It's because the people who made this are different from some of the USSF guys, and they are completely different than the USYSA guys. We've got 3 different groups (plus others looking to make a name/buck) all trying to work independently. Apparently, they are all smarter than one another.
Maybe someone could pass a law so they are aloud to communicate/cooperate like the CIA and FBI now do.
So going into summer and a new season in the fall, I decided I'm going to give the curriculum a good faith effort in practice. It doesn't jive with some of my beliefs and where my players are, but I don't see it as completely evil. For me, there are big what ifs. Because there seems to be an underlying assumption that this curriculum was applied beginning at the U5 level. That the skills are built in by the time they get to the next stage.
With the recent article in Goal.com focusing on the National Curriculum and the start of the soccer season coming, we took time to reflect upon the benefits and challenges of this program. As I look at the influence and interest in the coaches here in the forum, you're obviously not the "run of the mill" type coach. Everyone here has taken an interest to develop their coaching game to the next level and have done an amazing job of educating yourself. I'm sure your players benefit from your work. But... What about the volunteer coach who trots out for the first time after raising his hand? Will they "get" the curriculum even if you dropped it in their laps? Is it the curriculum they need or even more basic building blocks? We think so. Developing the "right" mentality to turn kids onto the game is a far more important start than strong "x's and o's." This is a pretty good article on setting up the volunteer soccer coach for success. Even after getting the mindset "right", the curriculum has to come alive with real examples and demonstrations. To me, Claudio has to answer 3 real questions for implementing the program and making it come alive. To avoid having to type it all over again, here's link to the article we wrote: Is the US Ready for a National Curriculum? I hope they succeed. While it may be imperfect, it will at least place tools and resources into the hands of volunteer coaches that currently are "thrown to the wolves" each year.
Here is the recent article... http://www.goal.com/en-us/news/1679...t-one-style-of-play-for-all-levels-according- I read most of jerry's article. It is worth reading. He sees the big problem being program execution given US soccer's lack of central control and massive diffused organiziation. No surprises, but unusally well written. The point Claudio was making was that everyone needed to get on the bandwagon of a unified vision and style of play. (The 433 system described in the National Curriculum.). He did make a good point that if we spent time coordinating it with all parts of US Soccer before implementing , we would miss our opportunity with the current generation of youth players while we debated in ivory towers. I have two basic problems with Claudio's approach. First he focuses on team when he is addressing ages 5-12. I think at that age you should plan training for the vision of the ideal player, not the ideal team. To steal a phrase, there should be a common set of "core" abilities that the best senior players share. The ideal system is the context for the players, but the context for development of the skills at the youngest age should not be system specific (i.e., should be an exclusively SSG context). By the oldest end of the age group, you will want to have the players developing their skills in a team enviroment, so by then a system specific context should have started to be phased in. Second and this is not apparent, but what I have surmised. He has only focused on boys and used a coach experienced only in training boys. I am not saying that a 433 system is a mistake. I start with 433, and believe that a classic 433 is the best choice for a first system for both genders regardless of what system you want senior teams to play. In my view the "core" abilities that the best senior players share (and should share) are the abilities to play any system and any style: high pressure, delayed high pressure, man to man, zonal, possession, direct, counterattacking, and total soccer. Spain is very good with its patient possession style, but what happens when Spain is trailing in the second half? Spain needs to be able to press and counter too. Something that may be a problem for teams that focus on possession and slow build ups. Breaking down a bunker defense with short passing is very difficult.
Thanks, RCA2! I should have included that Goal.com link. You're right; "teams" at the youngest ages are collections of individual players - and should be treated as such. Focusing on core abilities with the function of creating "thinking, creative soccer players" should always be the goal of any coach. Turn them onto the game and the magic begins to happen in the backyard. This is why I believe it's more important to give coaches "the other side of the game" when they're first starting out. The X's and O's come if players are being challenged and having fun... As for systems of play, you begin that philosophical debate. While generalities can be asserted, systems of play need to be modified based around player talents and current need (i.e. You're losing and there's 10 minutes left). This is where it gets awfully tricky. Who is going to give up their own hard fought lessons on a Saturday afternoon for the purpose of "the greater goal of winning the World Cup?" I find it hard to imagine... Here's what I do know: if overworked, volunteer soccer clubs had an authoritative resource to help educate the coaches and it was easy and cost-effective to use, then we could raise the level of the game across all ages and all genders. To me, all of these governing bodies have done an awful job of taking something like a curriculum and making it simple to digest and easy to implement for the volunteer mom or dad coaching in the Fall. They can do so much more...
I need some historical background from the coaches that have been around longer. Not that it is widespread, but was the issue of technical training for U-littles broadly discussed in American coaching circles at the turn of the century (2001-2006)?
I don't know if it was much different than it is now. I just think more people are "figuring it out" for themselves in recent years. I just think that people finally realized you didn't need to be a great player, an overseas import with an accent, or a Coerver-licensed coach to be able to teach kids how to control the ball. A lot of people who were passionate about the sport and serious about teaching have figured out the best ways to develop players with good technical ability. For me, a lot of credit goes to the ideas of guys like Tom Fleck, Sam Snow, Ron Quinn, and Andy Barney.
I've honesetly given the curriculum much thought and although I'm not as wise and accomplished as Claudio, I don't know how to really apply this to my group. I sat in on a recent E-license course specifically to see how they would implement the new curriculum and not even a mention all weekend. I can't fault them though. What does really change? The vast majority of kids need technical training and coaches who can provide and are committed to technical training at the younger ages.
It is not you. The curriculum is not what I expected. The Best Practices Manual had more detail. The curriculum is more like the University catolog of courses. A very short description of the courses available, not any details and definitely not a lesson plan for a parent coach to follow or even a syllabus for a trained coach to follow. It will take a lot of work and knowledge to convert the curriculum into a syllabus. It is a mission statement. A compass to steer by. But the navigation is left to the coaches.
In short yes. Even back to 1990 and before. In fact we did a better job of training U-Littles in the 1980's than now primarily because of the influence back then of AYSO on parent coaches. The problems back then are still with us today. Not enough coaches that can actually train skills. But in addition we now have the commercialization of youth soccer for the suburban minority that is the USSF domain. In my area over the last 10 years the Hispanic leagues and adult clubs are being cutoff from access to public fields. I am sorry to say that organized soccer is actually in decline. The USSF affiliated youth organziations are winning control of the fields and prospering, but at the cost of the sport generally. They have 30,000 kids playing organized soccer on saturdays during the spring and fall in my county, but nobody else can get a field. These same youth organizations and the county are run by upper middle class non-players. They simply do not care about the sport generally or about providing access to the general public. They see control of the fields as a zero sum game. How does this relate to your question? These practices are breaking down the soccer cultures that have for over a 100 years been a strong part of the sport in the US.
I've heard about this before, from having an argument with a lacrosse coach who was saying there's a "soccer mafia" that keeps everyone but soccer off the fields (your zero sum game) I didn't know that it was cannibalizing itself though (excluding adult and hispanic leagues). I defended it (soccer mafia) because I remember growing up in Springfield, VA and we played on fields badly cut up by pointy football. Our parents as well as others across the area made it a priority to get on boards, raise funds so soccer could have fields and it could grow. I think this is the unintended consequence.
The Reyna curriculum is only geared toward elite players (emphasis is on bigger fields/more players per age group on the field) than the smaller sided games currently in play. Plus it makes tha assumption that players will be making what three practices a week for 90 minutes at an age that it just doesn't seem possible.
I think Dakota Soccer hits the nail on the head. Communication from various the national associations to the clubs has to be streamlined. Take it a step further, and streamline communication from the national associations directly to the parents, athletes, and coaches of the grassroots communities around the country.
Soccer is still foreign to the majority of the US. The last thing we need IMHO is a soccer monopoly in any way shape or form. Centralization runs counter to the US culture. I think we need more soccer in general (good, bad, ugly - doesn't matter). I couldn't care less about professional sports - soccer included. I want to see kids play, have fun, learn, and appreciate the many positive attributes of the sport.
