Evolution of US Soccer Coaching Focus

Discussion in 'Coach' started by Monkey Boy, Nov 2, 2013.

  1. Monkey Boy

    Monkey Boy Member

    Jul 21, 2006
    Madison, WI
    Club:
    FC Bayern München
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    A recent post at 3Four3 brought up a good idea for discussion, what is the next evolution/direction for player development in US Soccer?
    http://blog.3four3.com/2013/10/31/possession-soccer-at-any-level/

    Over the past 30 years, US Soccer has gone through several player development revolutions. All based on finally realizing a problem, focusing on a solution and the result leading to another problem.
    Problem - coaches with no skills or experience in the sport (never played or watched). They knew other sports and attempted to organize teams in a similar way. This led to players who were organized in a sense but possessed very limited skills.
    Solution - focus on skill development. This came in the form of teaching skills in isolation with the belief it was easier for players to learn that way.
    Result - players became more skilled, but struggled to use those skills on the field under pressure. So the emphasis on passing/moving the ball faster.
    Problem - coaches were now good at yelling instructions to make up for the players' lack of tactical understanding and players who struggled with skills under pressure.
    Solution - Teach skills in context with a focus on SSG.
    Result - players are more competent with using skills under pressure, but the lack of organization typically leads to chaos.
    This is the situation I think we're in now. There's a lot of disorganization all the way up. From watching several HS age games, the players are at a better skill level in general, but the play is very individual. Lots of chaos, very little possession, rarely can you see a sequence of 5 or more passes in a row - typically only 3 at most. It's basically still a lot of kick and chase.

    Problem - jungle ball, as defined by 3four3. Better technical players, but very naive tactically.
    Solution - ??? Is the pattern play suggested by 3four3 the solution? If not, then what is?
    Result - depends on the solution and only time will tell

    Thoughts?
     
    rca2 repped this.
  2. rca2

    rca2 Member+

    Nov 25, 2005
    #2 rca2, Nov 2, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 2, 2013
    I am really out of step with most coaches on the topic of style of play. I think the major problem with youth development is putting the cart before the horse. Fundamentals first. And fundamentals do not include teaching one style of play or even team tactics at all. Who cares if U-Littles cannot successfully dominate an opponent. How can anyone believe it is a sign of good development that one team maintains possession for 75% of a match.

    Now even more basic than that--what do they mean by possession soccer? I am pretty certain they don't mean the same thing I do, so I prefer to use other words to describe that style of play. "Patient" describes the style much better than "possession." ("Be quick, but don't hurry." -- John Wooden) And in my view of the senior player we should be developing would be a player who is comfortable playing any style of play and playing in any third of the field. In my view the discussion misses the point because they focus on a single team and not players generally. They also look at the present and not 10 years ahead.

    Finally--teaching team tactics to teens is easy. That is not the high school coaches problem. The problem is the players' lack of fundamentals.

    To illustrate how different I think, I believe it is a huge mistake to restrict zone 1 and 2 players to making only safe passes on the ground. Let them master passing first. Otherwise you are stunting their development.
     
  3. Twenty26Six

    Twenty26Six Feeling Sheepish...

    Jan 2, 2004
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I agree. Tactics are not hard to teach when players can control the ball with composure. The real problem is few players have the required level of composure due to poor technique and decision-making skills. Both of those things need to be taught earlier and better.
     
    elessar78 and rca2 repped this.
  4. rca2

    rca2 Member+

    Nov 25, 2005
    IMO the problem is not in the top-level planning or plan. There was a lot of good information available, world wide, about youth development 30 years ago. (Ajax, Coerver, futsal, especially.) The thinking really hasn't changed much. Take a look at what has happened in Iceland. You won't find any secrets in their approach.

    The problem has always been in the execution of plans. The USDA was a step forward because for the first time USSF had some control over some youth clubs. Normally clubs are controlled by state and regional organizations or not affiliated at all. And unlike USSF, parents had a lot of influence on the state and regional organizations.

    The need I see is for a grass roots makeover. Our nation is too large and diverse for centralized control to work.
     
  5. drdi

    drdi Member

    Jun 6, 2002
    Porto
    Club:
    FC Porto
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    seeing the last mls games no doubt coaching developped a lot in the last 2 years
    we are making more and more skilled players every year
     
  6. elessar78

    elessar78 Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 12, 2010
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    I'll second this by saying that I misdiagnosed the skill level of my U11s. I prejudged them because I felt they were better than my previous U11s so we went into more team play stuff. Results have been bad so far—what I see now (with the benefit of hindsight) are players who cannot receive well enough, pass well enough, or make the correct decisions on where and when to dribble.

    So it runs the gamut of things you described above (apart from the "other sports coaching"). Kids who were taught a lot of dribbling technique but not much else. So they're (over)confident on the ball but display poor judgment in how to use that skill.

    My boys play like all they've seen are small-sided games and struggle to apply it to the real game. Passing across the face or dribbling across the face of a PUGG or goal, in a multi-goal game probably isn't as dangerous as doing it in a real game—for example.
     
    dcole and rca2 repped this.
  7. Monkey Boy

    Monkey Boy Member

    Jul 21, 2006
    Madison, WI
    Club:
    FC Bayern München
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Well my U10 team is definitely in that situation also. We dominated our first few games with no issue controlling the play and scoring goals - little defense needed. In our last 3 games, we finally came up against some decent teams. Our team dominated in basic ball control skills - every one of our players could beat one or more defenders, holding the ball and looking for good options. We created a ton of goal scoring chances, but rushed things in front of goal and scored on only a handful each game.

    On the opposite side, we did not play well defensively. Passes in front of goal intercepted for easy chances or goals by the opposition, not getting in front of the defender when covering/ball watching, not getting back on defense (didn't need the additional support in the early games), etc. These break downs led to easy goals and ties or losses.

    Watching the play, I am pleased with how well my players are in working together along with their skills, enjoyment, desire, and creativity. As I do the work of breaking down positives and negatives from the season though, I just wonder what more I can do for them in coaching over the winter and in the spring as they prepare for tryouts.

    It also makes me wonder what I'll focus on for my U7 in order to get them at least to this level and hopefully even better. Is this focus on ball skills and SSGs enough? or, at a certain age, should more pattern play be incorporated? Would that organize some of the chaos or is that even what is best for their development? Or is that pattern/organizational focus simply a good method for team rather that individual development?

    Thanks for the input guys!
     
    dcole and rca2 repped this.
  8. rca2

    rca2 Member+

    Nov 25, 2005
    I think pattern play is useful for helping kids make the transition to tactics for larger sides, but it is better suited for defensive and transitional moments--than attacking. With a given system, there is generally one right approach to solving a defensive problem. But for attacking, it is a fallacy to think that there is only one right way to score a goal.

    Having said that, I always used pattern play to introduce youth players to an 11v11 system.
     
  9. Ihateusernames

    May 16, 2007
    Merriam, KS
    Club:
    Kansas City Wizards
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I've seen a few teams more focusing on passing and positioning even when their players couldn't control the ball. I've also seen the other end. We had a game last season where you could tell the players hadn't done any passing or positioning but instead just learned to dribble. That's fine and dandy to do skill moves but they didn't know when to do them. I saw a couple girls doing moves at midfield with no defender around. To each his/her own I guess.

    Though, I will say that for all the ball control they were obviously working on, they didn't seem to grasp the basic parts like receiving or dribbling straight. They also didn't seem to understand defense. I would think they'd pick up basics in practice but maybe all their moves were against cones?
     
  10. GKbenji

    GKbenji Member+

    Jan 24, 2003
    Fort Collins CO
    Club:
    Colorado Rapids
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I did the same with a HS team once. We dropped a classification, so we went from the bottom of the totem pole among the larger schools to the big dog among the smaller schools. But we were still a team with only a handful of decent club players, and lots of inexperience. I tried to coach them as a higher-level team when they really weren't. I accidentally let the comparison with our opponents affect how I coached them, rather than the actual level of the players.

    Dimwit me took almost half the season before I realized why it wasn't going well and why everyone was so frustrated. I was trying to coach higher level techniques and team tactics to kids who just weren't ready for that. They got frustrated because stuff was over their ability & understanding of the game; I was frustrated because we couldn't execute what I was trying to coach.

    I am also coming to the conclusion that other instances where the coaching was difficult was due to a mismatch between my expectations and the ability of the players. Rather than fume, "They ought to be able to do this!" I sometimes need to stop and say, "Well, they can't do this, so time to step back and simplify things."
     
  11. elessar78

    elessar78 Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 12, 2010
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    It's great to read this because it echoes what I've been going through this season. I realized this past weekend, that my frustration isn't as much at them for not executing—as it is with myself for not coaching.

    Earlier this year, I was reading a year-long break down of a "Barcelona Escuela" (they now send some of their academy coaches to tour the US) and the first month was simply labeled evaluation. I thought that was a ridiculously long time to simply evaluate the players instead of just jumping right in and coaching/teaching. Now, I have a much better appreciation of that evaluation period. This year, I based what I started on with what I saw in tryouts and two practices in August. When, in retrospect, I didn't really see who they really were as players until about, not coincidentally, a month into the season.
     
    rca2 repped this.
  12. Rob55

    Rob55 Member

    Nov 20, 2011
    I think most everyone I've talked to that has been involved with soccer over decades say that today's youth/HS age players are much more advanced and skilled than decades past. So we've made great strides in youth development over last 30 years.

    So ideas for improvement from where we are today?

    - My easy/quick fix is to play more competitive games each season/during the week. Increase game play each week 100% by playing once on weekends and once on weeknights just like US baseball leagues usually do.

    a) Live / competitive games are always alot more fun for the children than 1 game and 2-3 practices each week.
    b) Nothing really accelerates the learning curve of game / field experience that is being discussed as an issue than in a full field game in competitive situation.
     
  13. elessar78

    elessar78 Moderator
    Staff Member

    May 12, 2010
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    #13 elessar78, Nov 6, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2013
    Your views are diametrically opposite to what is best for player development. Kids need more training in relation to games played, not more. Ideally a 4:1 practice to game ratio.

    Competitive matches can be awful for learning the game. American kids don't grow up in a soccer culture and there's little opportunity to help them crystallize concepts in-game. In games, American parents have way too much sway on how their child plays and what behaviors and actions are rewarded.

    A solution, not THE solution, would be to take a little bit from everything he mentions in the OP:
    -Coaches that have experience with the game in person.
    -A little bit of isolated skill development, so they can learn the skill
    -A little bit of small sided games so they can apply their isolated skills
    -Age appropriate "full-sided" games in training.
    -Pattern play when appropriate.

    Methods like whole-part-whole style training probably needs to be used more to help our young players understand how training reflects the real game.

    No need to constantly reinvent the wheel.

    30 years ago, heck even 20, the amount of coaches that knew what they were doing was sparse and it's probably not at the level it needs to be yet to address all the players we have.
     
    BTFOOM repped this.
  14. rca2

    rca2 Member+

    Nov 25, 2005
    [Gets up on soapbox] There should be NO competitive matches at all for Zone 1. None. They serve no purpose whatsoever. At that age organized teams and leagues are an unnecessary distraction from player development. USSF caters to parents and the tournament industry by keeping the league and team structure for U-Littles. But going to small sided teams is a compromise and like all compromises has problems. Smaller teams means more coaches and overhead costs per player. (More coaching licenses needed for instance.) It means more decentralization and less quality control of coaching (if "less" is even possible). It means more referees are needed.

    Organized teams are not necessary until U14 when we teach team tactics. After that, we move into the "training to compete" phase--that is when you need competitive matches. (I trust everyone understands what I mean by competitive.)
     
    Ihateusernames repped this.
  15. dcole

    dcole Member+

    May 27, 2005
    This is great, but why stop there? Why do we ever need "competitive matches"? Skill development would be advanced greatly by abolishing the "game of soccer" altogether and replacing it with the "skill of soccer." It can just be a skill like yo-yo-ing or riding a unicycle. Just look at all the great yo-yo-ers and unicyclists our country has developed without ever having them engage in "competition."
     
  16. Twenty26Six

    Twenty26Six Feeling Sheepish...

    Jan 2, 2004
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yea, let's exaggerate things until the original point no longer exists. Real easy to win that argument now, isn't it?

    I think we just make U8s fight Muay Thai until unconcious for small sums of money. After all, other countries do that, and they seem to keep prospering just fine? Toughens 'em up! :rolleyes:
     
  17. dcole

    dcole Member+

    May 27, 2005
    I was responding to an over-the-top suggestion (no games until kids are 13 years old, the age when 90% of kids stop playing the game anyway) with an equally outrageous suggestion of not playing any games at all, ever. Look, my point is that soccer is a game. Everyone wants to make it into a skill, but it's not; it's a game. If you want to take the top 10 players in each age group in each small geographic area and have them train full time and not play any games so that you can develop extraordinary soccer players, and you can get their parents to buy into that, more power to the creators of soccer robots. But to suggest that no one in this country should be playing organized soccer until they are 13 is ludicrous on its face.
     
  18. Monkey Boy

    Monkey Boy Member

    Jul 21, 2006
    Madison, WI
    Club:
    FC Bayern München
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Actually rca2 didn't explain what he meant by competitive matches. An in-house league has teams playing games against each other, but they are not competitive. There are no league standings and no official record of who won/lost. This is organized soccer with weekly practices and weekend games.

    This differs obviously from the travel/select teams, which seem to continually get younger in age. Those teams are travelling around to play other select teams in competitive matches with the main focus placed on league standing.
     
  19. Danielpeebles

    Danielpeebles Member

    May 17, 2013
    Milford, Ohio
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    u8 games are full of insanity. I would much rather get together with a few other coaches and divide kids into even teams of 3v3 to 5v5 using multi colored t-shirts. even have kids switch teams when it gets lopsided. it would probably diffuse some of the idiotic things some parents and coaches scream from the sidelines as well.
     
  20. dcole

    dcole Member+

    May 27, 2005
    You're right, he didn't define "competitive games," but he did say: "USSF caters to parents and the tournament industry by keeping the league and team structure for U-Littles." I take that to mean that he advocates no league and team structure for ages below U14. He also said "[o]rganized teams are not necessary until U14". So, he is saying that there should be no organized teams. That's clear. Now, maybe he advocates for the "play day" concept where kids show up on Saturdays and are divided up into groups to scrimmage against each other. Dunno, but I don't like that format at all either (edit- at least not for U9 and up. I'm sort of indifferent as to U5-U8.)
     
  21. Rob55

    Rob55 Member

    Nov 20, 2011
    My comment about the idea for more games per week and less practice was solely an attempt to address the OP on their assessment of the current state they feel we are in. Technical skills have improved. Skills under pressure has improved. Now the current assessment is we have clueless players in the context of the full game / team play (i.e. soccer IQ / game experience). My suggestion was to simply play more games more frequently, like they do ad-hoc in 3rd world countries. Our US culture though the kids won't do it ad-hoc so we need to set it up for them via organized games. In my experiences, they get bored playing themselves and same local team in scrimmages. They all step up in competitive games, with uniforms and a paid ref. Even the goof-off rec. players in practice give 100% on game day. Increase the game days and give the kids what they want.

    I'm not saying go back to the dark ages of no footskill training and just play jungle ball, kick and chase, whatever ugly soccer we're talking about. Just trying to find ideas/solution for the OP's assessment of our current state.
     
  22. Danielpeebles

    Danielpeebles Member

    May 17, 2013
    Milford, Ohio
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    no, the goof off rec players don't' always give 100% on game day, not all kids are created equally and you get to see this up close and personal in recreational leagues.

    although I guess the whining and crying dies down as they get older.
     
  23. Ihateusernames

    May 16, 2007
    Merriam, KS
    Club:
    Kansas City Wizards
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    We all know practices help kids and to an extent, so do more competition in games and whatnot, but I've discovered something on a personal practice level. I've actually started suggesting some of my kids go play rec games in addition to competitive games. In practice they do fine but in games they get pressured and all is lost. I found that with myself, I know what I can and can't do, but I don't always get to practice those can't on my own or in practice (being as there is still pressure to perform) so for the longest time even as an adult I joined in pick up games to work on specifics. For example, I was for some reason having issues hitting teammates in stride on a long ball (not to be confused with hit and run, but more a quick breakaway or switching the field). The pick up games let me work on that again in a more relaxed setting. If I f'd up, no one cared. I guess what I'm saying is we really do need to encourage casual play as well. I have had a lot of kids who only use a ball in practice or games and expect to get better. Even individual skills only go so far (I know we've all seen the freestylers who have talent but can't actually play the sport).
     
  24. mckersive

    mckersive Member+

    Mar 26, 2013
    New York City
    Club:
    Chelsea FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    This is a worrying trend where I live, in Long Island. For a long time (40 years) there was only one dominant league and it dictated what it considered was best practices to its member clubs and starting travel at U10 was one of those tenants. The member clubs therefore each developed in-house intramural leagues to develop the younger kids. In the last few years, however, a competitor league started up and started offering travel leagues to younger and younger aged teams. The local clubs started seeing their best (insert any other appropriate superlative modifier here) players skip in-house leagues altogether and join U7 travel teams (mostly started by local training organizations). This reduced the pool of internally developed players for the clubs, so by the time U10 tryouts rolled around, the U10 travel teams were not as competitive. So I assume the member clubs started complained to the establishment league. The league acquiesced and are going to permit travel (and offer league competition) at U7. This will probably decimate in-house leagues for a lot of the clubs.

    I blame the parents of course. The common refrain that I hear is: "my especially talented and/or athletic 6 year old son/daughter needs to play with other similarly talented players in a competitive environment or their development will be stunted". That may or may not be the case, but one thing that I will predicts is that the pool of good soccer players in LI will diminish because of this decision.
     
  25. Danielpeebles

    Danielpeebles Member

    May 17, 2013
    Milford, Ohio
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    one thing with rec league is in general the best player is more aggressive than pretty much the whole team. you give him a rest, someone else on our team touches the ball, but eventually the other team scores, when he goes back in, it's balanced again, but now he's taking 90% of the touches for our team. on the other extreme, the less aggressive players are lucky to touch the ball even a few times a game, and when they do touch the ball, its because they are playing a defensive position and the game comes to them (as opposed to them running to the ball or receiving a pass). at least in practice I can control the SSGs and everyone touches the ball, even when playing a game.
     

Share This Page