USSF Development Academy 2.0

I have to say that this is a tough issue that I have witnessed first hand. My son has experienced both positives and negatives from it. In the club system of August birthdate cut off Lucas was absolutley dominant against any player he faced in the country and that included the semi finals last year of Region 4 against a very good Nuesport team. I have even seen him play against many of the players down at Bradenton who are on the u-17 National team and Lucas in my humble view was just as good if not better in those games. In fact I had the assistant coach of the u-17 national team last year walk on the field after the semi final and invite Lucas to come down and told him that he was one of the best he had seen. Then he looked at his player card and said "damn your 6 weeks to old". That is the down side that Lucas has to be better than guys like Ben Spencer and Jordan Allen to make the National Team and like it or not that 6 to ten months of age difference does matter. On the flip side Lucas has been playing on a U-16 team full of older 95s that pushed him everyday of training. He played ODP Region 4 with a squad full of old 95s and was able to be an MVP of a game in Costa Rica. So I guess there had to be an age cut off and Lucas has missed some great opportunities becuase of it but then again he might not be the player he is if he were born six weeks later because he would not have been pushed so hard. I have always thought that since the one year age difference does matter so much that until the 18 age group the national team should have an A and B age group and divide the year up into 6 month segments. You really think a late born 97 will have much a chance making the next u-17 team when those old 96s will be two years older than him?

While fairly irrelevant, here's ESPN Rise's U17/18 DA rankings................

http://espn.go.com/high-school/boys-soccer/story/_/id/7944858/under-17-18-academy-rankings

1) Chicago Fire (14-2-1)
2) FC Dallas (22-3-3)
3) Shattuck's St. Mary's (12-2-2)
4) Socker's FC (11-3-3)
5) PDA (12-3-4)
6) Baltimore Bays (14-4-1)
7) NYRB (11-4-4)
8) LAG (17-4-3)
9) Vancouver (15-4-3)
10) Albertson SC (12-4-4)

The biggest dropper was the Galaxy, while the biggest risers were the Bays and NYRB.

The U15/16 rankings are here as well. The Dallas Texans are their #1 ranked team in this age group.

http://espn.go.com/high-school/boys-soccer/story/_/id/7944857/under-15-16-academy-rankings

These are the ESPN rankings, right? Which means that they are purely performance based. Not that I don't want the Fire to be the number one academy in the country, but they definitely are not in terms of player development. Does the USSF do a separate ranking system based on their goals for the academy program?

I will vouch for the rise of Baltimore Bays Chelsea. I have seen them play three times this year and walked away impressed all three times. They have a lot of skillful, composed and tough players who play good soccer. A lot of them will be playing in good Division I programs. One of those teams who's total is worth more than the sum of it's parts, but the parts are still good.

They don't and i don't know how they would do that.

http://www.ussoccer.com/~/media/3305613D7F3A4954A9D2EFB60D7479A0.ashx

ESPN is simply using a point per game calculation. Doesn't take anything about the strength of division or schedule into account. The USSF does a mid-season and end of year evaluation (or at least did last year) and released the end of year evaluations to the public.

Doesn't look like it's simply points per game. Otherwise, the #7 Red Bulls would be quite a bit lower.

Looking a little more closely, Albertson has a better overall record than NYRB and also has a better record in the same division. Yet it's ranked lower. Go figure.

Running my rating system on the DA would be really easy. But I'm not sure what the point of it would be. Folks should be able to eyeball team strength pretty well and team strength really isn't the point anyway.

As opposed to strength of the teams, the USSF ranks them based on performance AND emphasis on development to incentivize the development of players as opposed to just the results.

As you say, Voros, team strength isn't really the point, although I couldn't help but be curious to see your results, anyway. And while I'm writing, I do have a DA stats question that might be more interesting.

There's a kid named Todd Wharton who despite playing for a terrible Richmond Strikers team has managed to score 14 goals in 19 games, which I find impressive. What I'm unsure of is how much his numbers should be adjusted, either for the strength of his team, or for the strength of the region they play in. Have you tackled this kind of problem much, or seen others do it well?

Thanks, and I hope you don't mind the question.

Found kekuta manneh. Looks like he left DA and now playing in PDL for Austin Azteks. Good for him he needs to be training and playing with men.

Potomac are terrible - the worst team that I have seen play this year. Their record is 1 - 11 - 7, yet one of those ties is against Albertson - a top 10 team. The highs and lows that teenagers go through as they learn from their mistakes can be maddening. The November results in the Northeast division are particularly bizarre as that was when the kids were first getting back together after high school soccer. In addition, the Winter showcase results tend to be all over the map.

Example, Baltimore Bays Chelsea lost in November to Empire United, a team I am certain they would beat if they played them today, then proceeded to lose all three games in the winter showcase - who knows who from their team even made the trip? At that point they were 1 - 4. They haven't lost since and the only team that they tied was Red Bull New York. Many of their wins have been impressive and they have played very good soccer throughout the season. I am not saying that they are unbeatable, just that they are pretty good right now and probably deserve to be recognized as a group of players that are worth keeping an eye out for. Beyond that, I think you just need to watch them play and evaluate the players individually.

So ranking teams base on their overall record is not really going to serve a purpose other than to recognize that certain teams are having pretty good overall success in terms of wins and losses. Beyond that, I'm not sure what we can get out of it.

It is fun for the kids and has its place in soccer but at the end of the day the academies should be mainly about developing players. Bus as has been said before as the players get inito the u-18 age group the best teams with the best players should do well in the games and get results. The ranking serve to speculate on who the top 10 are but my guess is at most 4 of those top ten teams will be standing among the final 8 in Houston. My only complaint about standings and results is that coaches will focus in on just getting results and that once again can mean playing the physically stonger older boy over the weaker but technically better younger player.

Looks like a lot of BS

My grandson played for an academy team and he is now playing in college. It was my experience that there was much more emphasis on game results than on developing players

A lot of academy teams say all of the right things about player development, but have a focus primarily on results. This is a much deeper problem in the academies than a lot of people want to admit.

I find this oddly similar to people that complain about the death of small business in America then shop at Walmart. Many parents preach that their coaches should worry more about development then winning. But when push comes to shove they all want there kids to be on the winning teams....the market dictates that said coaches must coach this way.

The problem is in how to balance winning into the equation. The kids need to focus on winning as that is how a coach can help them to grow psychologically, but while the coach is helping players focus on getting better results (this is usually the short term motivation to get better), he is doing it by teaching players how to play soccer. This is the problem. Rather than focus on teaching kids how to play soccer at a higher level, many coaches focus on "game day adjustments" or formations or set pieces or substitutions and think that is what good coaching is all about. Kids who have good technique when the ball is still and nobody is moving around never grow as decision makers - as players - and nobody holds the coach accountable because very few people expect the coach to really teach anybody how to play. Quite frankly, many people on this board don't think that it is even possible and post with that assumption.

'Coaches need to teach players the "principles of play" as the new youth soccer curriculum names them rather than focusing only on game day adjustments that get results. This is not the case at a lot of academies that I view regularly. Players need to be taught how the game works so that, over the course of a 10 month season, players become dramatically better decision makers and dramatically more composed, intelligent players of the game. This is taking place in some academy programs, but in way, way too few. Some, if we are being honest, don't even attempt to teach the players anything about how the game works and it shows in the rushed, direct way that some teams play. They aren't playing direct soccer because they want to. They are playing direct soccer because they don't have the ability to make sense of what is happening around them and just boot the ball forward in order to relieve themselves of the pressure around them.

Some academies get some good players to begin with so they fool themselves into thinking that "we keep the ball on the ground" but they don't attempt to help the players get better. On these teams, players will show flashes of extreme skill, but the team will show very little overall understanding of how the game works.

The most disappointing thing to watch for me has been the teams that have figured out how to play just good enough soccer to get a 2.0 or 2.5 rating, and then blow off getting any better so that they can focus on results. Outside backs don't overlap well. Players play at one speed. The team doesn't create numerical advantages as they attack, but they technically are "working the ball out of the back" so they can get the minimal rating for style of play. This approach inevitably devolves into ramming the ball into the goal with pure intensity and a lot of tight, man to man marking on defense without the thought of adding to the attack.

So, rather than judging coaches by their won-loss record, we need to be judging them by how their players support the ball offensively and defensively, by how their players distinguish when to penetrate and when to possess the ball and if they actually use possession purposefully to set up higher quality penetration or are they just "keeping the ball on the ground" with no shared understanding between the players as to what they are doing. Are the players creating numerical advantages when they attack or is the movement off of the ball disjointed and individual in it's focus? When players change direction, do they do it mechanically and predictably, or do they "set it up" to make it more deceptive and therefor, more effective? How do the players transition between offense and defense? Is there a plan or do the players "wing it" every time that the ball is turned over? The better a player gets at these things, the faster he does them - the faster a team does them together, the more enjoyable the game is to play and to watch. What I just described is what Barcelona do. They just do it so fast and well that it can be mesmerizing to watch.

Too often, when a team does the things that I described above, people assume "that team has so much talent" when they should be saying "those players understand the game of soccer". There is a huge difference. Everybody has talent. It is what you do with it that counts and too many coaches in academies, and I am talking about coaches, in some cases, with great resumes who can wax poetically about the game, just don't teach kids how to be better players. They don't because nobody expects them to. They can talk like they do, but I see a lot of coaches with 1.5 or 2.0 ratings for playing style who talk about how "they do things right". They don't and as long as we in the soccer community judge them only by their won/loss record in spite of the academy rating system, as imperfect as it is, they will continue to not do things right, but talk like they do.

As we know, it's possible to do both..................as long as the academy takes a long-term view on development. Many of the kids in the FCD academy have been there since they were 11-12 learning how to play the game the "FCD way" as the club calls it. I think under Pareja the club did a good job of playing with the desired technical style while also winning matches. It's what's gotten that particular club the highest rating by the USSF>

Note that the FCD academy rarely does well in terms of results at the U16 level. They're "middle of the pack" most years in the Texas division. We barely ever talk about that team on these boards. That's because winning isn't that important to that group. But then the U18 team is dominant in the Texas division in terms of results.

By the time kids are 17-18, much of the development has been done. These kids have been in the program 5 or 6 years. The team has weeded out the subpar technical performers. Each player on that squad is considered a potential homegrown signing. Each one is being scouted by major college programs, as well as overseas clubs (in particular, the Mexican scouts swarm down here like locusts.) So while winning with that group isn't the be-all end-all primary objective............it's OK at that age for winning matches to be an objective. After all, having a "winning attitude" is a desirable attribute.

If we're gonna keep score, the kids are gonna try to win. It's up to the coaches to ensure that the kids are trying to win in the right manner.

I too see much of what you describe. While the technical play in this area is probably stronger, I still see a lack of understanding. While I don’t disagree with your assessment that academy coaches might be spending too much time on making adjustments, my belief is that the challenge the good coaches face is somewhat of a daunting one. The principles of play are something that most kids should already have a good understanding of by U10 or U11. If kids are coming to the Academy level thinking they are "right forwards," trying to teach kids like this concepts of space and movement becomes extremely challenging. At best you often get mechanical movement because this type of thinking is completely counter to their mental model of how to play the game. I also think a lot of coaches lack the knowledge themselves. I think those that have it often don't feel it is worth expending too much effort in this area given the other things they need to train.

I'm not a Texas guy like you so I may have this wrong, but I think if you go back you will find that FC Dallas U16s actually won their division the first two years (08-09, 09-10). So while they were not the best in the academy at that age, the U18s for the past couple of years had a lot of success at the U16 level.

To me, what differentiates FC Dallas U18 from other clubs that had U16 teams is that almost all their players have played two years at U18. Older players born Jan-Aug in other academy clubs typically end up going to college. In contrast the FC Dallas has a player base that is predominantly Latino where kids have been less likely to go to college much like Chivas USA had been. But the difference is that Dallas has been able to retain their players through agressive home grown signings while Chivas USA has lost a large number to Mexican clubs. If you compare the 2009-2010 FC Dallas U16 team to the current team, you can how stable this core has been compared to other academy teams.

It will be interesting to see what happens to the upcoming U16 groups that have not been as successful and whose players will have a lot more internal competition for the limited home grown spots.

What you said is very true and that is why Lucas and I will take very seriouisly the decision on where he should play the next two years. RSL has great training and is residential but It has become very clear by all the sophomores that have left this year that their focus is on winning. There is no doubt in my mind that his senior year he will get plenty of playing time but his junior year as a young U-18 might be more of a challenge and I am not sure that is what is best. The next month should be interesting talks in deciding plans for the next two years.

Anyone heard a date and location for Generation Adidas this year?

The discussion regarding game time, development and results is interesting. My background- father of 95 academy boy who plays and starts almost all the U-18 academy games for his club. I believe his club coaches provide an environment for development and preach: possession, play from the back, pace, one/two touch.... Some kids get it more then others but just like a math student whose teacher teaches algebra for a week on test day (game day) they all do not solve all of the problems. Americans, and I am a proud one, tend to blame others for our short falls. Just b/c everyone on the team does not get the "beautiful game," (all of the math students do not get As) does not mean that it is not being taught correctly. There is a reason why we are all not professional athletes. I know that there are a lot, the majority, not teaching the "beautiful game" but if you look for it you will find it. I have to assume that most academy teams are receiving the proper instruction??? The commitment mandated by the academy from the players (now no HS; 10 months) demands proper instruction.

Also proper development should result in good records. They concept is not mutually exclusive. Barcelona wins games right?