I'm just trying to enact justice but yeah you're prob right. I guess I saw it as the coach brought it upon himself, but that's perhaps petty and I should keep the kids in mind like you say. For our last game this Sat I want to play mostly the slowest kids even if that causes us to lose. We've won so much, and there's no ranking/playoff, so might as well let those slow kids end on a high note, hope they score in their final game. Maybe let the fast kids score a few and then play defense or sit out.
At that age I wouldn't do that. My kids favorite things to do is to have a secondary goal. I've done it in one game where we were dominating (U9s) as its really hard for kids to not play hard and regularly do it in practice. Kids are wired to compete or not. I've been on the receiving end of beat downs and I hate the silly rules that coaches sometimes also do like eveyone has to touch the ball before a shot. In one game the other team did that to us and their coach afterward appologized as it made their kids probably play better. At U6 kids should be playing every position anyway. I often give my kids goals such as: Brennan (not aggressive) - he has to win the ball 3x & I keep track Will - when we wins the ball the first pass has to be sideways or back Kate - she has to use a stepover or cut to get around a person etc. I do it privately before the game with almost every kid. It works- its fun and they like the challenge.
Wow, I'm surprised the kids take those instructions at such a young age. They sound like they are smart and good listeners. I just really want at least one of the kids who haven't scored to score. That would make the parents happy and cheer a blissful and sympathetic cheer.
This is a good idea and something I've picked up from some interviews I've seen with academy coaches. Players are assigned personal goals for each game like BB suggests, and that's how they're evaluated instead of looking at the game's scoreline or their goals or assists. Inside The Academy on Youtube has 3 episodes in a series of academy visits throughout Europe if anyone is interested.
Make that a team objective then. When we get close to the league-mandated "rout" rule, they know that they can't score again until everyone has scored.
Just finished our last game. U6. Here's the distribution of goals: (10 games) Total goals: 116 (avg 12.9) Goals against: 40 (avg 4.4) Player A: 59 goals (avg 6.6, high 12, low 1) Player B: 39 (avg 4.3, high 8, low 1) Player C: 12 (avg 1.3, high 5, low 0) Player D: 3 (avg 0.3, high 2, low 0) Player E: 2 (avg 0.2, high 2, low 0) Player F: 0 Player G: 0 Player H: 0 Player I: 0 Other misc data: Age (at beg of season) / Attendance % (practice + games) / 35 yrd dash times Player A: 5y 3m / 97% / 7.9s Player B: 5y 3m / 88% / 7.8s Player C: 5y 7m / 96% / 7.8s Player D: 4y 8m / 76% / 9.4s Player E: 4y 10m / 74% / 8.9s Player F: 4y 10m / 79% / 10.2s Player G: 4y 9m / 68% / 10.9s Player H: 4y 4m / 69% / 9.0s Player I: 4y 2m / 50% / 11.2s
strong relative age effect—prob most interesting is the practice attendance. Keep track of player I to see how his attendance is when he's aged 5Y 2M next year.
Yeah I found the correlation between age and attendance interesting. Like, you'd think they would not be correlated at all. Perhaps this is just coincidence in my case. Or, maybe the young kids complain more about going to practice and the parents cave and that has some effect, while the older kids enjoy practice more because they are more capable and so they are more likely to nudge their parents to take them (or at least not deter their parents from taking them like a younger kid might). Idk But I do think it is sad that this correlation is there; the younger kids need more practice because they are more behind, but they get less, so the gap basically widens over time.
I've been observing a strong relative age effect for years now up to age 11, where it starts to thin out. If I see a strong player at U10 or younger, I can predict with prob 90% certainty that they are born in Jan or Feb, but do abide by the caveat that these are small small samples sizes I'm seeing and limited to my little section of the world. But I've tried to cross check against teams that I don't coach directly and/or look at birthdays first THEN go to the field and see if the theory holds. This is VERY unscientific.
I've found giving individual challenges to players helps them focus a bit better. Rather than giving generalized instructions like "guys, pass the ball, spread out" it's slower and takes more time to coach individuals, which is why we are tempted to give these general talks to the group, but if you are talking directly to the player, he is more likely to listen and follow up or execute. If there's a player who hasn't scored for awhile, I'll say. "Hey Bob! Are you going to score a goal today?" Several minutes later, Bob will score for the first time in 3 games. players get caught up playing a certain way, being reactive, rather than proactive. If they haven't practiced a certain principle or skill in a game for awhile, it's good to give them a challenge in order to do so. Especially in the younger age when the results are eventually forgotten.
Not sure if I'm done coaching or not. younger son is done with sports, he's moved on to other things. older son is playing select. It's the 3rd team of 3, I can assist them, I'm the team admin, which takes up more time than I originally thought it would. as long as the coach is ok with it, I can help, I'm already cleared by the organization.
Yeah, I learned this when I had my first kid who didn't want to be there. Sadly it took me an entire season to learn it. "win 5 balls - tackle, intercept a pass, get to a free ball 1st, I don't care, just do that" and he suddenly had purpose and responded. 2nd half we upped it to "same thing, but now make a pass or get a shot after you have the ball". he's still playing, i've passed this on to ensuing coaches who were also puzzled by the rare flash of ability but lack of fire, they've said it made a difference.
I’ve tried to make it more relative to positions. Of course, your striker should be scoring. But what about your backline? Midfield? I’ve started to challenge mine to make accurate passes. Find the open player and you make an accurate pass. Stop trying to hit the home run ball on the wing or over the top. Keep the dang ball. And if you have 2 open options- play the one that is more forward. Hit the “home run” pass when we have a proper build with more numbers forward instead of playing a 1v3 against their backline because your striker called for a through ball.
Anyone taken any Meulensteen Method courses? My understanding is he's taken Coerver's approach and expanded on it, but I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has taken any of their courses. I sat through "An Evening Masterclass" that was put on by the ISA Monday evening while MM were in town for the US Technical Championships. Rene ran a group of DA boys through some technical exercises. It was good to see a few exercises that were new to me, but it wasn't a distillation of their ideas or methods or anything like I was hoping.
No but (haha), like Tom Byer's TB3 program, it's basically the original Coerver stuff with their take on it. In my own lowly level, I've taken what I like from Coerver and put my own twist on it. My mentor has his own twist on it. Basically, to run Coerver you have to pay them a licensing fee and that's the main complaint. You do the heavy lifting and Coerver takes a hefty cut per player/per year. For what? In some ways, Coerver are trying so desperately to stay fresh (justify the cost of the royalty) that they are getting away from Wiel Coerver's original ideas. At some level, it's hard to find a lot of things that will blow coaches hair back. It's the details and 1% changes that you can really take advantage of. Does Meylensteen have a detail in a coaching point that you've never come across?
Not that I saw on Monday. Frankly, I don't think there are many big picture details that would be revelations at this point when it comes to technical training. It's the nuances in application that I'm looking for. They gave a very quick overview of their philosophy and then ran a training session with 4 or 5 different exercises. A few of those were new ideas that I hadn't seen before so I will probably use them with my kids this spring when warranted. I took a Coerver youth diploma back in 2015 or so, and I need to go back through their training manual and list of exercises and see if there's anything I can use. I'm mostly thinking about this for my potential 10U team in the fall where technical work will be the major focus. I'm sure there are things I can use for my 19Us in the spring too. I just need to spend the time to go through it and think.
Does anyone think that the training should be tailored based on the kids body type? For ex, Ronaldo and Messi have very different playing styles that obviously depend on their body type. Messi is great at close quarter dribbling, using very often the la croqueta, change of pace, feints, nutmeg... he doesn't do many other moves (he can but doesn't) like scissors or roulette. So for a short, quick kid, why not focus on la croqueta... which can shred defenders... for a quick kid focus on scissors, heading, etc. My kid is 5 and I'm trying to identify the best few things to teach over time. Can't teach everything at once. One or two moves... especially the ones that can actually use in a game. He is short and quick. He's scored in every game he's played (15 games outdoor and indoor so far). Also - teach the kid based on the dynamics of the field. For ex, in outdoor we played on 6' puggs, no goalie. In indoor there is a goalie and the goal is big and tall, so it's a good time to teach the kid to chip the ball over the goalie's head (the goalies are very short in u6). So yeah, teach a chip shot; but that's would not have been useful in outdoor. U8 outdoor also uses the 6' puggs, so the shooting there would not be chip shot but shooting low, from far or close.
No. I won't pretend that I know what a specific 5-year old will be like at age 26. I hope that every coach will tell you that specialization at age 5 is a mistake.
Good point. But it came about because I noticed different styles of play that seem to come from the body shape. For ex, my kid is short but he is very quick. So he can get out ahead but a tall kid with a long stride can eventually catch him if the field is long. If the field is short my kid usually can get close enough to goal before being caught. So this caused me to think of how my kid can dribble around the taller bigger kids. Though he is young I think the analogy to adults is there - I see short Messi dribble past taller players, Messi has the advantage of low center of gravity and can make sharp cuts/zig zag past esp taller players, similar to a short running back in US football. So I want my kid to have the tools to beat a tall defender who has caught up to him in a break away. I don't see any other choice but to teach him to cut/zig zag - so a chop or la croqueta or something like that. I don't want him to fear tall kids; I want him to see the weakness in the tall kid and exploit it. But yeah, maybe my kid will grow to be tall then we will have to adjust. It's too soon to tell, you are right.
There will always be physical differences. Some faster and some slower. Some taller and some shorter. It is a development mistake to train only someone's strengths. Fundamentals are just that--fundamental to the game and should be the focus for pre-teens.