Youth Clubs - Would this work?

[Sport Billy]

I absolutely hate the youth system in America. (12 and under).

I have an idea for a club and wanted feed back.

My view of the current system:

Too much focus on winning.

I have two main issues with youth soccer.

First. The focus on winning lends to kids who are afraid to lose. Kids who are afraid to lose are afraid to take risks. Kids afraid to take risks fail to be inventive.

Currently, if a kid has true talent and is willing to challenge one on one and be inventive, he is called a ballhog or hotdog and the inventiveness is killed before he has the skills to make real use of it.

Under our current system, kids are afraid to take a ball out of the back because they are too worried they might lose it and be scored upon. Kids in the midfield are afraid to work the ball for the same reasons. Forwards are afraid to challenge anyone because a coach will yell "Why did you hold on to the ball when Jimmy was open." They don't take risky shots because they are told "you'll never score from there". How do they know until they try?

Second, Focus on winning leads to "Ranked teams."
Currently, clubs have 6 or so teams at each age group. That's approximately 90 kids. These clubs usually have a #1 team with the best players on it and it dwindles down from there. Calling it green or Holland or Liverpool doesn't change that. It's wrong.

Kids develop at different ages and at different rates. Having a kid who is currently a mediocre player play only other mediocre players only ensures mediocrity.

Here is my suggestion: for ages under u-12.

Train as many kids as possible together - so say with 90 kids you break it up into 45 and 45. You then practice with small groups each working on 6 different tasks with 6 coaches. Switch it up after 10 minutes or so.

Touches on the ball should always be the focus. Any running without a ball at your foot is useless. (Unless it's ladders, etc which develop quick feet).

When it comes to game time, put everyone in a hat and randomly pick teams. And randomly assign a team to a coach. You then play your games on the weekend. No keeping score in the games. Let the kids play, don't overcoach, reinforce inventive play even when that play fails.

When the game is over, all the names return to the hat and you are on a new team next week.


Would it work from a development stand point?
Would parents do it even if it meant they never get to see Johnny "win"?


Thoughts?

[keeper1031]

In theory, i think thats an awesome idea. No doubt from a pure player development standpoint that would work.

But i think winning and loosing is a vital part of player development. It teaches heart and killer instincts that can not be taught on a training pitch.

I think a good compromise is to stick with the same theory on a large player pool at a certain age. However, on thursday night the coaches should put together 2-3 teams based on who performed best in training that week, so players are rewarded for practicing hard with a spot on the top squad for that weekend.

keeps things competitive, and allows a late bloomer to still get a chance at the top squad.

[ryanelguiri]

I think this is a completely different argument.

You say that you hate the youth system, which is fine.

What you proposed is almost a player development plan, that would work if you were only teaching player development.

One of the large problems it that clubs do not practice as often as they play. Most have one game a week, and one practice a week.

If you had a sort of soccer development program, or training program, then that would work fine.

As for an actual club, I don't think so. You could make it a subsection of a club, but I agree with keeper in that you need to learn how to win and how to lose, albeit it doesnt have to be when you are 5 yrs old.

But, I have to disagree with something you said. If you are mediocre, playing with mediocre players does not signify that specific player will not get any better.

That player will get to a point, in which he needs to be moved up if his skill is improving, however you have to group kids based on their skill level, or even the more advanced kids get held behind.

I agree that clubs should focus more on player development, and group all of those 'poor' mediocre and advanced players together and train.

Interesting plan...

[striker2019]

The OP did specify 12 and under. So this would probably work at the young ages. The idea is good, but practicality is just as important in implementing a good idea. I find quality coaching to be the hardest thing. I was coaching u10s at a club this past fall and was in charge of the entire boys player pool at that age. Except that between my schedule (it obviously didn't pay enough to do it on it's own...more like the amount I would've gotten for doing one team for a whole year at a bigger club) and lack of daylight, I was really only able to train each team once per week. I tried to do both at the same time, but I didn't really have capable (or willing) assistants. So it was hard for me to do 30-40 u10 boys at the same time (in retrospect I could've done some more unstructured play which would've helped...and I did use that, to a degree). If I just did the 'A' team, the 'B' team gets significantly lower quality coaching (two dads who never played and have no coaching experience/license). In my mind, this is one of the country's biggest problems. It makes sense, in general, to place kids on teams where they'll be appropriately challenged. But there's little hope for a kid who's on a club's 'D' team at U10 to really get enough quality work to make up for the coaching the 'A' team kids are getting (sure street soccer would be an idea, but that's not common, at least where I'm from).

Then you face the problems of parents and kids leaving because there's not enough winning, etc. Although I think this can be overcome by 1)being upfront with how things are different at your club and why you're doing things 'right' and 2) success. Even Barca does very well at youth level. They don't just lose to a local amateur club who plays direct to a big guy (I assume). So it's a double edged sword with success. Too much emphasis and you get what we have right now; too little and do you struggle to get quality talent?

For the record I think your idea is great. I've started giving serious thought to starting my own club, at least on a small scale. I've tried getting in touch multiple times with the local club where I grew up (now down to 1 boys team and about 5 girls teams), but they just don't care/understand. I see so many people cranking out mediocrity because they don't care enough to try and do it right...too interested in their own agenda. So I really think you should try and make it work.

[footreads]

I absolutely hate the youth system in America. (12 and under).

I have an idea for a club and wanted feed back.

My view of the current system:

Too much focus on winning.

I have two main issues with youth soccer.

First. The focus on winning lends to kids who are afraid to lose. Kids who are afraid to lose are afraid to take risks. Kids afraid to take risks fail to be inventive.

Currently, if a kid has true talent and is willing to challenge one on one and be inventive, he is called a ballhog or hotdog and the inventiveness is killed before he has the skills to make real use of it.

Under our current system, kids are afraid to take a ball out of the back because they are too worried they might lose it and be scored upon. Kids in the midfield are afraid to work the ball for the same reasons. Forwards are afraid to challenge anyone because a coach will yell "Why did you hold on to the ball when Jimmy was open." They don't take risky shots because they are told "you'll never score from there". How do they know until they try?

Second, Focus on winning leads to "Ranked teams."
Currently, clubs have 6 or so teams at each age group. That's approximately 90 kids. These clubs usually have a #1 team with the best players on it and it dwindles down from there. Calling it green or Holland or Liverpool doesn't change that. It's wrong.

Kids develop at different ages and at different rates. Having a kid who is currently a mediocre player play only other mediocre players only ensures mediocrity.

Here is my suggestion: for ages under u-12.

Train as many kids as possible together - so say with 90 kids you break it up into 45 and 45. You then practice with small groups each working on 6 different tasks with 6 coaches. Switch it up after 10 minutes or so.

Touches on the ball should always be the focus. Any running without a ball at your foot is useless. (Unless it's ladders, etc which develop quick feet).

When it comes to game time, put everyone in a hat and randomly pick teams. And randomly assign a team to a coach. You then play your games on the weekend. No keeping score in the games. Let the kids play, don't overcoach, reinforce inventive play even when that play fails.

When the game is over, all the names return to the hat and you are on a new team next week.


Would it work from a development stand point?
Would parents do it even if it meant they never get to see Johnny "win"?


Thoughts?

I know you have put some time into this, but everything you have said is not knew. It has been said many times before.

So will it work yes and no.

It is not really about just winning and losing. However a coach should never make a player feel afraid to experiment, and try things even things that are low percentage. That is what practice is all about.

In games the kids need to be the decision makers not the coach.

I don't agree that players with real talent that hold the ball are called ball hogs. But there is a time to pass. I like kids to take on the first defender beat that defender. Then look to pass if someone is in a better position up field then the dribbler. That creates space for the team.

The big difference with all our national teams adult and youth then in the better soccer countries is they are afreaid to play the ball out of the back when under pressure. So they throw up 50/50 balls or even less percentage clearances to no one.

Small group coaching on different skill work is already being done. You learn that when you get your D license which is good for 12 and under. They call that station training.

On running without the ball is useless. Player movement without the ball helps open up the field for the dribbler and other teamates. So it is far from useless.

"When it comes to game time, put everyone in a hat and randomly pick teams. And randomly assign a team to a coach."

AYSO plays tournaments in exactly that way. Does it help? It's fun for the player, but it does not help their game. Playing with the same players can help make your teams and individuals game better.

I don't believe playing with and against weaker player would make a players game better.

[equus]

I think it really starts at the rec level.

We have a 4-hour youth module course (covering up to U10) that's offered free if your a league member, i.e., have a kid playing. I took it after my first season with U5, and it totally changed my philosophy on training and dealing with development, even at a young age group.

But most volunteer coaches at these U-Little ages won't even bother to take it, and coach and train their teams as if it were a baseball or basketball team, or even worse, like they were trained as kids -- lines, laps, too much focused on tactics, lectures.

If the kids don't move into a club situation until U10-U12 (which is bound to get more prevalent with the costs involved and the economy), then they end up having to unlearn these bad habits they've been taught.

It should be a requirement for coaching any rec team to take that one course. If you can make the sacrifice to coach, you can put aside four hours to take a course that doesn't cost you a dime and changes the way you approach the game and how your kids develop right out of the gate.

I've seen kids quit soccer way before they really get the hang of it because they're bored at practice, don't play as much as the early developer kids, or have to be subjected to a 'Kicking and Screaming' Will Ferrell-type as a coach. They could potentially be the next great national teamer, but we'll never find out because they lost their interest due to their early experiences.

The money issue is another avenue to cover in critiquing the system, but that can be saved for another post.

[ranova]

What I really dislike about our youth system, no its not a system, our youth situation is labeling 10 year old kids as bad or average players and then shorting them on development. The approach would have merit IF the selections were based on potential, but its often not. Its often based on who is currently the most effective, which is usually about picking the most physically mature kids. Character is more important in soccer than any other sport. How fast you chase a loose ball in the first minute is not as important as how fast you chase a loose ball over the entire 90-plus minutes. Anyone with mental disciple and toughness can get strong and fit. Strength and fitness should be the least important discriminator in selecting 10 year olds.

[DwayneBarry]

Thoughts?


I like the model I've seen where a soccer club is almost like a gym with regularly scheduled "classes". You can have futsal, SSGs, pick-up games for little kids and add strength/fitness training, technique sessions, etc. for older kids. Then during periods of the year organized practices for teams that compete in the state's system. Limited tournament participation.

This does not, however, solve the fundamental problem of pay to play and the only metric parents have of evaluating clubs being their win/loss record. To me, that is fundamentally why the US has not produced great outfield players and why the overall level of your "serious" soccer player skills in this country is poor. Should add, the other reason is kids simply don't play soccer enough on their own.

Any kid with serious talent who doesn't leave this country in their early to mid-teens, like Rossi did, is unlikely to maximize their development simply because the proper developmental environments do not exist in this country.

[DwayneBarry]

I think it really starts at the rec level.

We have a 4-hour youth module course (covering up to U10) that's offered free if your a league member, i.e., have a kid playing. I took it after my first season with U5, and it totally changed my philosophy on training and dealing with development, even at a young age group.

But most volunteer coaches at these U-Little ages won't even bother to take it, and coach and train their teams as if it were a baseball or basketball team, or even worse, like they were trained as kids -- lines, laps, too much focused on tactics, lectures.


OTOH, where I am the coach's training for the U-Littles has been poor at best. Coaching education for U-Littles is mostly about what not to do, not what to do :) Some of things I've seen other coaches doing or attempting to do with little kids is simply shocking.

[footreads]

The youth organization that controles youth soccer and the coaching cources are USYSA and not the USSF. USSF started them, and frankly lost all control to the USYSA. Now what ever they say is like God said to the individual state organizations.

Some people who have been doing this forever feel the youth part is like the Franenstein Monster created by the USSF.

[Twenty26Six]

The youth organization that controles youth soccer and the coaching cources are USYSA and not the USSF.

I believe that the USSF does all coaching courses - except for the National Youth (which US Youth Soccer).

* US Soccer now has the development academy.
* I think that US Youth Soccer sponsors ODP and the National Championship.

[Twenty26Six]

What I really dislike about our youth system, no its not a system, our youth situation is labeling 10 year old kids as bad or average players and then shorting them on development. The approach would have merit IF the selections were based on potential, but its often not. Its often based on who is currently the most effective, which is usually about picking the most physically mature kids. Character is more important in soccer than any other sport. How fast you chase a loose ball in the first minute is not as important as how fast you chase a loose ball over the entire 90-plus minutes. Anyone with mental disciple and toughness can get strong and fit. Strength and fitness should be the least important discriminator in selecting 10 year olds.

Quoted for truth.

I am doing U11 "premier" right now, and I'm still getting criticized for not breaking them up based on current ability. It's silly. They all could conceivably become good premier players.

[rca2]

USSF is our national FIFA organization. So it regulates all FIFA affiliated organizations in this country. USYSA is a USSF organization. US Soccer (Federation) and US Youth Soccer (Association) are assumed names under which they opperate. NSCAA issues coaching "certificates" and AYSO is also another youth soccer organization (it used to be more influential before the huge soccer boom of the last 20 years).

[Twenty26Six]

USSF is our national FIFA organization. So it regulates all FIFA affiliated organizations in this country. USYSA is a USSF organization. US Soccer (Federation) and US Youth Soccer (Association) are assumed names under which they opperate. NSCAA issues coaching "certificates" and AYSO is also another youth soccer organization (it used to be more influential before the huge soccer boom of the last 20 years).

Well, the sad thing about all of this is that US Soccer and USYS _DO NOT_ get along. Essentially, they are competing against each other in more than a few areas.

[Big Soccer Member]

When it comes to game time, put everyone in a hat and randomly pick teams. And randomly assign a team to a coach. You then play your games on the weekend. No keeping score in the games. Let the kids play, don't overcoach, reinforce inventive play even when that play fails. Kids aren't stupid, they will know if they are losing 5-0. I agree that keeping league tables is wrong at young ages, but who are you trying to kid by not keeping score. If anything, that just adds to all of the youth soccer cliches that keep soccer as a sport for kids in the US, and never a respected adult game.

[Twenty26Six]

Kids aren't stupid, they will know if they are losing 5-0. I agree that keeping league tables is wrong at young ages, but who are you trying to kid by not keeping score. If anything, that just adds to all of the youth soccer cliches that keep soccer as a sport for kids in the US, and never a respected adult game.

Funny. B/c, they are pushing for these same changes in England to fix your ailing youth development programs for kids aged 4-12. ;)

Kids play for fun. The score is secondary, and they will forget about it if the parents choose to.

[Sport Billy]

Funny. B/c, they are pushing for these same changes in England to fix your ailing youth development programs for kids aged 4-12. ;)

Kids play for fun. The score is secondary, and they will forget about it if the parents choose to.


True - we never kept score playing at the park with no parents around.
You'd just play for hours and when it was near time to go home, someone would yell "Next goal wins!"

[saabrian]

In theory, i think thats an awesome idea. No doubt from a pure player development standpoint that would work.

But i think winning and loosing is a vital part of player development. It teaches heart and killer instincts that can not be taught on a training pitch.

I think a good compromise is to stick with the same theory on a large player pool at a certain age. However, on thursday night the coaches should put together 2-3 teams based on who performed best in training that week, so players are rewarded for practicing hard with a spot on the top squad for that weekend.

keeps things competitive, and allows a late bloomer to still get a chance at the top squad.

The thing is not to eradicate the concept of winning and losing, but to de-emphasize it at younger age levels, to not be so obsessed by it that it becomes more important than development.

As someone who regularly coaches 11-13 year olds, I can tell you that puberty screws up many players so coaches of kids that age really need to be patient and understand this. If the kids come out of puberty still loving the game and still wanting to improve, the rest will follow. If you refuse to play them or yell at them for being clumsy and they quit the sport, you haven't done your job.

Coaches of kids that age need to focus on player development. The fact of the matter is that most players are naturally competitive anyways so it's not like the drive to win is going to disappear just because coach isn't screaming hysterically at them.

[Sport Billy]

The thing is not to eradicate the concept of winning and losing, but to de-emphasize it at younger age levels, to not be so obsessed by it that it becomes more important than development.

As someone who regularly coaches 11-13 year olds, I can tell you that puberty screws up many players so coaches of kids that age really need to be patient and understand this. If the kids come out of puberty still loving the game and still wanting to improve, the rest will follow. If you refuse to play them or yell at them for being clumsy and they quit the sport, you haven't done your job.

Coaches of kids that age need to focus on player development. The fact of the matter is that most players are naturally competitive anyways so it's not like the drive to win is going to disappear just because coach isn't screaming hysterically at them.

When I was 12 I ran like a 3 legged gazelle :D

[DwayneBarry]

...who are you trying to kid by not keeping score...

My experience is most kids and parents know the score or a close approximation of it. The point of de-emphasizing the score is to discourage coaches from making "tactical" decisions to win games when those decisions hurt player development. Developing all the players is important because it's impossible to pick out which kids are going to stick with the sport or end up being good when they are older.

It's not like it's a panacea though, you still see coach's doing or behaving in entirely inappropriate ways because they think it matters if their U7's go undefeated this season :)