I like "bossing the balls" at U6. Everything else wastes too much time, and I could care less if they understand restarts at the start of the U7 season. U6s should just play games, games, games, and more games. They need to learn that playing with the soccer ball is fun before they are taught that playing the game is fun. Otherwise, you're setting them up with a mentality that centers itself around playing the game, competing, and winning - not skill building, being creative (which I normally hate referencing), and learning how to play (rather than learning how to win).
I coached my 4-year-old at the local YMCA league over the summer and they had the most minimal idea of what kids that age should play. We did 5 a side with a keeper on a pitch about the size of a basketball court. It was chaotic but massive fun. Then we went to a professional coaching situation when the parent works with the kid and it was also a great experience, but not as much fun as the rec league. Now he is back at the rec league since I couldn't coach due to work obligations and it is interesting to see him back in the rec league. He is the smallest on the team but he actually controls the ball and passes and dribbles whereas everyone else just boots the ball towards the other end. He wants me to be the coach again and I think we're going back to the more learning league but it is hard to argue with the fun of the boot and run rec league.
I grew up (decades ago) with the Y as my first soccer experience. We played football in the fall, then basketball, softball and soccer. It's safe to say soccer was the sport the coaches understood the least. And yet, we played fun games of 11v11 in first grade, which everyone says is impossible today.
That's the challenge that makes for a good program; the emphasis has to be having fun but they learn the skills almost without even knowing it. Finding the balance is difficult and most amateur coaches don't have the skills to do so. A good structure goes a long way.
Actually, learning new stuff is fun! "Hey dad, look at this new trick I just learned." "Look, I can kick it all the way across the field now!" I once had a kid tell his parent that shielding the ball was a "cool new blocking move." Sure, you can just go kick a ball and have fun. But the kids who have fun by learning new stuff and improving will actually stick with the activity.
This might deserve a new thread, but I can't start one yet. So I'll ask here: I'm currently dealing with a couple of issues on either side of a selection process, and I'm wondering, "What's the point?" We've all seen the recommendations that no one should be trying out for anything before age 10 or 12 or whatever. And yet we're all doing it. My questions are: 1. Do we have to create such a big divide between "travel" soccer (professional coaches, twice-weekly practices, competition with other "serious" teams) and "house" soccer (parent coaches, little if any access to pro coaches, playing with and against teams basically chosen by lottery)? How much should clubs do to meet the needs or wants of enthusiastic players who don't make the Big Cut at age 8 and fall behind the anointed who fared well for the 10 minutes a coach was watching during their tryouts? 2. Should we organize U-Little sports not by ability/aptitude but by commitment level? If you're willing to make soccer your primary sport two seasons a year (leaving open winter for another sport and most of summer for other activities), practicing twice a week and dedicating yourself to improvement, should your local club make every effort to find a suitable level of competition and coaching for you? At the very least, if clubs took an "open door" policy, wouldn't it cut down on suburban traffic? Everyone could stick with their local clubs for a few years instead of shopping around from club to club.
Answer: It's all about resources. There are only so many experienced, licensed, quality coaches out there. Sometimes not even enough to staff the travel teams, really.I read a recent article about Germany's rise, and they peg it, in part, to a 10-year effort by the DFB to train literally thousands of coaches for their youth programs (paid for in large part by the pro clubs). Not only do we need tens of thousands of coaches in the US, but where will the money for that training come from? Not if you want for kids as a whole to improve more quickly and completely. The whole idea behind grouping by like ability is to be able to provide a development environment that will both give success and challenge. It also allows coaches to work on a similar level with all players in a group and get more benefit out of each training session. Trust me, I've had teams with both "never played before"s and serious club players--trying to run one practice with both ends of the spectrum at the same time benefits neither very well. Do we miss kids ("late bloomers" or what have you) by stratifying at some arbitrary point? Sure. But we don't have the resources to give every kid in the country top-notch training in hopes that that ugly duckling will become a swan--because, let's face it, that really doesn't happen all that often. The same issue exists in any field: who knows which kid might have become the next soccer star, or chess grand master, or concert violinist, or brain surgeon, or what have you? We can't train everyone in everything just in case.
This is the only point I disagree with. We don't miss kids by stratifying. We miss kids by selecting based on physical maturity instead of athletic ability. Coaches can tell the difference.
All true. Our club is good at running some hybrid programs -- parents coach the teams on weekends and maybe at regular practice, but players have access to pro coaches during the week for skill workshops and so forth. This is exactly my problem. My U9 house team has a couple of people who barely missed the cut for travel, then some kids whose parents are clearly forcing them to be out there. So after a fairly arbitrary cut in a crowded tryout for rising U9s, we have some kids getting a complete travel experience while others are going backwards on a bad house team. Maybe the tryout is the problem? Maybe we should have basic house league for everyone until U12 or so (which a lot of state directors would prefer) and then offer additional training for the most highly motivated?
No, without the tryout you get radically different ability on one team. Some kids aren't challenged, others are in over their head, and it's difficult to coach both at the same time. Tryouts are not inherently evil... all they are is a way to separate kids into groups of like ability. The problem arises when the initial groups become static (even as players develop), and if top resources are only used for the top kids.
My son is U6 will be U7 in the fall. His team plays 4v4 w/o goalie in a league on tuesday nights. the field is about 25x35. Saturday they play in a mostly hispanic league 5 in the field with goalie. the field is about 30x40. Our coach alternates different kids at the goalie position & rotates the players around a lot. most in this forum will cringe when i say this, but the hispanic league even has a U5 division with 4 in the field and a goalie.....those games are crazy to watch.
you may have something there, in 7 v 7 there are kids on most teams that won't touch the ball unless they are playing fullback or goalie. They might get some good exercise chasing the herd, but they can do that in 11 v 11. heck, I had kids who rarely touched the ball in 3 v 3 unless it was a dead ball situation.
our league u8 (6-7 boys) recreational 7v7 (goalies) (fall and spring) offside rule is in effect (I know right?) goalie-box inside penalty box for goal kicks (I hate this) 60 x 36 yards
About to move up to U9 rec with my son, which will mean 9v9 (8 plus a keeper) with offside for the first time (that'll be interesting) . I went to a player assessment last weekend and was shocked so many kids knew so little -- I've coached U8 the past two years with another guy and we coached our kids for skills and, gradually, worked in some tactics, too. And it seemed to work -- by the end of the fourth season together, most of our kids knew to play into open space, push up on defense, not crowd together, ..., and the best were starting to move to help each other out, keep their heads up for a pass, could push up into the attack out of defense without stranding the keeper, ... I should add that the park district that runs our league really wants us to play all players at every position (which we've done and I plan to continue doing, against advice I've gotten from some other youth coaches who think this age is the time to start specializing positions). Our local travel team, meanwhile, teaches skills only, essentially, and while the kids appear pretty strong as individuals they know nothing about tactics, from what I can tell, and seldom win (I know winning isn't the point at this age, but endless losing isn't fun, either, and would seem to drive players away). At least one of my players will be playing both travel and rec this fall. I'd be curious to hear what you folks would advise for the approach at the U9 level.
This has a pretty detailed explanation of the first half (youth soccer) of a long term plan for development of soccer players. http://www.usyouthsoccer.org/assets/1/3/US_Youth_Soccer_Player_Development_Model.pdf I linked it because the site has been "reorganized" using a popular style of software so now its nearly impossible to find anything. (A major component of IT, systems design, is a lost art now.)
thanks rca2, I've downloaded it and I'm looking it over. Seems our league does some things like it, but for the most part seems overly concerned about getting kids ready for 11v11 games. ... One thing about our area here , you have a select soccer club that kids start moving up to as early as age 6/7. The talent distribution in rec is so wide you might as well not even scrimmage at practice, the fast kids dominate and the slow kids watch. Another coach and myself have separated some kids based on their skill level and letting them play 3v3 together, the kids seem to get more from that than watching faster kids zip past them or for faster kids playing around spectators. even matches are more fun and productive in my opinion.
I didn't coach in my kid's U-7 program, but I showed up to a few practices. Here's a report for your entertainment. Note this is the local town rec program, not any select or soccer-specific program. Kids organized by age into teams of 6-7 each. 1 meeting per week, combined practice/game. All-volunteer coaches, 1-2/team; nobody who seemed to know the game very well. Format was: 10 minutes of stretching and one lap around the field. break into teams. ball control games - something like sharks and minnows water break. dribbling/shooting drills, usually by dribbling through cones and shooting at a small goal. kids frequently delaying each other in the line of cones and lots of arguing over who gets to be goalie in the drill. sometimes a passing drill as well. water break. 25-minute game against another team, plus or minus one age level. Small goals. Goalkeepers who can use hands. Players sorted quasi-randomly into forwards and defenders, switched once or more per game. Defenders usually hanging back and not getting into offense. Coaches yelling during the game, cries of "pass". Some "advice" from parents but not abrasive like at older levels. Throw-ins and goal kicks used for restarts. Score kept during the game, not recorded for posterity though. Postgame slap-hands and praise from coaches. Some aspects are perfectly fine, but some are pretty backwards. Here's how I would split it up: Pro: Overall positive atmosphere. "Drills" are mostly fun games, and emphasize dribbling over passing, and have one ball per kid. I guess it's almost a small-sided game, once you discount the goalkeepers. Con: Near-zero technical instruction. Lots of the drills are ineffective. For example, dribbling slowly through cones doesn't teach very much. Why do 6-year-olds need to spend time stretching? Why are there goalkeepers and defenders? The less aggressive players (like my kid) barely touch the ball during the games.
This is something that USSF should really focus on achieving. Even if they don't, local clubs should emphasize and do everything in their power to get rec coaches to certificate courses. I've been quietly pushing this issue with our club and frankly I'm getting a surprising amount of apathy in return. This alone would probably result in a huge return on investment in the US talent pool. I've procrastinated on the whole certificate thing. I did go through th eE course when I was coaching in another state but never received my paperwork so I have to start over. However, I constantly read everything I can get my hands on with regards to coaching soccer and watch and play as much as I can. I put a ton of effort into planning my practices. But we have parents volunteering to coach who literally know nothing about the game other than ball in goal = 1 point. They get a couple hours of a "coaching clinic" which is very rudimentary and that's it.
sev several parent coaches love drills like dribbling through cone maze. my son took 10 minutes to dribble through a cone maze on his u6 team, one of the reasons I wouldn't be causing much damage if I learned how to coach. all the waiting in line kids did at u6 seemed like such a huge waste of time.
The younger they are the worse the standing in lines is for them. I started off coaching the the U-6 and luckily I got (and implemented) that advice early on. They always had a ball at their feet and were doing something with it. In terms of sheer fun I have to say they were probably my favorite age group.
I recall disagreeing with you about what the ulittles should be trianing on, ages 6/8-12. What I have observed across several sports is the young standouts usually have better coordination and motor skills compared to their same aged peers.* There is something there and I think that plan (long term athletic development model) you talked about is the correct way to go about it in the U.S. *The work the youth coaches at my kid's club do, and I do working with kids, is essentially 90% motor skill development with some soccer mixed in.
A very respected strength and conditioning coach mentioned that he was working with professional baseball players to improve their general athletic skills because in the beginning they had worked on sport specific skills to the exclusion of general skills. In writing about core strength, he said that crawling was a great core strength activity and greatly underused by coaches. I don't remember a soccer coach EVER using crawling as a strength exercise (typically its situps and pushups). When you think about child development and development of core strength before walking, crawling as a core strength exercise makes sense. For my personal routine, I am going to start including some floor work to combat a general loss of strength and flexibility. Given my age, I think its ironic that my focus is returning to movements on the floor.