PDA

View Full Version : hierarchy of skills...are there any youth leagues that do this?


superdave
21 Jan 2003, 10:48 AM
In another thread, Bill Archer wrote this:

One season I decided that, come hell or high water, that every kid was going to be able to mark up and stay goalside of another player, no matter what. So we worked on it, just a little, every practice. I talked about it at halftime every game.

Another season we focused on transition: how fast can we recover a defensive shape after losing the ball. Once I spent a whole season not caring what the score was, but insisting that we string three passes together one more time than the previous game.

And it made me think.

To me, a very logical approach for CASL (for example) to take would go like this.

1. 6-8 years old, teach a love for the game and the rules.
2. 9s, emphasize passing and trapping. Every practice, X minutes on these skills. Also, each "match" would be preceded by a 10 minute mini-match with different rules...you get points for completing passes.
3. 10s, emphasize finishing. Again, X minutes each practice, and some kind of competition preceding normal matches.
4. 11s, emphasize dribbling and close control. Mini-matches of keepaway.
5. 12s, teach basic defensive tactics...marking, pressuring, defending set pieces.

Maybe I don't have all the details right, but you get the point. Does any league give direction like this to its youth coaches? I would think it would be very popular, so long as it wasn't like a Bela Karolyi gymnastics club. Every coach of 9s would be instilling in his players the same building blocks. Players would feel confident that they're learning the game.

I came to this, in part, from Bill's comment, but also in part from little league baseball. I played for a very serious team, and we had very frequent practices, plus we tended to have 4-6 dad/coaches at practice. And that's how we did things. My dad's role was "bunting school." He'd take the first year players off to the side and teach them our way of bunting. Part of the thinking was that practicing bunting would hone the hand-eye coordination needed to hit. Working on a proper swing was separate from working on hand-eye.

It was a 9-12 league, and the pitchers were usually the 12s with sometimes 11s pitching. If the team thought a 10 might become a pitcher, he'd spend time with off to the side working on that. Another coach would fit fungoes to the young kids so they could learn how to shag flies. The older kids who had already mastered that would field the hits from batting practice.

Our team learned the necessary skills, let me tell ya. We did within the team what I'm proposing a league do leaguewide.

Thoughts?

Elroy
22 Jan 2003, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by superdave
................pressuring, defending set pieces....

Maybe I don't have all the details right, but you get the point. Does any league give direction like this to its youth coaches? I would think it would be very popular, so long as it wasn't like a Bela Karolyi gymnastics club. Every coach of 9s would be instilling in his players the same building blocks. Players would feel confident that they're learning the game......

Thoughts? [/B]

I once had an assistant coach who asked why we just didn't have offensive and defensive units. There is always difficulty with comparing soccer with other sports. I think that there are some guidelines available and that's nice but there are two problems with following guidelines too closely.

The first is that players learn different parts of the game at different speeds. Some kids will have an intuitive edge in one area while another shows well in another. Your baseball analogy is good with respect to a "county fair" approach to practice which can work well with young players. As players age, their roles have too many interactions to allow positional isolation in practice.

The second problem is that following guidlines can lead to lowered expectations. Every time that I think that teaching a skill or concept is not appropriate to a certain age, some little snot will pick it up.

I strongly believe that you must coach the entire game to be successful. You may emphasize some areas over others but you should teach everything. Players learn from repitition. You may not see results immediately, but I guarantee that you will never cease to be amazed by the circumstances in which a kid finally gets it. But, that's why we coach.

MarioKempes
27 Jan 2003, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by Elroy
I strongly believe that you must coach the entire game to be successful. You may emphasize some areas over others but you should teach everything. Players learn from repitition. You may not see results immediately, but I guarantee that you will never cease to be amazed by the circumstances in which a kid finally gets it. But, that's why we coach.

Agree 100%

superdave
03 Feb 2003, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by Elroy
I strongly believe that you must coach the entire game to be successful. You may emphasize some areas over others but you should teach everything. Players learn from repitition. You may not see results immediately, but I guarantee that you will never cease to be amazed by the circumstances in which a kid finally gets it. But, that's why we coach.
Maybe your U-9 team will beat all of the other U-9 teams if you teach the whole game. But I'm talking about having kids reach their teenage years as competent players.

And I'm not suggesting that in the "finishing" year, you ignore other parts of the sport. I'm just saying that you emphasize it that season.

Elroy
03 Feb 2003, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by superdave
Maybe your U-9 team will beat all of the other U-9 teams if you teach the whole game. But I'm talking about having kids reach their teenage years as competent players.

And I'm not suggesting that in the "finishing" year, you ignore other parts of the sport. I'm just saying that you emphasize it that season.

I wasn't just talking just about team play. Individual players need to learn the entire game to maximize thier abilities. Obviously, if a player has specific weaknesses, a competent coach will work with that player on those as well.

Your original post seemed to indicate team play, but I can assure you that my response did not. I would not advocate teaching a limited view of the game, such as playing a trap with U-9's. Coaches who only coach to win - at any age - do their players no favors.

However, soccer is not like some other sports where there is an emphasis on roles or positions. An overlapping back who can't dribble, pass, or finish might as well not make the run.

Was your reply a troll?

superdave
03 Feb 2003, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by Elroy
I would not advocate teaching a limited view of the game, such as playing a trap with U-9's.
Trap, settle, whatever you want to call it.

No, it wasn't a troll. I didn't think people were understanding my original post, and your definition of "trap" confirms that somewhat.

In my original post, I was wondering if any leagues like CASL give their coaches guidance on what players of a given age should be competent in. It's like school systems do...the state of NC sets guidelines for the math skills of 9 year olds, 12 year olds, etc. I was suggesting that soccer 9s emphasize passing and receiving passing, with a mini-game before the weekend league matches, to give an incentive. So that when the kids are 10, you're pretty sure that most of them have the building block in their game of passing and receiving passes. So it's time to add the next component.

Etc.

Elroy
03 Feb 2003, 03:48 PM
Originally posted by superdave
Trap, settle, whatever you want to call it.



The trap that I was speaking of was the offsides trap. This was in reference to teaching team tactics beyond the level of understanding of one's players just in order to win. I'm sorry, but I just can't believe that you didn't understand that.

As I said, there are general guidelines, that, simplified, say that coaches should emphasize skills with younger players and add more advanced tactical concepts as players increase in maturity. My point is that tactical concepts can be simplified to suit the maturity of your players. For example, collecting the ball cannot be taught in the absence of properly weighted and accurate passing. Neither should it be taught in the absence of the tactical purpose in passing in the first place. That is the difference between ball control and kick and run.

Whether you understand the game or not, you shouldn't be insulting.

JohnR
07 Feb 2003, 02:21 PM
Superdave -

I know of one guy who starts off with young ones doing as you say - a very structured program, moving from one topic to another, paying close attention to whether or not the kids are learning the curriculum.

Vast majority of youth coaching is not like that.

I asked this guy if he thought his approach was better, and he said that he honestly didn't know. Although he has coached some teams to state championships, so it's not as if his method has been proved wrong, either.

I do believe that U.S. kids could benefit from more structure, particularly with regards to basic technique and tactics. Much of U.S. youth coaching approaches have been gleaned from European imports. But Europe isn't the U.S. The kids in Europe grow up with many, many role models who play soccer correctly. Not so U.S. kids. So it's natural that they might need a bit more direct instruction.

I bet that if you gathered a group of Chicago-area youngsters and a group of Berlin youngsters, the latter would require a more-structured program for learning basketball.