You & I both know that she get's bypassed way more then she get's touches. In the UNC doctrine for a build-up the ball is to go to the highest person on the pitch...if highest is not an option than wide. Rarely is the pattern including the ACM. What runs is she required to make off the ball to help keep possession...None. Just support the forwards as the ball passes you and get in the box to organize the final 1/3 on a cross. It's all about the battle of attrition. You've never heard Anson say just keep the ball, be patient. It's get it to the forwards.
No, we both don't know that. I question the veracity of the statement. Granted, Premji doesn't win the ball back very often so she's not going to start a possession sequence but her teammates do look for her. I'm curious to know how many UNC games you've watched this year. Again, not an accurate description. I have no idea how you can claim the amid for UNC is not required to make off ball runs. Granted, UNC does like to work its possession up and down the wing more than some teams. But that's where the heart/soul of this particular team is (Klingenberg). I'm also curious as to how many UNC games you watched in 2009 or 2008. I'm not saying that UNC players aren't going to try to take a player 1v1 with a degree of frequency. But they aren't a bypass midfield, kick it over the top all the time team.
If UNC was just about hitting long balls and out-working other teams they wouldn't still be winning... the other programs would have caught up to them. When Notre Dame and SCU starting beating UNC regularly in the late 90s and early 2000s, UNC adapted and became a much more skillful and tactical team. Now they combine both, which is why they are still in the final four (if not 2) almost every year. With that said, the entire women's collegiate game is less technical and tactical than it was at the turn of the last decade - but I blame the youth coaches for this problem more than the college coaches.
Great point casocrfan. Youth coaches are so concerned about results and qualifying to ECNL 1, USYSA NL, State Cups, etc, etc, etc that teaching the game is sacrificed. DOCs too. If you don't win, you get fired. They manage a team to win, not improve/develop. Parents too....heck, if a top player doesn't win, they change teams the next year because being on a "winning" team will get them that "scholarship." The whole youth system has stunted development big time.
In my "other" soccer life, I've been railing against this for years. I've watched the progression of amateur and youth soccer since the early days... the Catholic leagues in the St Louis area, the various ethnic leagues primarily in the northeast and midwestern cities, (and more recently the hispanic leagues all across the country), and most importantly for this discussion, I've watched the principal venues for youth training develop into a distinctively American mix (mess). This mix would include local rec leagues, AYSO, UYSA with its affiliated state divisions, and most recently ECNL and the rise US Club soccer, and its imitators. Since (with the possible exception of the remnants of the YMCA) this country does not have a true "sporting tradition" as a culture to fall back on with regard to how youth athletics should be approached, the result, especially with youth soccer, has been chaotic and has fallen prey to greed and ego especially in the last decade. It really does boil down to establishing a cogent and rational philosophy of development and competition, and while there have been good stabs at this (principally AYSO and to some extent USYSA in its early years), this effort has virtually fallen off the cliff in recent years as the numbers of youth players has grown to the point that youth soccer has come to be seen as a venue for profit and entrepreneurship (while giving lip service to development.) America is free country and we are about winning and being the best. US Club soccer has jumped into the youth soccer fray as the best expression of this value and its rise has served to promote the formation of winning teams as the primary objective. It is true that USYSA opened the door through clumsy management, and any balancing check on ambitious club coaches and management or competitive parents vulnerable to the pitch of "playing on the best (winning) team" or a college scholarship is now essentially lost. (Also losers are the vast majority of good players who have the misfortune of not being early developing "elite" players.) One result that I have seen here in North Carolina is the absurdity of young teens being driven over a hundred miles a day to practice to play with a team in a different city. And when, in some cases, it didn't work out after a season, going in the opposite direction to do the same. Or families purchasing a house in a different city so that their child could live closer to and play on a team coached by the big-name coach who has college connections. It is clear that the triumph of competitiveness has occurred at the expense of the "life lessons" of youth sport that the YMCA promoted a hundred years ago (and the likes of John Wooden are rolling in their graves.) This is not to say that there is not some good technical coaching going on in some quarters -the pool of college women players, for instance, is increasing in quality and quantity year after year. But a solid inculcation of tactical knowledge is lacking for most. College coaches are (in many cases) trying their best to play better soccer, but with their jobs on the line, it is tough. I'll close with an example that comes to mind. I can't think of her name at the moment, but there was a post college interview with an All-American who transferred into UNC in her junior year. She commented that it was only upon her transfer that Anson explained the game to her and her eyes were opened to tactics she had never thought of before and only then did she finally come to understand the nuances of the game. So we see that even for the elite athlete, our youth training is failing. Stay tuned....
Was it Kamholz? She's the most recent All-American transfer that I can think of (and yes, I'm almost ashamed that I was able to come up w/ that...I almost want to be wrong so that I look like less of a soccer nerd. I promise, I do have a life outside of soccer fandom)
I think the last couple of posts have touched on much of my opinion in various ways, but I will add a bit more. It's not just the over competitive parents that are driving this and I blame every level and type of soccer organization (the rec leagues and the competitive ones) for this. First off, why do most leagues play 11v11 at under 11? How in the world can we ask a 10 or 11 year old child to make the same decisions that we ask professional players to make? That is absurd. We shouldn't be going to 11v11 until high school age. Think of how many more touches of the ball a child would get in a game if he or she played 8v8 until high school. I can't tell you how many times I see u10 coaches doing fitness training. Really?!! For 10 year olds who play 20-25 minute halves?!! When you spend 30 minutes (one third of a 90 minute training session) on fitness your players are not touching the ball. Coaches need to get over themselves. They aren't the best instructors of skill... the ball is. On that same note, young kids should have a ball at their feet at all times during practice. Standing around in big circles, or in long lines or in big scrimmages doesn't teach players to be confident on the ball. We play way too many games in this country and practice far too little. The game of soccer is about lots of little 1v1, 2v2 and 3v3 type of games. That's what today's youth should be playing in practices.
This is a great discussion. Thank you to you recent posters. As a new coach (U-7), but one with long-ago soccer experience, it's very helpful.
ca, I agree 100%. I would like to add that coaches spend to much time on fitness at most of the intermediate ages. I have been a coach for 20 years, 4 @ the recreational level and the past 16 as a select coach. I have always stressed training with the ball @ your feet. The majority of my training at the younger ages, involves the ball. I hate to see lines, kids waiting to play, getting bored and learning nothing. In the beginning, I used to gain a lot of resistance from parents. Why are we losing? How come we don't kick the ball up the field? Why do you try to keep possession? I stood my ground. I eventually won over those parents. The club I have been coaching with for the past 16 years has changed their philosophy. They now train in levels of progression. I think the only disagreement I have with you, is your 11v11 argument. I agree that small sided games are good training grounds,(6v6, 8v8) but only need to be in practice, up until the age of 13 or 14.(1v1, 2v2, 3v2 4v2, and 4v3, should always be an integral part of training) Once players approach this age(13 or 14) the more gifted players will maintain most of the possession, and need to have a growing understanding of tactical knowledge, I feel they need to play 11 v 11 @ the age of 13 or 14.
Here's a piece of advice from an old-timer coach..... sit in a chair as you coach and ask all of your parents to do the same thing at games. People tend to be quieter and much calmer when they are sitting down. It makes for a much nicer game atmosphere and you will find that you, as the coach, have more conversations with your players on the sideline rather than yelling at the players on the field!!
Regarding 11 v. 11 versus 8 v. 8 -- I know it's only a small step, but in Northern California, CYSA starting this season adopted 8 v. 8 for all U11s. 11 v. 11 play now starts at U12. There was some resistance initially to making the change, ("we've always done in the old way" or "where will we find all the needed 8 v. 8 fields?") but now pretty much everyone is on board.
Composed and sportsmanlike is good. Being quiet as if it's a golf tournament is not so good. I think many clubs adopt the philosophy that parents should keep their comments to encouragement and not coaching. "Nice win!" "Great ball!" "Good pass!" Instead of "SHOOOOOOTTT IT!!!", "Pass it!" "Get onside!", etc. I think parents should be enthusiastic and vocal. Just avoid falling into the trap of trying to coach your kids. Just because you've watched a few games doesn't make you a qualified coach. Not to mention your children benefit so much more from being able to make their own decisions on the field, learning from their mistakes and successes instead of from hearing someone tell them to do something. Sitting down, though?! Come on! Get excited and enjoy your children's fleeting years in sport. Hopefully it will be infectious. We're getting pretty off topic here, aren't we?
My suggestion is to simply ask the players to keep the ball on the ground, kick and chase doesn't work when you discipline them to do so. They will have to move off the ball or strand the ball carrier with no options. The whole style of play is created with this one rule. Try it for a season and reap the benefits: the players generally like it as well and the players incapable of playing this way always have a plethora of other Coaches (even in the NCAA) who like to send the ball aloaft.
We all watched the semis today. Notre Dame looked good, but we were impressed with Stanford! They have a lot of talent and passed the ball around with confidence and poise. It should be a good game on Sunday.
Great post it is obvious by the comments most do not understand what a possession game means. Florida and UNC possession teams are you kidding mean? The how does UNC keep winning without technical players? The discussions are completely separate whoever said UNC does not have technical players? You can be a technical team and still not play possession soccer you can connect a few passes and still not be a possession team. Look at José Mourinho coached teams no one would call them non technical but nobody would say they play possession either. Barcelona and Spain have dominated the world in the last few years playing a game with undersized players they might be onto something. Womens teams like Japan and Korea are starting to be force on the national stage with small players. How is this possible? Like others I do not blame the youth coaches but do blame bad coaching. Style of play comes from the top and the college and national team coaches continue to pick athletes over soccer players. ex Sidney Leroux great athletes hustles but her ball skills are on par with good 16 year old player. (yet Pia says she want to play possession) Anybody at Disney this past weekend and watch the U15 Japanese team beat up on the u17 teams in the showcase bracket? When the national and college teams start recruiting the possession players youth coaches will produce more of them. They are still out there but most do not get much notice or they adjust there accordingly to get recruited. Kick the ball to the flags force the defense to make mistakes with your athletic forwards and score.
Wanted to refresh this topic, given the passage of time and with the approach of college ID summer camps etc. Any thoughts regarding 1) trends in style of play in women's college soccer (e.g., more or less attempts at possession-oriented style versus emphasis on long-runs/ speed) and (2) any changes or new additions to possession-oriented versus long-ball/ speed/ strength college program categories. Thanks!!
I will say this - with 2 playing college the last couple of years I have seen a lot of games from different schools (mostly mid-low D1's and some bottom dwelling power 5's. Many coaches have/are trying to recruit and play what they think is possession but there is zero plan/ability by players and coach what to do in final 1/3. They play 'possession' in the easy part but nobody has the skill or wisdom on how to transition or use possession to get quality shots. And IMO it usually equates to a much more anemic offense than if they would just play direct.
UVA, Stanford, Duke, Penn State, Wake Forest, Florida State, Auburn, Vanderbilt, Kansas (yup), off the top of my head all try and play possession.