Thoughts on the State of the College Game

I agree to a certain extent and this topic was discussed by Greg Ryan at the recent coaches convention, winning was emphasised over development. Its unfortunate that most clubs are run by parent boards who know little about the game and player development. They equate winning trophies, state, regional and national titles with success and that's how coaches keep their jobs.

What we get as the end result are a lot of Abby Wambaughs and no Marta's.

I disagree with the statement that the "English" game was to blame as the foundation of the problem. I would be more inclined to look at the UNC program and its early run and gun athletic style which was adopted at the national level when Dorrance was the coach and many of the UNC grads were on the team. Everyone saw its success and copied it.

I watched a men's and women's practice today, the men were congratulated and cheered if they pulled off a great move, the women were frowned upon for showing up their team mates and were ball hogs. Its an interesting dynamic.

 

Unfortunately, the state of college coaching, especially BCS schools, is win first. Develop later. The more money that is involved, the more the coaches are coaching and planning for results. How many coaches would tell you they feel they have the time to develop players more wholly? I think every coach would like to develop players in a quality way. And coaches who have sustained success can make that a priority. Unless a coach has long term support from their ath. dept. , you can bet they are more concerned with results and keeping the big salary and the income rolling in through camps. You are left with a choice....develop players with the big picture in mind, to help our national team landscape or help yourself. Most coaches are never going to reap those benefits and aren't concerned with helping the seemingly small group of coaches who will always get that chance to coach at the highest level.

 

uggh. It's nice to disagree with you wholeheartedly, Norfolk.

England hasn't "produced a Marta" since George Best . . . and never on the women's side. You don't have to believe me, the English have been bemoaning their ability to develop players (with far more resources than we have) for decades. And they've been right, though they've at least figured out how to get their poorest coaches to leave the country and work here.

UNC on the other hand, has always produced considerably better soccer than most of their peers (heresy, I realize, but you can probably prove this to yourself on youtube watching tapes of the last six or seven College Cups). Despite my feelings about Coach Smith @ SCU, they are generally more sophisticated than the other top west coast teams, even if they have less talent. The key to possession by the USWNT is playing Tarpley and O'Reilly - who both honed their skills at UNC.

on to the question at hand . . .

The idea that there's a dichotomy at the college level between developing players and winning is pretty humorous, really. You don't hear anything in basketball, but that young kids need college ball to develop and they miss that experience if they go to the NBA early. [sarcasm]I think some of those basketball college coaches might feel almost as much pressure as the soccer coaches in terms of winning - at least at the schools that value basketball success more than soccer (how rare they must be)[/sarcasm]

The miracle is that college soccer is often skillful and attractive . . . I think most college programs do an amazing job at producing skillful soccer in an environment that is much more competitive and equitable athletically than the youth clubs that feed them. Not that many of the people lining up to criticise have seen more than three or four colleges play.

 

Norfolk, I'm wondering, what team were you watching? If you're from Portland, I would guess it was the Pilots. That seems odd to me, since the Pilots play some of the most technical soccer of the women's teams in the country. And, over the years, they've given great freedom to their players to possess the ball. (A la Lindsey Huie in the past and Elli Reed last year, not to speak of Angie Woznuk and Stephanie Lopez.) Before I had seen you were from Portland, I was going to specifically mention Portland and Santa Clara -- and the West Coast Conference in general -- as playing more of the "beautiful game." On the other hand, maybe you were watching someone else.

In any event, I think it's a matter of who the coaches are. I wouldn't completely critique English coaching, as Clive Charles was a product of the English system and introduced a very technical, possession-oriented brand of women's soccer. I think it's a matter of realizing that women's soccer and men's soccer are very different games. From my perspective, well-played women's college soccer can be a much more attractive and enjoyable game than men's college soccer. But I really dislike the pre-Pia brand the Women's National Team was playing, even leading up to the World Cup. I'm willing to bet that Christine Sinclair really disliked the brand the Canadian women were playing, too. I seem to remember Christine saying, after the Pilots' 2005 championship, that they were the best team she ever had played on. Quite a statement after Canada had been a World Cup semi-finalist in the preceding World Cup. Perhaps she was making a statement about styles of play.

 

Oh I agree, Portland does play a great brand of passing and possession soccer, what I am referring to is the individual creativity in one on one situations that we saw from Marta, Christina and to a lesser extent Kelly Smith. The ability to pull off the outrageous piece of skill that we see Ronaldinho, Messi or Kaka pull off regularly. When was the last time you saw a female player do two step overs and explode past a defender, or meg them just for fun? I remember reading on these boards about Marta showboating against the US, most posters on here frowned upon it.

 

Actually, I remember Angie Woznuk doing that this year. I think it was in the San Diego game -- or was it Santa Clara? or Tennessee? I remember thinking, "Wow, did she really do that?" It was a toe flip of the ball over her defender's shoulder while she was passing her on the other side. By the way, Angie and Marta are acquaintances -- exchanged jerseys after one of the U-something world championships. The one in which Angie won the silver boot.

 

I think you may have been at the concession stands a bit to much if you were at UP games this year. Its not just passing and possession I saw. Double stepovers? Ellie Reed several times and Michelle Scifo every game she played for the last four years. We took bets on what minute she would do the first one.(Scifo was mostly a reserve defender this year)

Nutmegs? you can't be serious, and they are ALWAYS for fun.

There was also a Bicycle kick and Angie Woznuk doing Zidane drag-and-spin moves (both ways, Zidane only goes right)

There was a player heading a ball over a keeper 1v1, collecting the ball on the other side and scoring ( Enyeart, I think).

The goal fans are still talking about (its just called "the Goal") was against San Diego. Here's the press release:

What really happened is she took the ball from a Mid beyond midfield, shot down the sideline past a defender, did a swim move on a defender to get to the goal line. Then she beat a central defender that came out to meet her with a sidestep, spun another defender around with her move into the box, beat the first central defender that met her again, THEN froze the keeper and scored from about 8 yards out.

7 minutes in - game over. The fire went out of the San Diego team, and you could hear their coach yelling at his players from across the parking lot after the game. Final score 4-0.
This was special, and I can't recall anyone complained she was showboating. By my count that was 5 or 6 defenders she embarrased, depending on whether you count a player twice. Marta only beat 3 at best.

But it's not just Portland, I'm just talking about games I saw. There are players capable of doing those kinds of things all over the place. They just never got the chance on the National teams because the National team coaches that controlled their careers just stuck to old formulas. If they did get there, they had to suppress their creativity to stay on the team. Tiffeny Milbrett quit rather than submit. Pia is calling some of those players back and looking for some of the young ones that can do those things. I think it's good.

 

That was the Tennessee game. you can see it here UP-Tennessee

about the 4:40 mark on the video.

 

I think you are missing the point. By the way George Best was from Northern Ireland. Have you heard of Kelly Smith? She has more individual skill and "cleverness" on the ball than any US player. So wrong on your first two points. Obviously your anti English bias is showing. As for Carolina, their style of run and gun won them the championships, it was never based on brilliant possessional play and "Marta" type cleverness on the ball. Just pump it forwards, run like hell and when you get tired, sub in three new ones. It worked for many many years until teams now can handle the athleticism. If they are so good, what has happened in the last 7 years, (I did watch it on youtube, Carolina were not on some of the final fours they still get the best players. So maybe its the system.

If you really think that college soccer has boatloads of individually skilled players like Marta, then you are deluding yourself. Tarpley and O'Reilly wouldn't get in the Brazilian or German teams and neither would displace Smith in the England team.

 

Maybe thats why Wozzy is in the national team now. But players like her in college and premier club ball are few and far between considering the vast numbers of players in the US. We are simply just not developing enough of them....why?

 

I think the U.S. is developing quality, world class, players and I think the college system is doing just fine.

I think we tend to expect the WNT pool to be hundreds of players deep. It never will be, even in the best of circumstances. I do think that there are 20-30 players each year that have the ability to make the squad. And another 20 that are in need of international experience to make the next jump. That gives us 50 players. I don't think there is a nation in the world that can claim that on the women's side.

If you look at the top 25 women's college teams in the nation I think you will see some amazing players - especially if you look at the top 10. With the expansion of women's programs in the nation more girls are getting a chance to play and the talent pool is diluted from an overall perspective.

To expect our system to continue to roll out Mia-type players (or Marta) is unrealistic. How many Michael Jordan's have there been? Special players like these are rare and usually only come along once (maybe twice) per generation.

I also think it's unfair to overly criticize UNC for any state of the game. Many UNC players have shown that they can play a "pretty" game after they leave college. AD job is not to develop players for the National team, but to win championships. He does that well, with great athletes and awesome soccer players. If winning on the international level was just about being great technical soccer players China would have won 2-3 World Cups. A player has to be developed mentally as well and there is no questioning the good work that UNC and other top college programs are doing in that manner.

The criticism of the youth programs, and more importantly, the parents is right on. More emphasis on developing a love for playing and unstructured play (visit the streets and beaches of Brazil) is the way to develop the next Mia and Martas of the world. Remember, they became who they are because of their inner desire to do so, not really because they had same magic coaching.

 

Kelly Smith is a terrific striker - not really a dedicated play-maker. Tarpley, O'Reilly, Best, Marta, etc. play behind the front line, and I think the US has had more than a couple of strikers who were comparable to Smith. There was this girl named Mia once upon a time (or Tiffany over on your coast . . ., and that Abby girl isn't bad, she gets a bad rap, but there's quite a bit of guile in her game when she's got the freedom to play)

You're right, the last actually ENGLISH player like Marta was Sir Stanley Matthews. I'm a little confused how that doesn't make my point about their development system.

And I'm in favor of good coaching and good soccer, that just SEEMS like being anti-UK since what gets exported in terms of coaching comes from places where neither exists.

 

Stanley Matthews, the last one?? (to quote Ricky Gervais) are you having a laugh. Chris Waddle, Paul Gascoigne, Peter Beardsley, Joe Cole, Shawn Wright Phillips, Aaron Lennon, Ryan Giggs, (yes he might play for Wales, but he's a Man U product). Just to name a few. How about some Scots, Eddie Gray, Jimmy Johnson, John Robertson all great one on one players.

Kelly Smith played up front and in midfield in the last world cup and has more guile and savvy to her game than all those players you suggested....Abby Wambaugh, geeez.

 

I'm not tech savvy enough (or interested enough) to have your quote about George Best next to the Giggs quote.

You win. There's no point in arguing with anyone who views Shawn Wright-Phillips as the EPL's version of Marta.

 

Wright Phillips can do all the things Marta can on the ball and even faster (yeah he can't cross it too well)

 

That Portland goal vs USD was unreal.

College coaches are paid to win games, not develop players.
They get such limited (relatively speaking) quality practice time with the kids, all their energy goes into preparing the team to win games (be that how they can...physical and direct or possesion.) If I were a coach and had top notch players, I would play pretty, but if all I could get my hands on were athletic runners, I would crunch people and send that ball forward. I would try to win as effectively as I could.

It will be interesting to see with the rise of the academy system if kids opt out of college to remain in more full-time training and international exposure. If the men's game heads that way, what, if at all, affect will that have on women. Granted, the money is not there, but if a few women stay with the academies and become premier players nationally and in the professional league, what will that mean? There is more development to be had in comparison to our college system. Will that ever become a viable alternative to our women?

 

upprv, I have a couple of thoughts about coaches being paid to win rather than develop players. First, I guess I'm an idealist (although I know all about men's college football, basketball, etc.), but I thought colleges were supposed to be educational institutions and coaches were paid to educate. (In case something thinks I'm an idiot, this is somewhat tongue in cheek.) I will confess, however, that the high school where I coach (tennis, not soccer) is just convening some sessions with coaches and staff to try to clarify what the mission of sports is in the school. It's easy to say that the mission of high school athletics is to educate, but then isn't it true that sports success is important to the school's image, in particular if it is a private school? So, maybe it's not as clear, even in high school, as I would like it to be.

On the other hand, educating -- as in, developing players -- and success are not necessarily inconsistent. There are some very top teams that do a great job of developing players over their college careers. I guess others do a lesser job. Also, I think in recruiting, the schools that do the best job of developing their players, especially those schools at the upper level, actually would have more success in recruiting. What I think really is at issue is quality of coaching and alum/school staff ignorance. The very best coaches will help players develop to their maximum potential, because they understand that is what will produce the most success over the long run. Lesser coaches won't. So, that's the coaching part of the issue. But, a top coach has to be allowed a "long run" in order to achieve success. I guess that at some schools, this is something the alums and/or ADs don't understand. They think an excellent coaches can produce a top program "right now." I even remember an entry on one BigSoccer thread saying something like, "What do you mean, give a coach five to seven years? The players here now will be gone by then." If the reality is that it takes five to seven years for an excellent coach to build a program that will be successful over the long term, as I think is the case, then that is what it takes. It doesn't matter whether the players here now won't realize the ultimate benefit. At least they will be part of the building process. That's the way the coach has to sell it, and a good one will be able to do it.

 

Gotta agree with upprv on this one. College coaches just don't have enough contact time with players to really develop them well. It has to be about winning first. That's where, I think, you can separate the good college coaches from the great ones. The great ones can win and develop players to some extent, but the NCAA rules make it nearly impossible to truly develop players.

 

I am an idealist as well, and would love to see college coaches and programs develop players to be the best they can be (laughing). Not just on the field, but as people and young women and responsible citizens. I think some coaches try to do this and are on the right track.

I think the reality of the situation (and seems to be heading with all this firing/hiring more and more money being thrown about) is that ad's want coaches who win. If they can develop players, then great, but they need to win and win quickly.

The lower tier schools probably (or hopefully) understand that in order for them to win consistently, they need to develop the bulk of their team. They cannot count on star recruits coming in by the handful to save them year after year. But even then, development is limited by the limited practice time and contact.

And i was the poster who advocated for a coach to be given 5-7 years to give a ruling on them, and who was then told that that prognostication is unrealistic. I stand by what I said. To truly tell a coach's impact on a program, they need 5 years or more. They need an entire team of their kids, plus a few years to judge development both on the field and as a person. This, of course, is all IMHO, which as I am told often is quite wrong and idiotic. Que Sera...

 

College coaches have plenty of time to develop their players. There is over 8 months in between seasons. The spring semester provides 5 months of practice without any official games. If a coach can't significantly develop and improve their players in 5 months and/or get their players to play in the style they prefer then the coach is very poor.

 

There is that time between the fall seasons. But you have to realize that the true team is rarely the same. Injuries and surgeries stemming from the fall and rehab, will always keep kids out to some extent in the spring. Add to that the seniors who are no longer in the mix and the fact that you don't have the incoming class that will be in the fall. It is never trully the whole team until preseason starts. Plus in the fall, you have more time as compared to the spring when you have less actual team practice due to allowable countable hours restrictions.

True, it is still time and good coaches will get the most from it. But it isn't as easy as you make it sound.

 

Actually for a good part of spring you have more time. While a team can only use 8 hours for some portions for the most part teams have 20 hours of CARA for the spring season, the same as the championship season. Factor in that there are fewer games that count toward that CARA and there is considerably more time to train in the spring. That said, compacting so many games in a short space during the fall and then having so many fewer in the spring hampers things a bit combined with some of the team makeup factors you mention.

 

I find this discussion really interesting. I wish I knew more about who each of is, what your soccer background is, and what your current perspective is, so I could read your entries in that light. For me, I played high school and college soccer way back in the late 50s and the 60s. (In other words, I'm almost an antique.) I happened to move to Portland for work and lucked on the U of P soccer program when Casey Keller was playing for the U of P. Began watching the women play in Tiffany Milbrett's last year. Have been a Pilots women's fan ever since. I also have coached high school tennis for almost 15 years. So, I'm pretty much an amateur at all of this, but love soccer and particularly the women's game.

 

First, seniors aren't important because they’re not going to be there in the fall.

Second, there is about a two month period from the end of the season until the fall semester. That’s plenty of time to recover from most injuries and only very few players will have to miss out due to injury, so few that it is really negligible.

Third, while freshman aren't present, if the players in your three other classes are developed properly, it should be extremely hard for them to earn playing time, plus you should recruit only the players that fit your system and style of play so that no major adjustments are needed.

Fourth, the time if used properly and creatively is plenty. There can be no more than 8 hours per week of countable athletically related activities during the off season. Voluntary activities (called recommended below) do not count.

Here’s how to make the most of your time.

You hold 4 two hour practices per week where each practice consists of 45 minutes working on individual skills, 30 minutes working on possession in tight spaces and 45 minutes working on tactics. Players should be encouraged, not required, for their own welfare to warm up and stretch before practice and warm down and stretch after practice and the captains/leaders of the team should take the initiative and ensure that this happens. (A recommended warm up, warm down and stretching routine should be provided)

On the three non practice days, it should be encouraged but not required to follow a recommended Speed and Agility, Plyometric and Weight training program for the players own benefit. The captains/leaders of the team should take the initiative to ensure this happens. The players are also encouraged, and the captains again should make sure that on non practice days the team plays pickup games purely for fun and the players are encouraged to be creative and to try new things out.

On weekends the players should be invited to and not required to attend the coach’s house for a "BBQ" or "Party" where they watch soccer games and discuss what is tactically occurring in each game.