USSF Player Development and Standard Liege's Bruyninckx

8 x 8 or 6x6 was used to train for seeing open space and to teach sharp passing on a constrained field and tiny nets. Stressing movement, rapid passing simple touch pass, touch pass shoot score etc. No way either 8vs 8 or 6vs6 would be confused with playing a game. Even 8vs8 is used to learn space exploitation and rapid passing and movement. Most do not even have a keeper.
In any case one can get a bit too intense, every youngster needs both mental and physical respite to progress. Th idea is to keep it fun and teach at the same time.

Sorry. My post was not meant as a correction to yours, just a clarification as I am pretty familiar with Spanish player development approaches.

In Spain, formal drills are de-emphasized in lieu of more game simulations. Whether those games are formal is less important. What matters is taking players out of set up structures where they know in advance what is going to happen (drills), and putting them in situations where they are forced to improvise and respond (game simulation).

The immediate example that comes to mind is trapping a ball. I have seen many drills over the years teaching players to receive the ball correctly. Yet once a player has learned the fundamentals of receiving the ball, drills quickly lose their value. The player knows how the ball is going to be played to them and what their expected response should be. Now, I am sure you can go about setting up some elaborate drill to surprise a player, but a coach in Spain would ask, "What is the point? Start playing."

Bruynicnkx seems to be putting science to what is common sense in Spain. Once a player knows what is coming, the drill loses its value in preparing players for a game. Not that drills should be eliminated entirely, especially in building or reinforcing fundamentals, but games matter more.

I agree. Hopefully the DA teams realize this. My concern is this reaction against the tournament-heavy youth soccer setup (and the huge focus on winning over development) in the US may have brought us to a situation where there is too much practice and drills instead of game-like situations where players have to move off the ball and make tons and tons of decisions. Someone who knows more about DA than I do might be able to address this concern. My guess is that more actual games with refs etc against solid competition (i.e. not just during practice with their own team) would be beneficial, but with a decreased focus on winning and trophies that had become so prevalent in the US.

Isn't it standard practice in Spain (and many other countries for that matter) for most practice sessions to end with a game or have a game incorporated into it at some point?

Your math fails me because it does not account for the variables of talent. Who plays and who doesn't. It doesn't take into account unofficial games and the game aspects of small sided training skill games. And it absolutely fails to accept the competitive benefits of fighting for playing time vs other top players in the DA system. Go play 100 official games vs inferior talent and tell me that is better?

From a ToddSoccerDad father of an RSL U 16 player from another thread:

Everything that I have read indicates that in Barcelona and many of the best Academies the focus is on training form ages 15 to 18 and less on games and victories. My son is on RSL -u-16 and says they have scrimmages and inter squad games all the time. He in fact says that many of these games are played at a higher level than most of the academy games because all of the players are competing for spots. When I look at the Academy schedule and factor in the playoffs RSl U-16 will play about 32 games this year over a ten month period. Factor in a one month break for Christmas and you get an average of one game a week for the season. I think that is enough as long as the roster of the team is not to big.

Who says what players on who's European bench better than guys who play in the MLS. What players, playing for whom, playing how many minutes, playing how well. Your so inspecific there is no response I can think of. Yes there is an argument both ways depending on the specifics of each player. There are players in Europe not getting first team minutes that are better development environment for them instead of MLS.
You're numbers don't add up. The official tables have the Galaxy playing 4 games but the individuals have some in 9 others in 7 and others in 3. I can't explain that but you seem to have a definitive answer. Is the only answer in your mind is that they've played 9 games and R. Mendiola just sat on the bench watching 6 of them? Not due to injury, being in England training, or trialing in Mexico, training with the first team or playing for other teams? I would need to know more before making any far reaching statemnts such as yours. Maybe you are right and they need more official games, so let's fix that in the context of our nation's best training regimen within the DA or professional environments and no HS soccer doesn't solve this issue.

Doesn't really matter whether Mendiola was looking to get signed or if Howe was hurt. If those guys were hurt or on a trail somewhere that means that other kids would be playing even less. The kids on the Galaxy bench are a heck of a lot better prospects that starters than all but a few academy clubs. Sean Dhillon for example has started 25 games last year for the best U16 team in the country and had a single start (but obviously wasn't hurt since he came off the bench in others). Chris Artunez got 28 starts and 34 games and has played in just 5 this year. Ludwig Vargas got 28 starts and played in 35 and he too has just 3 starts in 5 games this year. Plus these kids all got to play high school which hurt them so much they easily won a division which all the other kids except Surf played year round club ball despite playing half there starters up for much of the season.

The point you miss is the the kids I mentioned (Torre, Mendiola, Tilley etc) all played a full season of CSL soccer last year in addition to academy games at South Bay, Arsenal and West Coast. The CSL rosters tended to be smaller so there was more play time and these kids started in virtually all of their games. I really feel for these kids.

Unlike you I've seen kids such as lleget and Gil before they were teens. I've seen and know many kids that have been in national team and regional team camps and games. While I obviously don't know the details of exactly how many games each played, I do know their clubs and the hispanic leagues that many of these kids played. They got good by playing and playing a lot. They didn't do it with by playing an average of 2 games a month from Aug. through December.

You don't have a clue about any of the players or the level of play so you xan think this thing was the best innovation since sliced bread if you want. I can't say I'm quite involved as I once was, but I know that many people are very unhappy. Unlike Texas where teams played virtually every week, the fall schedule for Cal-South teams was a complete joke. This fall was a big step backwards for many local kids and US Soccer shares in the blame.

You very well may be right on the number of official games for some players. That doesn't separate the grain from its chaff. Its your lack of specifics that fail to persuade me. You seem to hint at details but don't tell the whole story. I am not familiar with these players and they may indeed should be playing more or may not be good enough for the DA environment. I don't know because you don't specify. Last yr many SoCal teams played 18 games, but you say these players played 27. Are these official games or unofficial games, how many times do they train, what is their competiton level for these games, are they DA quality, or HS quality. That covers the full breadth of 'playing alot' in my mind. Its just as bad to have played 27 games with limited practice as it is to play no games and just practice. I don't know because you don't specify. Are you saying these players played 27 DA games during the DA calender year and this year they only played five? If that's true please help them by showing the error of their ways. I'm hoping there is a better explanation than an increase to a 10 month schedule with a out the requisite games for the proper game to training ratio. A 50% increase in season but a 80% decrease in competitive games. If true you are absolutely right. There is a proper balance to not only game to practice but to incorporate competition and coaching into the formula. You only mention games without the context of what is a game, how many games is appropriate, and the level of those games. All questions you do not answer.

To clarify, when I speak of games, I am referring to any exercise which forces players to instinctively respond to an unplanned circumstance - game simulation. The better teams use game simulations at least 80% of practice, if not more. Some of that is in a scrimmage, most often small sided.

The value of formal games against other teams is to protect against the bubble syndrome. Anyone who has played on any team is familiar with the apathy and stagnation that is nearly impossible to prevent when you face the same competition every day. So mixing it up against outside competition is helpful to protect against teams starting to stagnate in a bubble. They are also typically more tense, and it is always valuable to see players perform under more pressure.

I have often wondered if Bradenton does not suffer badly from the bubble syndrome. In the last cycle, I thought the players looked better at the beginning of the cycle than they did at the end in the U17 championships. Again this cycle, the new kids looked fresh and aggressive at the Nike games. I will be curious to see how they look at the end of the cycle.

The reason I do answer is that the information is widely available and I wrote it before in the thread I started on this particular topic. But let me try once again.

1)- US Soccer has the Academy schedule going back 3 years. I got the numbers from there with a couple of clicks as can you.
2) There has been no change in training. Players trained just as much last year with same coaches (for the most part - there are always some changes)
3) The games were CSL games with teams Academy teams and teams like South Bay Force - where Pats got the players to help the win the U18 Academy conference. www.coastsoccer.com -previous season 2010 Premier/Gold. For example, in U17 South Bay finished first. Arsenal finished tied for 5th, Pats finished 9th, Real SoCal finished 11th with one win and ISC finished last with no wins. I can't say I watched all that much of these games but based on these results I think it is safe to say the quality of teams was pretty good. What do you think?

The primary change was the Galaxy who's teams played High School soccer instead of CSL. As I understand it the Galaxy players attended Galaxy practices if they didn't have high school games which means they actually practiced every day of the week like the Euro kids do. Since the U16s won the Academy division, it seems that High School play here might a bit better than you realize. So the only change is that kids got a very uneven schedule with a lot less playing time. I know the press releases say this is has been such a great improvement but the parents and players know it is a noticeable step backwards. Can you please explain how it is not?

No I'm done. This post seals it for me. You aren't using actual games of players but 'getting them from the internet' and only adding up games to fit your agenda.
The only glimmer of credability you have the depth of talent in SoCal which I do believe allows talented players not good enough for DA to play in other leagues. It has nothing to do with what the DA is doing. Full disclosure: What is your connection to HS soccer?

SuDano. Scoachd1 has provided objective stats showing that Academy players in SoCal are getting less games than last year, when they had CSL or high school games in addition to Academy games. Same coaches, same teammates, same number of practices, less games. How is that an improvement for these players?

And Galaxy won the Academy U16 division while allowing its players to play for their high schools. From what I understand, most observers felt the Galaxy youth teams played beautiful, possession oriented soccer last year. It's hard to indict all high school soccer given the facts.

SUDano has no real experience, knowledge or personal contacts and was too lazy to actually look anything up for himself (herself?). If you look at the way he questions the level of competition it is obvious he had absolutely no clue that clubs like SB Force, West Coast, and United FC have have produced more National team players in the past for years than many academy clubs.

He assumes just because I gave him and objective source that anyone can verify that I must therefore must be like him and know nothing but what I read on the internet. What is really ironic is that he uses this logic as the basis for terminating a discussion. He is very quick to offer his expert opinion but even faster to run away when asked to support it with anything other than some trite general information piece found on the web.

Apropos of the clubs you named, SBF is now an affiliate of the Galaxy, and United FC is an affiliate of Chivas USA.

In the DC area, DC United's success in developing homegrown players has been more a product of their excellent recruiting than their coaching (although they finally have appointed an excellent director).

I don't know how an MLS DA in a huge, spread out area like Los Angeles could do a good job getting the best players without a lot of affiliate DAs. It is always interesting to watch southern California and how that system develops.

I agree. Its not indictment of HS soccer as a whole, (particularly in SoCal) its the denigration of the new national DA 10 month schedule in favor of HS soccer. Its the ignoring of the obvious advantages of that goal for the whole country. Its about choices and anyone can choose the path in life they so desire. The only point he is trying to make is less games, games, games, games and games, then refers to only what his eyes see infront of him in Southern California. I see a bigger picture, while it may negatively impact some in the short term its advantages as an imperfect step to the eventual and ultimate goal is close to irreproachable. We can disagree, I have no agenda and have no direct experience with any organization. And thankfully I agree with the powers at USSF that have that same goal and have thousands of years of experience to see that big picture.

Come on now. Its not just my point the USSF agrees. You can try to fake your way through your stats, even you said you just looked on the internet to see how many games obscure players have played. That's real experience? You first say HS soccer then you switch to CSL. You're a moving target. I have explained in detail my view and its coincides with those who at USSF with thousands of years of experience.
You disagree with them, not me, so be it. You can argue your point on your sinking ship until someone listens. While you have a few good points that could be improved upon with the DA system your overriding point that the DA and its 10 month schedule is not the right step is in direct arguement with what's going to happen. Try to convince them, not me.
You can attack me all you want, its over, its been decided, get in line or get out of the way. Change has happened.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5QGkOGZubQ&feature=related"]You Get Nothing! - YouTube[/ame]

Isn't that how great academy programs develop players? For example, instead of just recruiting in the DC area, Barcelona recruits players world wide. According to this Barcelona signs 10-year-old American prodigy to academy they have very young players from US and Canada.

Given your posts, I'm not surprised by the choice of movies you referenced. As you get older you'll more fully realize so called experts with "Thousands of years of experience" often lack the knowledge and experience you would hope.

I don't know who is right in this discussion, but I do know making comments about a poster's age (if you even know what it is) or movie choices or people with experience with this kind of derision isn't doing anything for your argument.

None of the arguments from authority or lack thereof are helping. I don't claim authority on the subject, except that as an analytical person I can see that headerdunce's original interpretation contained a lot of dubious textual analysis (for instance, Noonan looks to be using 'matches', not 'games' where he means full-sided, scheduled affairs with a referee where score might even be kept), stacked upon some clearly bad math.

It's a shame, because the interpretation you've used (that he's talking about the replacement of drills with various small sided game simulations) is both likely based on the text, and worth discussing. But the thread is getting basically jacked from it.

Without doubt, Noonan's statements regarding the Spanish developmental model are less than 100% clear.

The problem I have tried to point out, apparently not well, is that the Academy is providing way too little soccer for our nation's best players. It provides less soccer than the Spanish model. It provides less soccer than the previous model of club and high school combined. And, if the Spanish are correct in their view that actual game scenarios are the best way to develop top players, then the Academy is sorely lacking in development. For example:


1. In a ten month season, the Academy only requires three practices
a week. So, based on approximately 41 weeks, the average Academy
player gets 123 practices a year. Assuming two hour practices, that's
246 hours of practice a year. That's about 40 minutes of practice a
day over the year, and less than an hour a day during the ten month
season;


2. In the ten month Academy season, the average player on a 30 man
roster will get 11 full games, i.e., 1.1 games per month during season
and .91 games a month over the period of a year.


Does anyone think we can interpret Noonan's commments to suggest that Spain's top players practice less than an hour a day over the course of a year? Or that they average only 11 full matches with a referee and formal competition over the course of a year? And where are our top players supposed to get the additional 69-109 "games," even if "informal" games, that the Spanish are getting beyond the 11 full games the average Academy player will get?


In southern California, the top players were getting a lot more soccer (practice and games combined) before the Academy imposed these new rules. In effect, USSF has reduced the amount of combined practice and game time of the best players in southern California. Why? How does that help? Shouldn't the Academy be demanding more time from its players? More commitment?


And, as scoachd1 notes, the non-MLS Academy clubs largely use the same coaches as before.


So the question remains: how has the Academy improved the development of our nation's top players in the competitive regions like southern California? It seems to me that if the Academy really wanted to get serious, it would mandate 5-6 practices a week and limit roster sizes to 18-20. Those two actions alone would greatly enhance the program. But most of the Academy clubs "need the dues" and, therefore, can't or won't agree to more practices and smaller rosters.



It appears that USSF either: (1) has agreed to let the Academy clubs have unlimited rosters and only three practices a week to accomodate the clubs' economic desires at the expense of the players. or (2) USSF really believes that America's top players need to participate in only three practices a week and to play only 11 full formal games a year to become the best they can become.


And all of these concerns are in addition to the larger, overriding concern of how to properly market the sport to the average sports fan.






.

U have a valid point. The goal of ussf is to have more quality and quantity time with players and more meaningful high level games. the season schedule of 1-2 games usually on weekend is same as England and Brasil that I know first hand. The problem is the amount of games only really covers about 6months worth(excluding playoffs, showcase). The season should be all year with winter break of 4-6 weeks and summer break maybe 6-8 weeks. 9 months of games and 10months with preseason included. The problem is money but I suggest taking that Bradenton savings, mls and ussf monetary contribution to fully fund system. As I have posted before only FT's would be covered and DP's can be listed but would have to foot their own bill. This would limit size of rosters and create a more competitive professional like environment where one has to fight to make that roster and benefit is "free" (since in US we can't pay youth). What u think?

If the USSF could fully fund the Academy (so no player pays to practice, play or travel) AND if the rosters were limited to 18-20 AND if the teams were required to practice 5-6 days a week AND if the teams had more consistent games throughout the year (as you propose), THEN the Academy would be a substantially better alternative to the current club system in southern California for purposes of producing better players.