Wynalda's column is now my favorite weekly column. Never dull, is Eric. And he nailed both games this weekend. The Preki part too, Preki was not a factor at all, I thought.
Well lets see if Eric Wynalda makes a career out of the same point over and over and over for 30years. If he does, I bet he will be subject to the same compaints.
I think Waldo began to and partially made the most important point concerning youth soccer. What he's saying in the coaching vs. managing (in a nut shell) is that we overcoach kids these days. Too often we allow our youth players (many in the MLS now were at the youth level in 1996) to be grouped and catergorized by positions. We force players to use their opposite foot, or pass all the time, or shoot once you get so close, etc. These "coaching" skills end up holdnig players back. But if a person would just manage these individuals, their natural skills would take over. Instead their natural skills are being wasted and diminish (any skill thats not practiced will diminish) from "coaching". I've trained in England (albeit for a short time) and played for a South American who played for the Cosmos (Chico Borja anyone???). In all I had 3-4 very great coaches who all stressed the same thing. The best players have the natural skills, and no coach should ever mess with them. No one ever taught Beckham to bend it, Maradono to dribble it, etc. They just got a ball at their feet and had the intangible skills. But, especially in America, had a Maradona been "coached" he would have been told to pass more, dribble less, etc and he would never have become what he was. I've heard this philosophy numerous times yet, not surprisingly, never from an American. Obviously there are youth programs where kids do need to be taught how to kick, dribble, pass, etc. But rarely are those the leagues and the kids that will be playing professionally, which is what Waldo is talking about. IMHO that is what Wynalda is getting at. He sees the big picture, that the person in charge of a team (of naturally skilled players) should take the set of skills his player has and manage them into a unit that can compete.
I agree with Ben. Wynalda made mention of Bradley who comes from the Bruce Arena school. All of the good coaches who have worked for Arena tend to lay out game tactics and let the players take it from there. Then there are coaches who actually try to control situations -- even during games. I'm not saying this very well, but I think a perfect example is Steve Sampson. When he took over the US, he had little experience and basically just picked the best 11 and put them out there to play. That time period = some of the best soccer the US has played including the win over Argentina in the Copa America. Then as he got into the job, he tried to control more and more of the game, and tried to "think" his way to victories over other coaches (See, 3-6-1 ). A good part of Arena (and his disciples)'s practices are short sided games with lots of movement on and off the ball, one-touch passing and closing down space -- in other words "playing".
You're right that over-coaching should be avoided at all costs. But there're very few players who don't have weaknesses in some facet of their game. And I would say that up until a player turns 24 or so, it's a coach's responsibility to help the player develop the weaker aspects of his game to help him reach his full potential. Take basketball, for instance. When Dirk Nowitski showed up at the Dallas Mavericks as a 19 year old rookie, he quickly picked up the nickname "Irk" because he had no "D" in his game. Did Mavericks coach Don Nelson say to himself, "Ah, there's no need for me to coach Dirk. He's 7 foot tall and has world-class shooting and passing skills. I better not mess with anything -- including his lousy skills on defense or weak rebounding ability -- or I might throw off his game." No way! Nelson did what a good coach will do -- he left Dirk's A+ offensive game alone, but worked hard to help him improve his D- skills on defense. The same holds for Everton's Wayne Rooney. Is his manager, David Moyes, telling himself, "Wayne's now a star for England. So even though he's just 17, I won't bother "coaching" him anymore. I'll just let him improve his game on his own as best he can." I sure as hell hope not.
I really think you guys are dismissing that a lot of the coaching actually comes from the other players. There will be a player or two on every team that has that 6 or 8 years of pro experience that will look at the new comer and give him verbal corrections during practice and games. I think this is partially responsible for players losing their confidense as they've not had to deal with criticism like that, but it also helps them elevate their game. Now there are certain players who emerge into the proranks and their skills or abilities make them an instant star. These are the ones that you watch and see what they do mostly.
You make two very strong points here. I guess what I should have said, or rather not left out, is that obviously all players have weaknesses. Of course, I was leaving it to be implied, that these weaknesses are to be worked on. My point though was that a person needs to manage his team's skills (or lack there of, when talking in terms of weaknesses). Because, for instance, a player like Preki could have been greatly affected if a "coach" saw his obvious favoritism to his left foot and made him work on his "weak" right foot. Instead Newman, Hudson and Gansler have used that skill and managed Preki's roles accordingly. (not a perfect example, obviously, since he was already in his 30's, but you get the point.) It's one thing to have players practice weaknesses to make them better. Its a whole other ball game to "coach" them in the mental aspect of the game (i.e. dribble less, pass more, shoot now, cross now, etc.) which is what I think Waldo was getting at.