/youth clubs were to be rewarded financially for developing soccer players to an extent that it helps them operate, then I suspect the picture would change. Reyna can't change that and I don't expect it from him. MLS and the clubs can, however. Who would benefit the most from developing better, higher quality players? Answer: MLS and USMNT. Therefore, it's up to them to inflict the change of the money source - maybe not for all youth clubs, but at least for some, which would be a good start and a better situation. Reyna should take care of changing the actual process of how clubs develop these players.
I have horror stories from my own experiences and from fellow coaches’ experiences all over the US about the horrors of English. Obviously it wouldn’t matter if I shared these experiences, though since PB has a file of horror stories that you quickly dismissed saying that they are irrelevant to what is happening now. I have said before – I will gladly change my tune when I start hearing different music, but when it is the same old crap blaring at me, I will continue to hum this same song. No matter how much you say that your son’s team is different, I have only seen the same story play out time and time again with these English coaches. There is a reason why stereotypes are formed and cemented, and in this case, it is because there are a lot of English coaches (not one from my own experience) who are not teaching players how to be skillful. Now understand - this is not meant to offend you and your place of birth - I am aiming to tell you what I have seen and what my associates see on a regular basis. I would be saying the same thing about Italian coaches if I found it was true - maybe it is, but I haven't met many Italian coaches in the states. I have met English coaches - many of them, and it is true of them.
Re: Development needs to replace winning Pete Bond, I get your point about the English coaches - both at pro level and youth level. And I can agree to some extent. But tell me this. How many Brazilian coaches have been successful with top European clubs? Let's not forget though that England has produced recently players like Rooney, Gerard, Lampard, Ferdinand, and the latest jewel Wilshere, which are all better than anything US has produced. Should only Spanish, Dutch, German and Italian people be allowed to coach youth players in US? In US youth soccer, I've seen plenty of good and bad coaches from all nationalities.
I don't think that I did make you point for you. While there may be some good English coaches in the states (haven't met one yet, but there may be some out there) other English coaches - the ones that I have met as DOC's of states, and major clubs, National Coaching Schools Staff Coaches, College Coaches in the NCAA, Junior College, and NAIA levels - the the English coaches who work full time as soccer coaches and have a major opportunity to effect the game on a mass scale have not bothered to help the game progress. They have worried about winning games. It is in their best interest to win games. It is the way to get the check cleared. Ridiculous? I don't think so. Broad? Absolutely. Truthful? You know it is. You may say that there are American coaches who don't do anything included in that list. I will tell you that there is, but most of those coaches were taught by English Coaches who came to America because they couldn't hack it back home.
I don't even give them the benefit of the doubt about caring to win games. Most that I've known do just enough to collect the paycheck. They know whose %$&^ to &^%. And that's about it. They show up to licensing courses, limp around, tell everybody how they were a big time player, and have the personality of cardboard. They get the national staff to buy in, get their license automatically, and go on to rip off the youth and the game. That's my reality. Clive and Derek are two good ones, out of thousands of possibilities. (Pretty poor odds I would say) We were invaded, raped and pillaged. We have never even put up a fight.
Re: Development needs to replace winning In PB's defense, the "joke" around the DC area in the 90s was that if you showed up with an English accent you could get a paying job coaching soccer. This was about a decade into the influx of British coaches and people started to catch on. I don't want to slander the British ex-pats but some did go on to give their countrymen a bad name. Of course there are quality British coaches.
From my experience, a lot of soccer is pattern recognition and decision making. So you need to train the brain as much as you train from the waist down. Making the correct decision requires repetition and exposure to the game situations a multitude of times in training. As I mentioned, my "bible" is the Dutch Coaching manual . . . there's a passage in there where one of the De Boer's talks about how Van Gaal used to have them do 4v2 (to goal) thousands of times and they knew what to do because they'd seen it so many times. Same goes for the physical. Thousands of repetitions so you can free your eyes and your brain to think soccer and not preoccupy it with how to control the ball . . . walking and chewing gum . . . Trust me, I feel the pain. I coach the B-team for my club because they're the ones that need the most help. Nearly every year the best players get pulled up to the A-team so they can focus on helping that group win. I spend my time developing so the A-team can do their best to stunt their growth. I'm all in. When I was young, I spent hours banging the ball against a wall, playing games, etc. Now I spend probably at least two hours daily learning soccer. Like you, I have notebooks and binders of useful stuff. I find something new about this sport everyday and it just blows my mind. The trouble starts, when you collect so much info, is how to synthesize it: like learning new training drills and how to do it and when (what age) to use it. You have to be a phys ed. teacher, child psychologist, a soccer historian, soccer player, etc to sort through all this info. People think I find it rewarding (i.e. helping kids) but really it's a ton of fun for me.
There won't be any significant change in international success unless we "grow" our own coaches. To creat a signifcant change our plan must be inclusive, rather than exclusive. We have both population and economy to compete with the top countries. We have 24 million players, including 20 million youth mostly of the younger ages. What we don't have yet is quality coaches to train 20 million kids. Even at a 1 quality coach to 2000 youth ratio, that would require 10,000 quality youth coaches. Obviously 30,000 quality coaches would reach more players. This quality coaching gap is where we fall behind the major soccer countries. Trying to fill this gap by importing foreign professional coaches is impractical. We will have a long wait if we want the USSF or MLS to pay the salaries. For practical reasons we need 30,000 quality youth coaches, and most of them need to be volunteers. The economy will only support so many professional youth coaches. The curriculum illustrates the problem. It is a tool, a good tool, but it is only as effective as the coaches using it.
My own feelings are that the impact of a decline in the effectiveness of youth coaching can most clearly be seen in the women's pool. "Commercialization" of youth soccer has hurt most here, I believe because we actually started with a great group of potential volunteer women coaches available in former college players. That is a resouce that was not generally available to other countries. Its in girls travel that I have seen the biggest contrast in development-oriented coaches (mothers who played) at the recreational level versus win-oriented (professional male) coaches at the travel level. Granted I am drawing generalizations on very little observations, but the little observations I have had, justify the criticisms I have read and heard from others more informed.
Not only you want 30,000 quality coaches, but you want them to volunteer for the job?! I hope you are enjoying your sleep and your dream....keep dreaming....Why would any coaches, let alone quality coaches, volunteer to coach for free? Where would the motivation to develop players come from? The quality coaches are usually individuals who are fully devoted to their profession and they depend on it to make a living. How would they be making a living if you want/expect them to work for free?
30,000 is what i calculated also since being a world power in soccer is not really a priority to 99.99% of the us population. I'm sure we can find 30,000 fanatics who will volunteer but they may not be quality. Oh well, can't have everything.
Family ties. Almost all youth coaches are volunteers. That is the most common coaching opportunity open to the majority of youth players, zone 1 as USSF describes it.
You both make some very good/valid points. It's not easy to find good volunteer coaches who not only have some experience with soccer but also study the game and work to get better. The vast majority are parents who stepped up so that their kids could play - at least that has been what I've witnessed at coaching clinics and from the coaches I see weekly. On the flip-side, there just isn't enough money currently available to support a large number of professional coaches for youth soccer. In our area we have one guy who's working as the coaching director for our club and he has to essentially have 3-4 jobs going to support his family doing it. At that, he's not coaching any team from the U14 level on down. Our only resource are the volunteer coaches. These are a couple of reasons that have pushed me back into coaching for my kids' teams. I spend a fair amount of time studying the game, reading books and watching videos to get better at coaching. I know I could be a better coach if I spent more time working at it, but I can't afford to support my family this way. The only compensation is the satisfaction in helping the kids and having fun playing. So what are the realistic options? - do nothing, wait until developing players is financially worthwhile, or do a better job educating our volunteer coaches. It seems that the last option is the easiest/most feasible, even though we still have a long ways to go.
Re: Development needs to replace winning Change the former and we would probably see a dramatic increase in the quality of the top U.S. players within a decade. I believe the latter is hampered by U.S. labor laws. Somebody with a better understanding should chime in. At what age can a typical European club "own" the rights to a player and consequently can profit from him vs. an MLS club (or the league actually?) own the rights to a player in the U.S.?