Balanced Teams vs A/B

Really just a decision that the club has to make. Either way, one side is not going to like it.

Personally, the job of a club is to produce talent. One of the key components of developing that talent is to have kids train with/against kids of similar talent level.

What you have described is one of the long list of items that is wrong with youth soccer in the US. A club should be honest with parents and players and just because a kid is not on the "A" team at 8 years old doesn't mean he can't be next year. It's not an easy discussion to have with parents or young kids, but it should be one that we don't shy away from having.

It's not an easy situation to be in, and our club has had a similar issue. However, in the end, you should make a decision based on what will produce the most talented players at 15-18 years of age.

 

Just have all kids train with the same trainer and at the same times - doing the same drills. That will account for different development paths per child.

But I like A/B teams. That allows top players to play in a pool that better reflects their abilities. That should not be sacrificed for parents who are delusional.

 

Yep, and this is coming from a parent of a B player in a A B C club,

 

If they did not train at the same time then they really never tried it. In fact they are making the same mistake the majority of soccer clubs make.

It did not work because they did not actually do it. If they get around to that, they should have a stern talk with all the parents and explain why they are all training together - then put it on the players that they if they want to play at the top, they better be at practice, work hard and display the sort of leadership and effort which that team mandates. Coaches should also make it clear to the parents that if their kid did not make the top team that they can schedule time to speak with the coach after a 24 hour period.... So they need to do it and set the environment for both players and parents.

I wonder where you are at... It's similar by me - which is why we got the heck out and joined a bigger club that has the environment as I outlined above. We have to drive 30-45 minutes one way (depending on the season). But it has been well worth it.

 

Sounds very typical for youths all across the country. This isn't a club or player issue, this is a parent issue, and unfortunately, those are the hardest to overcome.

Moving a "C" team player to another club so they can play on the "A" team is commonplace, but in the end, it is their own kid that ends up getting hurt by it.

There is a lot of attention paid to good players training a playing at a level well below their talent - and this is not good for development. However, there is a flip side to this coin - when a player tries to play at a level much higher than their talent, it is very difficult for them to develop as well.

 

Oh I disagree - it's a club issue. At u9 to relegate a player to a C training with a C coach vs top players who likely get a better coach and in some cases more time on the ball is HUGE!

Any club that runs it's younger ages like that I would run from.

 

At u9 there is no way you can tell whether your player is going to be a great soccer player or not. You really just need a good coach and a decent player pool.

How does the politics and layout impact the above for you? Not enough players? Not enough quality players? Are the coaches good enough?

I don't think you can paint with such broad strokes, that just because a coach coaches a C team, that they are a "C team coach". In our club, the pool of trainers usually coach multiple levels of teams (say, two A teams and a B team) or an A and a B (we honestly don't have a lot of C teams after U10). And they rotate after a couple of years usually. Some trainers are better with younger kids, some are better with older kids, etc.

Its not a broad brush really because it is true more often then not. Not only that but many clubs do not focus on the youngest ages with coaches who hold a good deal of experience - which is bad because that's when the kids are capable of learning the most and more importantly, learning the right way to play soccer. There are still many players who come to larger clubs that focus on continued coaching education at the u12 and u13 ages - thinking they can jump on top teams while they lack some basic skills.

Some clubs by us - 1974/ELA are moving in the right direction - I know that the majority of those coaches are solid. I would not paint with that brush over them. But honestly I have seen many of the other clubs still hiring young kids with an E/D and just out of local college training the youngest players. That role just seems to still be an opening job for new coaches at far too many clubs.

 

Understood - but I don't see it the same way as you. Whether a kid is "A", "B" or "C" team material should make absolutely no difference as to how many touches they get during a technical training session.

I would argue that the "C" level kids is being shorted touches when forced to play against the "A" level kids on a possession or small sided environment.

My point is everyone has a level at every age, and that level can change with young kids - even month to month. Ultimately, you have to choose who you concentrate on developing in a training environment. If you decide to pool all the kids together, the ones that suffer are the really talented ones - by not being pushed day in and day out against peers of similar talent level. If you decide the separate based on talent, then the argument could certainly be made that a kid is being branded too early in their career. For me, no matter what age, you have to push the talented kids to the next level as best you can.

The parents are most often the ones that think way to highly of their kid and will remove them from the "C" team and go to another clubs "A" team - even if the environment on the "C' team is a better one for them to develop in. Clubs are reluctant to tell Mom and Dad, "listen, your kid is being put at the level we see him at currently - however, we do see potential and feel he can develop into one of the better ones in the age group." The clubs view these players as revenue and will often times put them at a level they shouldn't be at, just to keep the checks coming in.

 

They only suffer if you are training at a lower level - which you should not.

Most of your mid to lower end kids will catch on in a month or two. They may not play as well but that is generally down to confidence - not technical skill.

If you have a player that is well beyond then they should play games a level or age up - that keeps them moving forward. But training should be age based IMO. That great player at a young age will benefit from time on the ball and develop leadership skills.

Again - I agree if you are accomodating the low end - that's a fail altogether. BUt these are young kids and unless they are completely un-athletic (which I am assuming they are not), then they will be fine being pushed in a more demanding environment.

At the end - everyone wins when this is done right - and the bonus is, you generally have more happy parents who now look at the game and concept of success much differently.

 

This probably works better at the bigger, well known clubs because I assume even the lower level players in any given age group won't be light years behind the better kids. Most parents won't spend the money or make that kind of commitment if their kid shows zero interest or aptitude. At a smaller club with a greater variance in current ability, it would be to pool all the kids by age for training without "screwing" either the top or bottom.

 

How would that screw anyone as long as the training was geared towards the top end? Coaches can always pair players/groups accordingly in drills - not that hard.

It almost seem lazy to not run it that way.

Furthermore is negates the concept that kids develop at different times altogether - which is no good.

Maybe that's why these clubs are small to begin with?

BTW - Sockers has just as many players who cannot kick and run at the same time as any other club - I assure you (at the youngest ages). But yet they hang in there just fine. Hell my kid was basically one of those players!

 

Just going by what I've witnessed in my neck of the woods. If you put all the kids from the younger A and B teams at my son's club on the field and geared the training towards the top, a lot of the bottom end would be lost trying to keep up. And few of them are motivated at this point in their life to put in the work at home to catch up, which may change as time goes on. It's just the reality of their player pool at this time.

 

Shouldn't they just be in rec then?

Sounds like the parent(s) just wanna throw that sticker on the car and claim their kid is something they are not.

That said I go back to my original statement - how does any parent know what a player is capable at 9 years old?

 

Over the course of an entire season I think you would find that gap closing. At least that's what I have seen over the last 9 years were we are at (with 2 kids).

So speaking from experience - it does work.

 

I think at younger ages (U9 and below) "pool" teams are fine. I've gone through it with two kids (multiple years for each kid). That was our academy program. Everyone practiced together. At "play dates" (double headers), the individual teams would be different each date, if not each game.

Every year I heard parents complaining about not having an A/B/C squad. Now years later (DS is U15, DD is U12 playing on U13), most of those complainers are no longer involved.

Pool play still allows players to shine. And it gives lower level kids someone to watch and possibly emulate.

A/B/C teams are fine also.

I agree it's a parent issue. If you don't get buy in from the parents, neither system will work.

 

Our club does two tiers of multiple balanced teams up through U11. U12 is the first true tiered A,B,C teams. It is a little overkill in my opinion, but I understand their logic. We currently have three "A" teams in my son's U10 academy. There really should only be 2 though IMO. We get smoked at tournaments in the younger age groups by having all our best kids spread over three teams, but in league play they do pretty well.

 

Someof our boys coaches are doing this during winter in order to expose kids to different situations. In many games they go down early on and then come back to tie or win. Occassionally they lose but sometimes I watch and wonder what our true top teams would do to these opponents - kill the likely. But I get it and actually like the format for winter.

 

My son's club does the same with its winter indoor teams. They play in a league that's run by a local indoor facility with teams from other, smaller clubs and teams just thrown together for the winter. The club puts together teams that just play for a few weeks at a time and include kids from three or four different teams across a couple of age groups, A and B teams, ... I like it because the kids are forced to play with players they don't know well and with minimal coaching. Sometimes they win easily, sometimes not.

Most winters some parent will pull their child's full outdoor team together for one of those sessions and, yeah, they generally crush the competition, including the club's own ad hoc teams (I was that parent one winter and will not do it again -- the blowout wins served no purpose after about two weeks, and it generated some bad feelings with parents whose kids were on the receiving end of those blowouts.

 

The issue with the bolded is when a club decides who is on the "A" team at 6, 7 or 8 years old, even if a "B team child" works hard and surpasses an "A" team player the following year, the club is very unlikely to demote a "A team" player just to put the "B child" where they now belong. Clubs know very well that a demotion would likely mean that child leaving the club, and quite possibly a teammate friend along with them. Knowing that, the club doesn't switch the kids and now what you have is two kids in incorrect placements the following year. One kid not having to work hard (spot handed to them just because they were on that team the prior year,) and one kid wondering why his/her hard work wasn't noticed. So yes, it likely means that even with hard work, effort and improvement, a B team child can not move up the following year. I think in the earlier ages, it is much better to have balanced teams. As far as the very talented kids, have them occasionally train and play with an older team to keep them developing, but still roster them on their true age group.

 

So at what age (if any) should you go to A/B squads? Around here, that starts at U10.

 

.

When the kids move to 11v11.

Prior to that, the focus should be on inspiring the children to have a love for the game, not hurting their confidence by "telling them" they are "less-than" when they are 6/7/8. It seems that a lot of the "B or C team children" have later birthdays in the year (not their fault,) or possibly started soccer (gasp,) a year later than their peers (give them time, they may surprise you and be your starter later on,) or were simply cut to B team not because of their ability, but because the "A team" can only roster so many and hard decisions were had, even when their ability was up to par. There could also be situations where a young child is not as focused at 6/7/8, but once that focus comes in, they could end up being a very creative, and focused player later on. "Punishing" or "playing down" in any of these situations is just not the way to go. You absolutely do not want to risk not developing ALL kids to their true potential, it will hurt your program in the future years. Not to mention, there is something to be said about the kids learning from all the kids in an age group, learning different playing styles, and how to all work with one another. Chemistry is very important between all the kids, (this is often cited as a reason that even when kids are surpassed by other kids, they aren't dropped to the B team because of the chemistry the kids have built on a specific team with their teammates,) so I think it is important that all the kids have the opportunity to gain chemistry with one another. Otherwise only half of the kids are building chemistry together, and the other half of the kids are building separate chemistry. Once you do move to 11v11, a lot of these kids that were on different teams in the younger ages end up playing together because the team needs more players on them, so start building that chemistry right away between all, not just some. Yes, you may lose more games going this route, or may even have to play a league level down in some cases. However, in the older ages, where it counts, I feel it will benefit the club, and more importantly it will benefit the kids immensely, not just the perceived top players at age 6/7/8 (do we all realize how young that is to make a decision that will affect all for years to come?!) Plus, from a business standpoint, I am willing to bet the club will lose a lot less kids going this route, as I too have seen kids leave for perceived greener pasture at a different club where their kid can make a higher team. Don't forget to play the top 1-3 kids up a age group occasionally and you wont lose them either!

So prior to 11v11, take all children willing to put in the effort and pool them, and train them together. You can absolutely be fluid during practice sessions and have one coach pull small groups of kids they feel are excelling at a certain skill and teach them additional skills, and you can also occasionally pull kids struggling with a skill to help that group as well. Much easier to be fluid when doing it like that, as your advanced and struggling groups are easier to adjust week to week, month to month.

I would only ever "cut" a child that is BOTH far behind all other peers in ability AND not putting in effort (example, not regularly coming to practice --medical/ or other extreme situations aside-- and that it is obvious they aren't working at home.) I would communicate in that situation to the parents of the child and first give them a chance to correct it prior to a cut. If still no effort, lack of attendance and behind all others after the conversation, than cut. Do not blindside a family, give them a chance. Otherwise take every kid willing to put in the effort.