In u10 soccer who should be taking free kicks and set-pieces? Our coach exclusively has her daughter take all free kicks including penalty and corners. Her daughter in no way has the strongest leg but typically plays defense. Should the defender be taking these or is this just clear favoritism?
Hard to say…but the if the mom/coach is typically playing daughter on defense, trust me, she’s not doing her any favors…. I have less a problem with a defender always taking these kicks and more a problem with idea that U10 kids are playing pigeonholed/typical positions…. If everyone is playing defense (along with rotating through all the other positions), then everyone will have an opportunity to take free kicks…. What level is this, rec or club? How many games into the season are you? Are you generally happy with the coaching other than this? Because I gotta say, in the grand scheme of things, this seems like a pretty minor thing to make allegations of favoritism over or get too worked up over…ymmv…
Its travel ball. Her daughter primarily plays Def and Keeper with some Mid mixed in. Coaching is generally ok although she's a joystick coach to the nth degree. Constant screaming on the sidelines. We joined a Club program so we can experience some different coaching as we've all been together since Rec.
At the youth level, up through say U12, I've always employed the policy that the player who was fouled will be the one taking the penalty kick. At the team level, it kills any and all notions of favoritism; both on the field and on the sideline (and by sideline, I mean parents). Individually, it allows the players to experience the situation enough times to become comfortable when it arises. Additionally, when the situation arises, there's no confusion or discussion on the field. The players all know their roles and immediately fall to them. Actually, I wouldn't mind seeing that instituted at the pro level.
Absolutely. I totally agree. Not so much here, though. It makes sense in basketball, a high-scoring game with only a few players on the court. I think it would tilt the balance in favor of the defense a little too much in soccer.
My son takes about 75% of the corners on his team (U10). He's pretty good at whipping it in. That being said, it usually isn't all that effective with the ban on heading at that age. I sometimes wish the coach would let others take them more often. He will also allow others to take penalty kicks even if they weren't the one fouled, but doesn't just put in the best shooter then. Usually it is someone who doesn't score that often.
The player that has the best shot should take the free kicks. That should be decided in practice. No questions asked. Www.instagram.com/jjsoccerdrills
wouldnt that perpetuate the winning over development mantra that so many are opposed to at the young ages?
No because the player who is practicing more at their shot will be the better shooter of the ball. It's that way up to the professional level also. Www.instagram.com/jjsoccerdrills
But in U-little the better shooter is often the bigger stronger kids…the early physical bloomers… with an early “big leg,” practice often has very little do with it… But by always giving these types of opportunities (free kick/penalties) to a limited or select number of kids (perhaps even just one), you are simply reinforcing, and even compounding their early advantage, to the disadvantage of others… Yes, its subtle and on the surface seems simply enough….but this is exactly the type of coaching/mentality the leads to pidgin holding players too early in their development… U10 is long way from the professional level…
Given how infrequently these come up, it's not something I'd spend a lot of time worrying about. If the coach's flaw is that he doesn't spread around the infrequent penalty kicks or free kicks that could result in a goal, that's not a bad flaw to deal with.
Yes, I would tend to agree in and of itself, it’s a pretty minor thing in the grand scheme of things…my larger concern would be that its symptomatic of bigger problems… Is this coach just “brain farting” out on this one thing…or are they doing a whole host of [bad] things done in the name of winning at the expense of development? This mentality that you only allow certain players to do certain things….wherever those things may be, is the definition of pigeonholing…
True, which is why I don't think there's any "right" answer to this without context. If he's selecting the kid just because he can kick the ball harder, then it's not great. If he's choosing the kid because he puts in the time to work on it, then I don't think there's an issue. I actually view it as a positive because the coach is instilling the expectation that you have to earn certain opportunities, which I see as very pro-development.
The strength of the kick is dependent on the kids technique. Think of it as a golf ball, just because someone is a body builder doesn't mean that they will be able to out drive less muscular person. A soccer ball is no different, It's all in the technique. Practice, practice, practice. Www.instagram.com/jjsoccerdrills
Very few youngster are bending it like Beckham at a young age….yes, technique is paramount as they grow older and defenses tighten up, Keepers can actually cover more of the net and everyone catches up physically…. But, a lot kids early on are just blasting the shit out the ball, with very like regard to technique (to the oohs and aahs of adults who don’t know any better)…and for a while that’s all they need… Your analogy of full grown body builder vs. full grown but lean muscular person isn’t very on point imo…when talking about pre-adolescent children, the physical differences between peers (teammates) can be significant…think full grown man vs. a dwarf…even the best technique in the world might not be able to close that physical gap…. A big, strong 9 year old with poor technique can often look and appear more effective than smaller, weaker kids with better technique… Does "best shot" mean best technique or more likely to end up in the back of the net (more effective)? Unfortunately, it’s probably the latter in most cases…
You know what? I think I agree with practicemakes perfect on this one. An effective penalty kick is almost all about technique. A big kid who doesn't practice may kick the ball hard, but the kid who practices can lift the ball and at least make an attempt to place it. And by effective - yes, I mean making an attempt to score a goal. That's what penalty kicks are for. Even though you are trying to develop kids, you can still use the penalty kick for what it was designed for. Have a contest weekly and the winner takes any kicks at that weekend's game. What are there - four or five penalty kicks a year at that age? Sometimes I hate the fact that we have taken ALL competition out of everything for fear of singling someone out.
But we don’t…or at least we’re not supposed to use the entire game for what it was designed for….even when keeping score, the outcome isn’t supposed to matter…and IF the entire outcome doesn’t matter, then why would an individual element have such importance? Through U-littles, If everyone is being rotated into every position/area of the field, as good development practice suggests, then if while getting your opportunity to play up top, and you get fouled in the box, the PK should be theirs….they earned it, they take it…if it goes in great, if not, oh well… Singling out, pigeonholing, whatever you want call it, is the one of the biggest, yet subtlest, problems in youth soccer…kids get “slotted” into positions or roles way too early in a lot of cases…and it’s not the one minor example or situation (as always taking a few PKs may seem), it’s the snowball effect… i.e., early bloomers get preferential treatment, which leads their continued and expected domination over potentially later bloomers….
I focus more on the last sentence. As has been discussed in other threads, there seems to be a knee jerk reaction that anything that increases your chances of winning the game must be anti-"development". I think this is ridiculous. I would have no problem with a coach implementing either mwulf's idea (if you're fouled, you take it) or P.W.'s idea (you earn the opportunity at practice). But the latter seems to be frowned upon even though encouraging practice and adding healthy competition will do more to develop the players over the long haul in any sport. The entire focus seems to be on the process of development, with almost no consideration as to what it is you're ultimately trying to develop.
Ok, I really don’t have a problem with PW’s method either…and I’ll cop to taking a very hardline stance, more for the sake of argument, then for any passionate disagreement… Overall, I agree there is a lot of gray area between playing to win and development…and as I ranted about in another thread, I do think we need more balance and better understanding between the two…they aren’t mutually exclusive nor do you necessarily have to sacrifice one in order to achieve the other…
At u10 it should be the player that was fouled - that way more then 1 or 2 players know what to do when the situation happens. Anything else is playing to win.
That's a pretty broad brush stroke, no? Is there no developmental value in instilling a competitive spirit in aspiring athletes? Is there no developmental value in teaching players that some opportunities are earned, not handed out? There's a whole lot of real estate between a guy who's out for for blood in a U9 game and the guys in matching track suits overseeing grim-faced Coerver drills and elaborate possession games that take 20 minutes to set up and explain, while pointing to their losing record as proof of their development purity. That leaves plenty of space for focusing on player development while acknowledging the reality soccer is ultimately a competitive sport where the team who scores more goals, wins.
Huh? My point is that every kid should know how to take a penalty/free kick. So at u10 it should be the player who is fouled. I cannot imagine the reasoning behind having a specific player at that age taking all such kicks unless it is for an advantage. Earned? That's what a captains badge is for. This is u10 - players are still grasping at understanding the field and positioning.
What’s there really know? Seriously, it’s not that complicated…far less complicated then say, heading the ball, especially with purpose, which we are already deferring to later ages…(not open a totally OT can of worms)… Agree with it or not, PW’s whole method is designed to encourage healthy internal competition between teammates in order to develop (push each other) better shooting skills….granted it works best if there is a certain level of parity…i.e. not the same kid “earning it” week after week… But in any case, to completely disregard the developmental aspect of this methodology is exactly the knee jerk reaction some are talking about…
Sorry, I should've been clearer as to what I was referring to. I think your statement "Anything else is playing to win" is an overly broad statement. I see plenty of developmental value in P.W.'s suggestion for the reasons I stated. It sets up a rewards system that encourages players to practice and get better. But I also don't understand why winning, or even trying to win, is viewed with such disdain among the "development" crowd in youth soccer, as though the two things are mutually exclusive. Of course it's not good if the entire focus of a youth team is to simply win in the near term at all costs. I also don't think it's productive to try to pretend that soccer isn't a competitive sport and that winning games is a bad thing.