CNNSI: Coaching with Cones

[Chicago1871]

Coaching With Cones (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/us/news/2003/01/14/my_view_sa/)
Pretty solid article with more than a few points. There is a lot of discussion on this particular board with people citing their past experiences, sharing tips, etc. First things first; most of what I have seen has been pretty good. 1,000 heads definetly are better than one, and for those who have never coached before, the advice can be a huge help.

As sport has progressed in this country the "fun-factor" has been lost. We no longer coach our children in an effort to teach them a fun game. No, we coach them to win. The spirit of the game that is so much the subject of countless sports movies has been slowly and methodically bread out of today's youth sporting landscape.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for teaching children how much fun winning is, and letting them taste competitiveness, but sometimes it is just taken to an extent that sickens. The article points out how youngsters today seem today to be over-coached (i.e. those who have taken over coaching the childrens team think that this is sport where every detail needs to be taught to the players). The truth of it, and the sheer beauty of this game is that there is only so much that can be taught. More than any other sport, I think, soccer is a game that is better off learned without a coach. A coach cannot teach touch, feel, love, etc. The best advice I ever got from any of my cocahes was something that I never hear anymore; "Just go home and kick the ball off a wall." Simple, but it is a practice method that taught me more about myself and the game than any coach ever did.

If there was any bit of advice I could give as someone who has been on this earth for 21 years, has played for 17 of those years, and who has "coached" two teams hopefully to a love of the game, it would be "just go home and kick the ball off a wall."

Coach on.

[Richie]

"As sport has progressed in this country the "fun-factor" has been lost. We no longer coach our children in an effort to teach them a fun game."

I don't agree the fun has to be there, but it can be serious fun. Have fun, but also put the work in.
---------------------------------------

"No, we coach them to win".

Usual thing you hear is do we coach for the development of the player or the win? I think developing players get you wins. So no conflict of the interest of players exist as far as I am concerned. Winning is a byproduct of player development. So with player developement comes wins.

"The article points out how youngsters today seem today to be over-coached"

That is true, coaches thinK it is just covering all the bases. Danger in that is we want them to be high percentage perfect, and not take riskes of losing the ball for example. You can't be inventive if you always think high percentage and worry about losing the ball, and the chances of being great playing high percentage is slim. best thing is help making them good decision makers.

"More than any other sport, I think, soccer is a game that is better off learned without a coach."

Don't exactly agree with that. Even in real street soccer there is coaching. Real street soccer is players playing which is also big kids playing with little kids. All ages play together in real street soccer. The little watch the big, and try to do what they do when they see something a move for example that they like. That is coaching the old coach the young by their example on the field.

"A coach cannot teach touch, feel, love, etc."

Again don't agree with it all, I teach them love of game by my example. I wear my love of game on my sleave. I always show it. Anybody I coach or anybody that is around me sees it all the time. I can assure you that love is contagious to the people around me.

"Just go home and kick the ball off a wall."

That is good advice you can practice a lot of things using a wall. Deserted hand ball courts are perfect.

"If there was any bit of advice I could give as someone who has been on this earth for 21 years, has played for 17 of those years, and who has "coached" two teams hopefully to a love of the game, it would be "just go home and kick the ball off a wall."

In my over 50 years and over 40 years as a player and a coach which represents about 2000 games give or take the best thing to pass on to your player besides skills is love of the game. When doing little kids pass that love of game also to their parents better that way.

Richie

[Chicago1871]

Originally posted by Richie

Don't exactly agree with that. Even in real street soccer there is coaching. Real street soccer is players playing which is also big kids playing with little kids. All ages play together in real street soccer. The little watch the big, and try to do what they do when they see something a move for example that they like. That is coaching the old coach the young by their example on the field.

Again don't agree with it all, I teach them love of game by my example. I wear my love of game on my sleave. I always show it. Anybody I coach or anybody that is around me sees it all the time. I can assure you that love is contagious to the people around me.
Ok, looking back, some of my words didn't convey exactly what I wanted to say. The first part about soccer learned without coaching was meant more as "experience is a better coach than the father of a teamate making you run laps if you screw up." And teaching love is technically not possible, but I see what you are going for and agree with how you put it. Love for any sport is contaigious.

Sounds like you have put the time in, please continue to make the impact.

[Richie]

When I answer a post I have a tendency to break down the other persons post practicly sentence by sentence.

I do that so I don't miss points I want to answer, but the downside is sometimes you mess with the actual intent of the writer.

I knew what your getting at.

Plus I used I too much on love of the game.

Most parent coaches in the US don't teach love of the game because they have no love of the game. They have not played. The only reason why they coached to begin with is because their kids decided to play. In most cases when the son stops playing because he has not really fallen in love with the game that parent quits coaching because he had no love of the game.

I should also have added that a coach should do nothing that can hurt a players feelings for the game. You never hurt a player for a win.

I admire your love of the game, and coaching at a young age. I started coaching youth teams while I was still and active player in my very early 20's also.

I was approached by my club for two reasons back then. First the coach of the Under 8/9 team had developed cancer and they needed a replacement. He died 6 months later, and they saw that I liked to be around the field when we were not practing or playing. While there if I saw something that I could help young players improve their game I would just help them.

Richie

[dude8]

some of our best practices are long sessions of world cup, or soccer tennis, even soccer golf.

creativity cannot be coached, but can be demonstrated.

[schmuckatelli]

I don't know where the author of the article lives, but every coaches' clinic I've been to has stressed small sided games, game-like conditions, learning through playing the game. Every instructor I've had has said, in one way or another, that the game is the greatest teacher of all.
Aime Jacquet is telling us nothing different than the Dutch and the Brazilians have told us before: play.
As far as the "fun vs. winning" goes, again, I can only go back to what I've been taught. Most U-12 players will respond to the fun of the game. The competition, with an increasing emphasis on winning, starts after that. U-14's find competition and winning a stimulating part of game-play: why else keep score?
That said, some coaches kill the joy of the game by emphasizing competition too early in a player's development. That doesn't mean this is the norm, as the author seems to suggest.

I'd recommend, instead of "Go home and kick a ball against a wall," "Go home and play".

[Chicago1871]

Originally posted by schmuckatelli
I don't know where the author of the article lives, but every coaches' clinic I've been to has stressed small sided games, game-like conditions, learning through playing the game. Every instructor I've had has said, in one way or another, that the game is the greatest teacher of all.

kill the joy of the game by emphasizing competition too early in a player's development. That doesn't mean this is the norm, as the author seems to suggest.

I'd recommend, instead of "Go home and kick a ball against a wall," "Go home and play".
The coaches you are talking about and the coaches the writer was talking about are two different breeds. Yours are the players of past. Men and women who have played the game for years...nay, decades and have a love for the game. The coaches he is talking about are the weekend warrior type. The "My Kid is Playing so I Will Coach his/her Team" coach. They most likely haven't played, at least not on any high level and have little love for the game.

We all seem to agree that going home and having a ball at your feet is the best way.

[MarioKempes]

Originally posted by Richie
Usual thing you hear is do we coach for the development of the player or the win? I think developing players get you wins. So no conflict of the interest of players exist as far as I am concerned. Winning is a byproduct of player development. So with player developement comes wins.


Yes, but I think the key here is that the wins follow development usually after an extended period of time. And there's the rub. Impatient parents and kids want to win now, and
are willing to sacrifice development for the quick fix.