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.
I will have a look at the US curriculum (anyone have a good link? The previous one in the post doesn't work and the only copy I found through Google had a weird graphical error through it). In Australia we are in a similar circumstance to the US, in that soccer/football is not the dominant sport (AFL, Rugby, Cricket all rule the roost). The Football Federation of Australia last year (or was it the year before) released a National Curriculum. http://www.footballaustralia.com.au/misc/coaching-resources/1fzy0yqhhi95k1xulps0gmdv57 I personally find this very interesting and a good resource. Especially the example training sessions provided at the end (well almost half the document). I even have had senior coaches for me use these for our training (and some are targeting 12 year olds). The main target of the FFA one was to create technically skilled players, as we tend to develop more physical players rather than skilled players (this is poignant in Asia where they tend to have skilled players and not so physical players). So having a balance was needed. So I'll have a look at the US Soccer one and hopefully you can get something out of the Australian one.
I was surprised. US Soccer took the link down from their website resource page. Instead they just have what appears to be a rewritten version of the 2006 Best Practices Manual. (The substance of the manual doesn't appear to have changed at all.) In the US we have the USSF, our FIFA national organization, and two national youth organizations that are members of the USSF--USYSA and AYSO. USYSA has a lot of youth coaching publications that are consistent with the Best Practices Manual. These documents are the work product of a large group of US professional coaches and educators. The curriculum was confusing to coaches familiar with the US materials because it was written outside of the context of these other publications and authored by Dr. Javier Perez, from Spain. Here are links to the resource pages at the USSF and the USYSA: (Coaching Manual, Vision Statement, Player Development Model, Technical Skills Manual) http://www.usyouthsoccer.org/coaches/Recommended_Reading/ (Best Practices Manual) http://www.ussoccer.com/coaching-education/resources These documents are pretty good. I think they provide a good picture of the USSF youth coaching approach. If you still want links to the USSF curriculum materials, I can provide them. The materials are still up at the USSF site. Just the link to them was taken down. What is important to understand is that most soccer in the US is unaffiliated with USSF. Most coaches are not licensed. And most youth training is left in the control of the coaches. So there is a wide variation in practices. The USSF has controlled that to some extent by taking direct supervisory control of about 80 clubs through the USSF Development Academy program for boys. This compensates for the relatively few professional clubs in the US. http://www.ussoccer.com/development-academy/overview IMO over the last 20 years opportunities for youth development has decreased in this country largely due to the growth of USSF regulations and controls. In the past our outstanding female players played on boys youth teams. Our outstanding male players played on multiple youth teams, affiliated and unaffilaited. Both are discouraged by USSF and its member organizations. Moreover I see coaches who were coached as youth by good-intentioned parents perpetuating bad tactics and techniques taught them, athough with the best intentions. The problem is that USSF coaching education is geared toward developing a very small group of elite coaches. While there are plenty of books available, most people today do not read books, newspapers or magazines. They want information provided visually in short bursts.
After about 3.5 years, I can honestly say in my area that the curriculum has had no discernible impact on soccer training as far as I can see. I think it's better as a whole and don't really know how much I can credit to the USSF curriculum. Coaches took note, talked about it, then went right back to what they were doing. The ones that feel like they know what they're doing or actually know what they're doing ignored it and the people who probably need it—it's too complex for them. At a recent licensing course, it was NOT even brought up once. NOT ONCE. The USSF curriculum had no tie-in to a licensing course that the organization that produced it.
People don't really need to be told what to teach in this stage of our contry's soccer development. They need to be taught how to teach. And, they need to learn more about the game. We're far from progressive when it comes to understanding how kids learn, what tactics the professional teams use, and the way soccer professionals in other countries get their soccer education. We're just really uneducated in a lot of ways.
Did you see the articles in this month's Soccer Journal? Particularly interesting was "Total Defending + Verticality." "Verticality" in this context means early penetration by short passing. Enough said about that. The discussion on defensive organization was very interesting. The idea of mixing elements of zone and man-to-man defenses has been around for a long time. The idea of adjusting defensive organizations during a match is not news either. But, to have a game plan that includes regularly switching defensive organizations depending on the area of the field and other cues is news to me. While this concept isn't going to change team tactics at the youth level (you have to learn to crawl before you sprint), it does reinforce my view that youth coaches should be developing well-rounded senior players able to play any style and system. I just never imagined that the senior would be playing 3 different defensive systems at the same time. It is certainly nothing I ever coached on an adult team. I was too busy trying to keep 11 effective players in any system on the field, and nobody over 30 wanted to try something new. The designation of 433 as our system of choice doesn't reduce the skills and tactics that should be taught youth players. The classic 433 organization also includes a 442 organization for defending near your own goal and a 343 organization for attacking through the middle third. By classic I mean played that way by Dutch and Brazilian teams 40-50 years ago. Indeed the article compares Bayern's defensive play to Dutch style total soccer attacking play. What we need to teach players is simple--everything. Twenty26Six has the right of it--coaches need to be taught how to teach.
You mean new theories on childhood development and learning since Piaget in 1936 have been put forth?
Something that was mentioned in an article about Riquelme's retirement...the commenter said that he (the classic #10 with loads of skill and vision) is becoming extinct because of the high pressing/speed/tracing back tactics that are becoming more prevalent. I see it now in a few of the U9-U10 teams we play. Riquelme was never about work rate.
I don't see the game quite that way. Pressing has been around high level soccer for over 40 years. So have the 442 and 433 systems. While it is not wrong to think of it as a position going out of favor, I see it as trends in defensive organization changing. The "classic #10" was originally called an "inside forward." Then the defensive trend was to move players back, eventually turning into the 4-man back line systems. And so on. In these systems the playmaker role typically falls on the CMs. The classic 433 has 3 CMs. In a system with 2 holding midfielders (DCMs), that is where the playmaking skills are needed, if the team is to be successful at high levels. Exceptions are teams with creative wingers. Teams that use a playmaking roleplayer position, have a weakness--their attack is predictable. This was always a compromise strategy to make up for a comparible lack of skill in other players and make a relatively slow player with great skills more effective. It is always better to have several attacking players with great ball skills and vision, than only one. I think the "classic #10" is more suited for a 352 with an CAM playing between the lines (3-4-1-2). While some teams were successful with 3-man back lines at the last world cup, club teams are usually better organized than national teams. I don't think the limited success necessarily precedes a wave of top clubs switching to a 3-man back line. The Soccer Journal article was comparing Bayerns defensive organization to total soccer's attacking organization. Reading it I couldn't help but remember Cruyff's comment that most people didn't appreciate the defensive nature of Dutch total soccer. The concept is that defense begins with a good attacking shape before any transition to defense. Barca with its Tiki-taka was interesting in that it in effect had 4 or more players with the creative CM skills. It took several years for clubs to figure out how to stop them. What I find most interesting now is what is happening defensively at Bayern. How does the defensive organization match up with the attacking organization in the different areas of the field?
Not to detour the purpose of the article, but with a little google research I discovered the age that these players were identified and plucked away by academies: Messi age 11 Argentina Neymar age 11 Brazil Wayne Rooney age 9 England Cristino Rinaldo age 8 Portugal So 4 countries represented here and question is were these children already well trained in soccer technique much more so that their peer group or were they phenom young athletes that were identified that could potentially be top flite soccer players later in life worthy of the investment of the pro clubs/academies? Where I'm going is that in US I see so much wasted talented of our young top athletic soccer players that flounder in grass roots and recreational soccer that don't even end up playing at local clubs to get better technical training. Not saying we should follow same academy model as other countries but we need better identification and retention of young top flite athletes to continue on with soccer at minimum along with better training at U12 and under as well. Trying to get better training/coaching at younger ages is the hard method. Identifying and retention of talented soccer athletes is the easier approach and needs more emphasis IMO for better National teams and overall output of US soccer players at the world stage.
The top academies recruit the best players that they can find. (Thinking that kids are either skilled "technical" players or gifted athletes is misleading. Both of these are the same--movements that can be coached and developed.) The kids that Barca recruits for instance would be playing at another academy if Barca had not taken them. Why are the best players the best players? Typically it is because they had opportunities to learn and play and took advantage of the opportunities. Other kids either didn't have the opportunities or else didn't take advantage of them. Sometimes one or both parents are gifted athletes. Often the kids have played with older kids, brothers and neighbors. Such as Tim Howard, who was spotted by a professional keeper coach, who trained him for free and helped him get his first professional contract.
You can be a gifted athlete and terrible technically. Of course by technically skill I refer to first touch, decision making etc. Not the same things to me.