That's the reason why the Dutch KNVB has the policy implemented that parents and coach has to stay at a certain distance from the pitch so they can't hinder the kids with constant yelling at them.
The term “Academy” does get thrown around by clubs to attract players. When most are referring to it here it is the “Development Academy” who are certain clubs throughout the country. Go to ussoccerda.com to see the league and clubs being referred to. So if you ever play against these clubs you would not be playing against their “Academy” team, but a lower team in the club. But the kids are still paying a lot more than $300! Also, the parent-coach model is tough. It usually doesn’t work out. The player can become resentful of the parent, or other players and parents perceive favoritism. Even if the parent-coaches player is the best player there can be conversations about why the player always gets to... play a position, take free kicks, doesn’t sub out, or whatever. Just my experience and observation. And I did say “usually.”
When my kid was filler she would often play an outside wing role. She would complain too me that she rarely got passes and I would tell her that is because she is not in a advantageous position to receive one. From then on I noticed her coach not instructing her during games at all - not telling her to push up for example. Last two games of the season I coached her from the sideline. I figured if he was not going to do his job I would and I welcomed a discussion on it. So while I get Cantona's jam on parents, it's likely only accurate a certain percentage of the time. I think if you have a coach who is working to achieve what the OP outlined then yes - sit back and enjoy. But no coach is perfect - at least I have never met one.
Yep. I'm a big proponent of rotating players through all positions and equal playing time especially at the younger ages. I know there is the theory of positioning the stongest players up the spine to keep the shape and maintain possession, etc, etc but often these players are not distributing and just end up with the majority of touches. Great if you are the parent of the star player, but you really notice when your kid is the filler as you say. I've experienced both and the latter really ticks me off.
One reason we gave up on my son's first club was because the star players just would not use the wings at all, and the coaches seemed OK with that. Very much a case of the 'star' players in the middle thinking everybody else was their supporting cast. To be clear, this was doing none of the players any favors, the team played far too narrow and the "stars" didn't learn positioning or how to use space.
Exactly. That team was young, but increasingly a couple of kids had become the focus and were more or less empowered by the coaches to make it all about them. Not because of any ill intent mind you, just a misguided effort to maximize team success AND frankly get the two biggest egos/most competitive kids on the team to be fully vested. The 'star' of that team had oodles of talent at a young age, but by the time he finished HS it was clear he'd stopped developing as a player by the time he was 12. Still holding the ball way too long, trying to dribble past everybody.
I don't know, seems like the kid was playing for his HS, it was working on someone, just not defenders
My son is 10 and it already stopped working against good teams. Our league/division last season was way to easy and the difference between the players putting up all the stats in a 8-0 league blowout vs a 2-1 tournament game is staggering. Good news is the coach noticed and made good choices for the A and B teams next season. Our leading scorer didn't make the A team because he is absolutely detrimental to the team whenever we play someone decent.
The revival of this thread comes at an opportune moment for me. My DS is a 2011 and in 7th grade. We switched clubs in the summer of 2023. I have finally seen some really nice development from him, i.e. he is fixing bad habits in his game. To name but one, he no longer plants and waits for the ball to come to him, but runs to the ball when appropriate so that the other team has less chance of intercepting the pass. But as I was talking to a friend whose son is graduating high school this year, my friend said that there is a whole different level of skill development at the high school level. When pressed at what this meant, my friend said that elite players are trained differently on a competitive, strategic, and athletic level. So I'm intrigued, what does that look like? My DS plays ECRL, but I obviously know that there are rungs above: ECNL, MLS Next, but I don't know what they're getting that my DS isn't, and I'd like to know.
I'll be curious about how others see this, too. For clarity, when he says the high school level, he's talking high school ages as opposed to the actual high school teams? In my soccer son's experience, high school soccer was fun and his teams played at a reasonably high level, but there wasn't anything elite about what they trained at. The season was so compressed that they essentially played as much as they trained.
I believe that my friend was referring to training in the high school years, probably club. I say that because I know my friend thought that the high school soccer program was a joke, despite the team winning the league.
In that case, while I don't have a definitive "here's the difference" answer, I'd say this based on what my soccer son experienced (for context, he's a 2005 now in college, played his last four club years for a club that wasn't ECNL or MLSNext, but his team won State Cup one year and held its own in the handful of one-off games the club arranged against MLS and USL academy sides; the final version of his team produced 18(?) college players, albeit at every level from juco to DI): - Individual skill development never stopped being part of the equation (though there was an increasing expectation that that was on players to do on their own), but the emphasis in those four years shifted greatly toward team play -- tactics in general, much more time spent on what to do off the ball, how to play connected, how to defend as a team and support each other, how to counter, ... - Lots more expectation that you would be able to move the ball quickly; taking one or two touches in most situations (I heard "get the ball off your foot!" more from coaches and players in his U15 and U16 years than I heard before or after); knowing when to try to beat someone and take more than those one or two touches; when and where to foul or not foul. - The final year or so, after learning to play quickly, it felt like coaches shifted toward learning to slow down and possess as a team to control a game, to be more fluid in possession, if that makes any sense. No idea if that was part of some greater design or just a change based on coaching changes (the team was coached by an ever-rotating group), but it made sense to me. In general, the expectations and demands went up, along with the intensity and pressure to earn playing time (certainly in the games that counted more). In hindsight, it felt like the club spent those four years trying to change my son and his teammates from guys who were good as individuals (could do well indoors in the winter or in pickup situations where individual ability might matter most) to guys who could play the required roles in an 11. Huge grain of salt, of course, in that this was just one club. No idea how representative that is.
Can I ask you about your experience and observations about college recruitment. My son is not on an ECNL or MLSNext team (at least not yet). Everything I have come across says that college coaches for the most part will only look at MLSNext and ECNL especially since those teams are at the top big tournaments. My son's current team is not likely going to attend any big college showcase tournaments. For DIII or DII, are those schools also heavily recruiting from ECNL or MLSNext only?
One more thought re fitness: The expectations went up there, too, but -- at least at this club -- there wasn't a ton of time spent on it specifically. That meant a lot of the responsibility was on the players (an area where my son would probably say he could have done more). But full credit to the head coach for the way he ran their practices. I only watched a few before my son was able to drive himself, but they were incredibly efficient and involved something like constant movement. So a lot of relevant fitness work appeared to be built into the drills, small-sided games, scrimmages, ...
You bet. Again, my son's experience may not be representative so hopefully others may chime in, but he's at a DIII. As I mentioned above, his team sent players to almost every collegiate level, including DI (not at the elite DI level -- no Wake Forest, Indiana, ...). The club team played at tournaments that, at their best, were fairly heavily scouted by DII and DIII schools, as well as a smattering of DIs. We're in the Midwest, where there are a lot of DIII schools, so the regional tournaments that made up most of the team's trips were relatively easy for lots of coaches at that level to get to. By March/April of his senior year of HS, there weren't as many coaches scouting, but by that time most kids around him had made decisions. I've mentioned this elsewhere here, but his most serious interest came from coaches spotting him at a tournament and reaching out (he had one really good weekend in particular that caught the attention of a couple of schools, including the place where he's now enrolled). But, as I think most parents and coaches will tell you, it's really important for kids to email highlight reels to coaches at schools where they would like to play and be proactive. As for who these schools sign, I think that varies widely. His college team is mostly players from highish-level clubs (though not MLSNext or ECNL) in/around the city where he is now and a major city that's close by. But he went to single-school ID camps for DIII schools that drew MLSNext players. I always wondered if those coaches were encouraging (and covering the costs of) those kids to attend to bring up the level of play in their camps, knowing they were never going to sign those kids. Look at the rosters for the schools your son has an interest in and see (in their bios) where those players played. And while you're at that, pay close attention to the size of the rosters. 30 or more players doesn't seem to be atypical at this level, and I spotted one school with 60 (seriously). It's easy to get lost in that crowd once you're on the roster.
Development? What's that? We may or may not have been at clubs where the unofficial motto is "We do not develop players here. We simply recruit the developed. Develop elsewhere, then come here."