USSF Player Development and Standard Liege's Bruyninckx

This is a fascinating and worthwhile read for those that believe that the USSF should take the lead in working with the MLS and other players and put the focus on developing US talent for the future.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/soccer/12/17/blizzard.sinnott.mental/index.html
With the wealth of sports psychologists, physiologists, and the university and research one would thing that we could blend this with the best practices overseas to lay the foundations of a truly world class system. Yes, I know that we don't have the money of some but through strategic partnerships and a true focus on the part of the USSF we do so much more than we are doing now.

Also posted here: http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1872248

Very interesting article. And it highlights the very different perspectives between the U.S. and Spain regarding the number of games needed to best develop youth players. Here's the relevant passage in the Sports Illustrated article:


"Barcelona players' high technical level and non-stop movement provide the benchmark for Bruyninckx, but Noonan argues that Barça's recent success as well as Spain's Euro 2008 and 2010 World Cup triumphs are linked to the number of games Spanish youngsters play. "Having visited Spain the way the game is learned over there is not by drills, because that doesn't teach game sense," said Noonan. "In Spain they learn through a games-based approach to help develop and understand time and space. They might play 80-120 games a year, with lots of matches at tournaments and festivals. Playing so many games helps young players to see images in similar situations over and over again. What we need to do is give the kids a good game sense -- understanding time and space -- and develop good technique. We need lots of games and lots of different types of games -- 2 v 2, 3 v 3, 7 v 6 etc -- with lots of different tactics."


Currently, the USSF Academy provides 11 games a year on average, or approximately one game a month, for our nationa's top players in the 15-18 yer old range. According to this article, Spanish youth players average 80 to 120 games a year, and the large number of games is necessary to "help develop and understand time and space."


If the article is accurate, the Spanish model encourages a lot of games for youth players, whereas the USSF Academy model of discourages a lot of games. In Spain, they are averaging a game every three or four days. Under the Academy rules, our top players are averaging a game every 30-35 days.


Assuming the article is factualy accurate, USSF might want to reconsider the 11 game a year model.

There is no way a young teenager should be playing 90 minutes of full games 3 times a week. Basically every other day.
They are not referring to 90 minute 3 substitution full games. They say they need alot of 'games', referring to game simulations 'lots of different types of games -- 2 v 2, 3 v 3, 7 v 6 etc'
You don't need to a team to travel for a competitive game every 2 days to play 90 minutes to train extensively in time and space game training simulations. In a sense training are games: small game situations over and over. You are missing big picture. It makes no sense that a 13 yr old should only be touching one ball with 21 other players on the field. There should be multiple balls with many different players simulating different aspect of 'games'. More touches for more players.
And USSF academy do not average 11 games, with the new 10 month schedule with a game or two a week it will evolve into a 40-50 full game schedule.
Spain has dozens of professional residential training centers to allow more play, The US only has 1 residential training center.

SuDano, it may not make sense to you, but if the article is factually accurate, 80-120 games a year makes sense to the Spanish. Apparently the Spanish do not believe that development occurs only at practice; to the contrary, they believe that a lot of games are necessary to develop a top level player.

It's a different model than the one USSF has decided to pursue. It's interesting.

No what's interesting is how hard you keep trying to push your agenda.

I don't know what the history is between you guys, but its a valid discussion point. Spain seems to have a very different idea about development than the US Dev Academy.
Its not clear from the article what the 80-120 games really means. That sentence talks about what sound like regular games (maybe not all 90 minutes, but regular games). But later in the paragraph, the quote is more about many different types of "games" that don't sound anything like regular 90-minute 11v11 competition. No matter what exactly it says, it definitely calls the Development Academy into question.
Perhaps it would mean that the Dev Academy can get us to be better, but can't ever help us to be really great because of too many drills and not enough game situations. When I coach, I end up reverting to a lot of small-sided games with few restrictions and a few pointers at opportune times. I'm not sure if its the right way, but its what my coaching has become after trying to work on more drills.

We have to use some of our own logic not take information so literally.
If a games not 90 minute 11 v 11 then its not a regular game. If they play 120 40 minute 7 v 7 games do we say they play 120 games a yr.? I guess we'll agree that its fine to play alot of small sided shortened games then for developing players. That's what trainings for. Its explained later in the article. There is no way a teenager is playing full 90 minute games 120 times in 10 months. It does matter what it says and does not call the DA into question.
The DA is so far away from the perfect setup that Spain uses to compare the two is illogical. Is the DA professional, Is the DA residential, is the DA integrated from U6-U18,
is the DA fully funded, is the DA free for players, is the DA paying top coaches top salaries?
Villareal has 76 youth coaches, 76!
......How can we compare the two when they are essentially 30 yrs behind?
Drills and game situations can mean the same. If you set up a 5 on 5 30 minute game situation for 13 yr olds and call it a drill its the same thing.
Dr. Javier Perez who essentially wrote the US curriculum was with Spanish FA and was with Real Madrid. Our system is based on the Spanish system with the limitations of a US system on training wheels.

SuDano is in one sense correct. I'm assuming the 80 - 120 games they are referring to is at the pre-teen level. This is very similar to the environment that Hispanic kids who tend dominate the ranks of ODP and academy clubs out here have had.

But where he fails to understand is the difference between a team being schedule to play games and the number of games an individual player plays. Many of these kids got ahead by playing a large number of games and are now playing very few. All one has to do is look at the Academy pages to see how little so many have played this year.

No you miss the point. Most of the game is played without the ball. If you were able to watch academy games (and you've admitted you really don't) you would see how poorly most of the academy teams move off the ball and how little so many of the players are aware of what is going on around them. Touches on the ball are critical for very young kids. But as kids get older they need to developing an understanding of tactical elements of play.

It is not the number of games the teams play, but instead the number of games the kids play. Go look at the academy pages for Cal-South teams. Outside of a couple of games in the other league, this is all the minutes they played. And unfortunately it won't evolve into anywhere near a 50 game schedule. Even with High School games, a full fall schedule and games throughout the spring and summer, the kids I knew didn't play 50 games.

Also what is your point about professional training centers? If we cannot copy training centers where kids can play and practice more, why should we copy other elements where they kids play less? This has been my point about the stupidity of trying copy solutions where conditions are not the same.

And you don't? I don't know who Headerdunce is so I could be wrong, but it seems to me that Headerdunce has some older kids who played the game at a reasonably high level. I see more common sense comments than any "agenda."

I'm not denying the need to play more games, but to keep saying over and over average of 11 games a year because that is the average amount of time a kid would get if he only played DA games and if he split every min evenly with every other player. When we know that clearly it is not true. Yes, Joe Bench warmer might not get much time, but if a kid is 17/18 and is still riding a bench on a none elite team, is he really much a pro prospect(thus worthy of discussion on this board)?? And wouldn't these Spanish teams have the exact same kids (who's playing time is dramatically lower then the "elite")?? The real comparison should be how many mins the Torre's/Villareal's/Daniel Garcia's/Kellen Gulley's are getting vs how many the top Barca/Valencia/Madrid players get.

And yes, that may be tough on the "average" kid that could see overall playing time across the board drop. But thats the way it is in competitive environments.

Do some of you really believe that these the academies are just playing 11 games a year? Come on.

That's what I was thinking. Actually I have not witnessed too many practices that are not mostly made up up simulated game situations from working on corners, 2 V 2 and so on

This article may help a bit. A dad from Minnesota compares and contrasts youth soccer back home to youth soccer in Spain. He and this 3 boys (2 10 year olds, and an 8 year old) are in Spain for a year while the boys are in a year long exchange program.
http://www.insidemnsoccer.com/2011/12/11/youth-soccer-in-madrid-and-minnesota-a-parent’s-comparison/

Some points

- 11v11 starts at age 10 and the games are 60 minutes

- Youth league runs from September to May

- 3 90-minute team practices per week for 10 year olds

- 2 adult paid coaches per team

- One adult referee per game

- Age groups are two years instead of one year (example: 10-11, instead of just 10 year old)

Also interesting notes about the opportunities or lack there of for girls in Spain compared to Minnesota

The article was written from an English perspective, i.e. what they are doing right on the continent that the English are not doing. This is one:
"In the 2008-09 season 57 percent of players at Premier League academies were born between September and December, while 14 percent had their birthday between May and August. That suggests that the more physically mature children in any given school year are being selected by clubs." The argument being that the English see the game as primarily physical while the Spanish see it as technical and Bruyninckx and others see it as mental.

Leading to "for too long England has been coaching players in pretty much the same way, but expecting the end product to be different and thinking somehow talent will magically appear."

In relation to Spain, it was noted that Spanish players play many games, and not just drills but also formal and informal matches. According to Geoff Noonan, who is Fulham academy co-ordinator for the Under-7 to Under-11 age groups "What we need to do is give the kids a good game sense -- understanding time and space -- and develop good technique. We need lots of games and lots of different types of games -- 2 v 2, 3 v 3, 7 v 6 etc -- with lots of different tactics."

What I am arguing for is for the USSF to really focus on player development and upon the coordination of efforts between the many parties involved to get to innovative, modern best practices. Why not get our universities involved in studying player development from the mental, physical, and technical viewpoint? I'd love to see more research into the functioning of the brain in soccer and in developing it in younger players.

Villareal is a professional organization that can fund their youth teams and run things any way they want. Michigan Wolves or FC Delco are amateur organizations that can fund very little and have to go along with a consensus among other top amateur clubs.

I mentioned I don't watch any live DA games. Syracuse where Empire United played this year is about 2 hrs away. Over the past few years the DA finals and showcase archived all the games so I've seen probably 30-40 games. With that being said I agree movement was lacking in most games and the solution is not to then go back out the next day and play another 90 minute full sided game for a teenager to now learn that aspect of his game. It comes from the training - game cycle. For some reason you totally discount the 'game' aspects of training. If movement needs to be worked on you break down the game into components and work on the essence of that part of the game. You now work on 3 v 2 movement, then work on midfield 5 v 5 and guide players to open passing lanes, keep shape and distance constant, know when to overlap. Then after working on improving movement you can play small sided shorter games in practice or even play a full sided game. Its still a game even if it happens in practice. You don't need a team to travel or hire a ref and score keeper, incur all the expense of having an official game with a team traveling 3 hours. Its still a game if its unofficial vs other teams in the area, vs the U18 team, vs an older girls team. Its even a game if you play vs other members of your own team. So in my mind you play alot of games vs other very good players on your own team without the official connotation of having it officially documented on the USSF website.
And that's the reason the USSF has increased the season to 10 months so they do play more. Games and Training where they do play 'games'. I often think of the if no one is there and a tree falls in a forest does it make a sound. If a DA team plays a game or game simulations in practice did they not just play a game even if it wasn't accounted for as an official game on the website for others to see. Don't be so discounting of training and the game benefits it provides for top players. They don't need more official games they need more games and the 10 month schedule partially addresses that need. And by games I don't mean full 90 minute full sided games vs other DA teams.

The Academy teams play approximately 30 games a year. Assuming a 30 man roster, the average Academy player plays 11 full games a year. It is not a lot of games for our nation's "elite" players.

Spain's system apparently provides significantly more games, including leagues, tournaments and festivals.

Doesn't help either that kids aren't playing soccer for fun with their buddies when ever they get the time.

I remember reading something that said Cruyff claims most of his skills that he learned as a child didn't come from academies, but playing on the cobblestone streets with his buddies. That's an aspect that we are missing here in the US.

Your right. Because scrimmaging in practice and playing actual games are not the same. Otherwise the guys picking pine on benches in Europe would be doing a lot better than guys who actually play in MLS. Look at the Galaxy:
Tilley 4 games 2 starts; Sorto 6 games 5 starts; Payeras 7 games 5 starts; Villerreal 6 games. Mendiola 3 games and 2 starts. Last year all these kids had double the amount of games at this time. Even Torre who has started all games but one played a lot more last year. Sorto was all academy and the rest have all signed or are looking to sign pro deals. Somehow they missed the memo playing one or two high level league games 1 or 2 days a week would stunt their development.

Okay this is ridiculous.

First of all everybody does not get the same amount of time in a competitive environment. Second of all I'm pretty sure there are more games played than the standard 30. It probably depends on the academy, but I am sure there are tournaments and an unofficial matches as well.

Finally, you really think teenagers are playing 120, 90 minute, non-small sided, full intensity games a year in Spain?


Really?

No youth team in Spain, including Barcelona, plays this many games. He must be referring to game simulations.

simple math, 120/365 One game every three days. Highly improbable. perhaps in a tournament but certainly not year round. Youth is resilient just not superhuman.

I didn't say they WERE all games. I was saying its not clear what it means. Do they play 50 or 60 actual games, or are most of them 8v8 or 6v6 or what. That's all I'm saying. It seems clear though that competitive situations including regular games, festivals, and tournaments are a bigger part of training than they are with the DA where we've recently shied away quite a bit from games and moved toward training. This article seems to indicate that's not necessarily a good way to build player understanding. That's what Spain absolutely crushes the rest of the world at and something where the US is sorely lacking.