↑ >>In later years, mids and forwards are more skilled overall then defenders >This simply is not true or at least in the country I live in. What I've observed in my neck of the US is that as the level increases from town teams -> select travel -> regional travel Select travel teams tend to not take the 3 best CB, 5 best strikers. They tend to take the 14 most skilled overall kids, who tend to be the best forward/attacking mids at their town team. Then they introduce them to their new positions. So by u16-18, you have skilled CB but it's highly unlikely they were CB from u9. That kid is most likely still a CB on his town travel team where he still gets yelled at to stay near the top of his 18 and "send it" when the ball is at his feet. Similar to how in youth baseball before "travel ball" the old league all star teams would be the two pitchers from every team that also played shortstop the other %50 of the time, with a couple of catchers and if there were no lefty pitchers, a first baseman.
There are a lot of variables involved for player development aside from ball skills. Personality of the player. Personality of the coach. The make up of the team. The system and tactics the coach emphasizes. Coach/parent politics/favorites, etc. All this can influence how a player develops based on the way the player is treated by the coach and teammates. If young players are taught fundamentals about finding space when attacking and taking away space when defending, they are gaining soccer IQ. They can apply that to any position and it makes sense that they get to play as many positions as possible because then they get to use that knowledge on different parts of the field and in different situations dictated by positions and tactics. It makes sense to me that this is a great way to develop players. I see the failure in coaches that jump to positions and tactics before the players have that soccer IQ. That is where I see the adverse effect of playing set positions at young ages. The player is not ready yet. He needs to experience playing on the right side, left side, in the middle, in the back, at the top, defending and attacking at different positions. Players learn and develop at different rates so they should be given time and opportunities. I dont see how it hurts development.
makes sense. the higher up you go in terms of competition, the more you see kids playing mids and strikers from their own local clubs. that's just what it is.
That's extremely hard to judge IMO. I don't think you take a CB just because they're trying out for a CB. I've never seen that kind of arrangement at a tryout anyway (aside from GK). If someone has the basic skills, yes, you can put them in almost any position. But there are other factors that determine where you put a specific player... size, speed, soccer IQ all come to mind. Someone may have great footskills, but not have the IQ to pass the ball when they have three defenders on them. I'm not against rotating players and I agree it is more beneficial then not. But there's definitely an impression by certain posters that the "weaker" players are pushed to the back line (which is kind of insulting to those of us who have kids playing the back line), or if someone plays defense only, they may as well quit the sport because when they get to 11 v11, they won't be able to defend or the mids/forwards will be moved back and they won't have a spot. No, not everyone has said that, but that's the impression I have gotten while reading this thread. So, before you (general) get all defensive ("I never said that") then I'm either not referring to you, or you may want to go back and read what you've posted.
I am the one saying trainers in my area tend to push more skillful players with better visions to play in the back. Over time, the lack of ball touches and MF time will show in these players' development.
For the life of me, I don’t see anyone making those claims, to such a degree, which, at the risk of getting all defensive, makes me wonder if I am not one of those certain posters… The problem with having such discussions with and among parents with kids actively involved in the sport, is the natural and understandable tendency to personalize things, to be, perhaps, a bit oversensitive… I don’t think anyone is insulting, nor is intending to insult, anyone…
I'm sure no one is intending to insult anyone. I went back and looked. There is a post that claims if someone plays defense all the time at Ulittles, after a couple years, they possibly won't be able to defend at 11v11 (which makes ZERO sense).
And I'll echo what someone said previously... if your team is so dominant that your backline gets limited touches (or if the team is so weak, the front line gets limited touches), that's an entirely different issue.
It must be me making the claim. Sorry for the confusion and let me make it more clear: Many trainers pigeonhole their best players in the CB position primarily for the purpose of keeping the team shape. Over time, the best player on the team develop certain habits e.g. risk averse decision making that will stunt their growth or chance to play in risk taking positions e.g. wingers and strikers. Also the observation is that at the regional level, the team is typically composed of mid fielders from individual town teams. One of the reasons is that mid fielders see more touches on the ball and engage in more 1-on-1 activities than other players. Many soccer parents want to see their children play in the MF. They are not all idiots.
Ok I went back through this thread, I believe I have found the one sentence you are refereeing to and seem to be keying on…I agree, it was a bit blunt and perhaps overstated… Disagree with what I and others are saying/claiming/suggesting/believing/fearing regarding this manner…but to use one rash sentence to summarize the entirety of our augment is rather disingenuous… This thread is full of civil, respectful, articulate commentary and opinion…even the poster in question(if I have it correct) has restated his position more sensitively…
because thats's where you can hide a skilled kid that has no speed or explosiveness. MF's should be releasing the ball quickly not doing 1v1s, A lot of youth teams go up the wing or bypass the midfield so not necessarily true.
If talking U-littles, physical abilities such those all can change come puberty or later on…being big/little, fast/slow, strong/weak, tall/short (for their age) at 9, doesn’t guarantee anything come 15…
That's right and I think that is how a lot of coaches think. More from an adult developed player/game point of view so they start defining roles that fit player attributes. Fine, if the player is older and there is competition to fill positions. For younger player development, really should place player first, team second.
I'm kidding about hiding slow players in midfield. But it was my experience that the parents that always INSISTED their kids were MF's had slow, skilled kids. I never seen a girl that was slowish at 9 be fast at 15. In general girls get slower after puberty and only the lucky few stay fast. Ask any high school track coach. Maybe this is possible with boys? I'm talking abut sprint speed.
I'll never understand why so many people believe that specialising in the unique position of goalkeeper is detrimental to a player's development. If a child is keen to be a goalkeeper he should be encouraged to do so, not rotated around positions he has no interest in playing. My son is a goalkeeper at a professional club's academy and wouldn't be playing near the level he is without dedicating hundreds of hours to goalkeeping training. He started playing in goal from the age of six and his handling is very accomplished for his age. He plays outfield for his school and local boys club, which improve his feet, but for his academy team he only plays in goal. That's what he enjoys. There's nothing detrimental at all about a child playing in goal from a young age as long as they are happy to play the position and receive some technical coaching of the position.
If your son is playing GK on one team, but playing the field on two others, then he’s not really being pigeonholed into a single position… As a soccer guy, you probably understand the value playing the field on those others team gives your son as GK…unfortunately, many parents might not… I am not suggesting we play kids in positions they don’t enjoy or force them to do things they didn't enjoy…if a kids enjoys playing GK, then by all mean he/she should play/focus on that position… But, parents should understand the risks involved in making that decision, especially very early on…specializing at GK is largely a one-way street, your whole “career” is dependent on playing GK and having the #1 spot…far easier, and examples abound, of taking an older field player and converting to GK…trying to take a GK, who has played nothing but GK his whole youth career, and he will never transition into a field player, at the same level at least, he/she was keeping for… I am not saying it’s right or wrong; just think people should understand the risks involved…