Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Developmental Philosophy

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Developmental Philosophy

    The club bashing is being replayed all over the country. I came across the following defense of a Mid West program currently under attack. I have changed the names to protect the innocent, but the club's defender is the program's DOC. I just post it to show there are clubs that approach player development in terms beyond the issue of wins and losses.

    The training at Soccer XYZ is bigger than JC, TM, SG and even AB. It is about doing the right thing the right way for the most children.

    The ebb and flow of hierarchy within the region as to whose teams are the best is so far down on the importance pole I think we often lose sight of the big picture. Kids love to play with their friends and they love to compete at their highest ability level with moderate to frequent success when possible. They do like to be challenged.

    But here is the big picture, most of your children playing for any club are going to go to different high schools and eventually different colleges. They will not be playing with these same team mates and they will not be playing with or for the same coach. The most technically sound players are the ones who are going to get noticed, get scholarships and get to play.

    So what is our job as a coach, as a teacher or mentor?

    I think it is to prepare them for success at the next level.

    Most good coaches know how to win and most good coaches can take a group of inferior athletes and or players and make a game against a more talented team and even win based on a coaches ability to move the pawns accordingly. For the best players on the team this may be an effective learning model, for most it is simply relegation to the lowest level of participation.

    The thing that makes XYZ different and makes it great with all of its faults, is that we teach for the future, we teach to prepare kids for the next level. Another thing that is great about XYZ is that we are not in the business of telling kids they aren't good enough. Can you imagine your child's eigth grade math teacher telling you they simply are too dense to understand advanced math?

    Some people say that having multiple teams in one age group dilutes the clubs strength; again I say, look at the big picture. True XYZ coaches are teacher/mentors and we do not exclude kids because they aren't the fastest or best in their age group simply because we want to win now.

    My XYZ team played in a tournament this past weekend and we got killed every game. Something unique happened in the last game, however. The coach saw clearly that his team was far superior in every measure and took the opportunity to work on team defense and to teach mercy to his kids for an outmanned opponent. There are so many great coaches in so many great clubs, I cannot begin to list all of them.

    The difference I am speaking to specifically may be ignorant of what other clubs are doing and if what I said or am about to say offends some coaches, players, managers or parents I apologize; XYZ is different because the philosophy puts the players individual skill development above the team, above the club and above all wins.

    All coaches are human and all coaches want to see their teams win and do well. All good coaches want to develop their players and help them to reach their highest level. This is not exclusive to any club nor to XYZ. The XYZ philosophy, however, asks each of us as coaches to surpress our natural tendency to compete and use players as pawns in the game in order to win it for the short term gain.

    This is an opinion, nothing more. Most traditional coaches will fight tooth and nail and believe their way is the more appropriate way to coach a player for now and for the future. I simply disagree that's all.
    And also responding is the club's founder, the "AB" mentioned above. I've done a bit of editing because he is even worse than I when it comes to quotations and as wordy as Mr. Stats when it comes to length of his posts. ;)

    Because fear of failure is a major factor in teams where winning is important and because players who are focused on passing the ball very quickly to a teammate never develop incredible creative and deceptive dribbling skills, tactical options for these players will always be limited. Players in this type of philosophy are never encouraged to take the risks necessary to develop tremendous dexterity and confidence on the ball. These players will struggle to dribble by feel, under pressure, in the fashion of players taught to be ball wizards. Players trained to pass quickly and play in certain expedient ways to attain the win, will perhaps enjoy short-term statistical winning success but in the long-term will be limited in their ability to attack with a myriad of tactical options and diverse arsenal of weapons.

    It should be obvious that the great dribbler is able to create extra penetrating options, whereas the player who can only pass to advance the ball is limited only to those options provided by teammates. When passing teams meet an opponent with a great pass defense the offence goes nowhere. Defense is easier than attack because it is far simpler to destroy than create. Furthermore, as the years go by, it is much easier to defend than attack because, as players mature psychologically and develop a greater level of aggression, teams improve rapidly in their defensive capabilities. This is one of the major reasons why many teams who dominate using the power passing game early in their youth career have a really tough time continuing their winning ways as the kids get older.

    In the long run the only way to overcome mature pass defenses is to have players in the squad who are able to beat opponents with a deceptive dribble or an incisive pass. This causes great confusion because, if opponents man mark to take away the pass, the team of accomplished dribblers and finishers can go one on one with great success. However, if the defending team sets up to cover the opposition dribble, a team of excellent passers can combine to create the goal scoring opportunity. Therefore, if you have a team of great dribblers, finishers and passers, the type of defensive set up employed doesn’t matter because your team will have all the options with which to penetrate the defense.

    The most common argument used against the dribbling and finishing approach by passing and receiving oriented coaches is the “character and teamworkâ€￾ justification. The claim here is that the passing and receiving approach develops and enhances two of the greatest societal values i.e. character and teamwork. If this claim is examined from the perspective of intent it may have some validity. However, if examined from the perspective of reality and hands on experience, it is seriously flawed.

    You can’t have the fruits without the roots. It’s the principle of sequencing. Self-mastery and self-discipline are the foundation of good relationships with others. When the difficult times come, and they will, we won’t have the foundation to keep things together. When we assess the strongest teams in everyday life we soon begin to appreciate that the better-educated individual, with a more complete educational background, is most likely to be part of a successful team. This selfish pursuit of knowledge is fully promoted, encouraged and endorsed by parents, teachers and the educational system. An exceptionally well-prepared and educated individual will have a better character and greater probability of working effectively, with other dedicated individuals in their chosen field, to create a successful team, prosper economically and hopefully create a positive legacy. If all this makes sense then why is it that a “teamâ€￾ approach is deemed to be the best way to develop soccer players from an early age?

    Many “teamâ€￾ oriented soccer coaches do not understand that great teams are made up of great individuals. Great individuals learn to be totally comfortable with the ball at their feet, under pressure, in the clutch, inside the penalty area, where the game is won or lost in a blink of an eye. To be truly successful in building an elite creative team coaches must delay their major forays into the realm of team play until the individual has attained proficiency in the most difficult skill areas of the game. Developing a fantastic team first involves the cultivation of tremendous creative dribbling and finishing ability and the positive self-concept and confidence that comes with the acquisition of superior abilities in those skills. Only then can the coach form a truly great team where players are interchangeable and each individual desires the responsibility of making the big plays. And only then will players have the technical skill and speed necessary under extreme defensive pressure to succeed consistently at the very highest levels.

    Great dribblers and finishers are always great passers because they they can put the ball and their body quickly into the ideal position and hit the target under pressure.

    Brit's are the original members of the "World is Flat" soccer society (pass, pass, pass). It's the way I and every other Brit' were taught to play the game.

    Please wake up and recognize that the world is actually round (dribble and finish).

    Watch Christiano Ronaldo play and you will see what great players are capable of.
    Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment.

    #2
    I came across this article on Steve Nicol of the NE Revolution in Soccer New England and thought it was of interest. In determining whether to post it as a new thread, I decided that it belongs under "Developmental Philosophy" thread because this is exactly what Nicol is doing and doing very well. Paul Mariner undoubtedly deserves some praise as well. It just goes to show you that development continues long after some might think it stops.

    http://www.soccernewengland.com/

    OPINION: New England doing it without stars

    By Emlyn Lewis
    July 9, 2007

    If you are a New England Revolution fan, you’ve probably been waiting a long time for the club to sign a star player -- maybe since the day the Walter Zenga show rolled into town, complete with performing seals and one of those tiny clown cars (how DO they fit so many clowns in that thing?).

    Despite the team being awarded a slew of player allocations and having ample space under the salary cap, no other big name has yet found a home in the Gillette Stadium locker room. Instead, Revolution fans have anointed their own heroes: Ted Chronopoulos, Adin Brown, Clint Dempsey, Wolde Harris, Joe-Max Moore, Alberto Naveda and Francis Okaroh, to name a few.

    Today's roster features names like, Joseph, Reis, Parkhurst, Twellman, Noonan and Dorman, none of them a star until they played for the Revolution and, with the exception of Reis, all unheralded draft picks -- many of them late-rounders not expected to make the team, or any team for that matter.

    Truthfully, I have been as frustrated as anyone with the Revolution's seeming ineptitude in the transfer market. A few names to make my point: Steve Howey, Jose Manuel Abundis, Edwin Gorter, Jose Luis Morales, David Nakhid and William Sunsing. Meanwhile, the Galaxy are adding Beckham (he who needs no first name), Abel Xavier and Carlos Pavon. The Red Bulls have Claudio Reyna and Juan Pablo Angel, and even the Columbus Crew are bringing in the likes of Guillermo Barros Schellotto.

    The Revolution are hot on the heels of...no one. You begin to wonder if they even care.

    But then at some point ineptitude stops being ineptitude and starts being a strategy. Let's call it, for the sake of future reference, the Nicol Doctrine, the outlandish idea that you can bring in versatile, talented young players and slowly integrate them into a working core, and that those same young players can grow into stars and maintain your club's standing at the top of the table.

    It seems crazy to me, but then who saw Andy Dorman emerging as one of the best attacking midfielders in the league (answer: only his mother)? Who saw Jeff Larentowicz becoming a hard man, ball-winning anchor in the middle of the park? Who thought Michael Parkhurst and James Riley could hold down starting spots in the three-man backline in one of the best defenses in the league? Who thought Pat Noonan would play for the national team or that Shalrie Joseph would be spoken of as arguably the best player in the league?

    You can call it luck the first two times. After that, there is design as work, the Nicol Doctrine. We'll not even obscure the brilliance of this plan by bringing up its most obvious benefits: cost savings, cost savings and cost savings.

    Remember Steve Nicol came from a Liverpool system that abhorred stars, despite being packed with them. Nicol himself was a faceless nobody working himself up out of the boot room and into one of the best teams in Europe. And that was with Kenny Dalglish and Graeme Sounness alongside. It was at Liverpool that Nicol learned to disdain egos. It's probably unfair to malign them with such a sweeping generalization, but few will quarrel with the notion that today's superstar players, by and large, have superstar egos as well.

    It is possible that Robbie Fowler will come to New England. Or Teddy Sheringham. Or Luis Figo. Or Zinedine Zidane. Just as it is possible that I will fart the theme to Jaws, or that the crappy punk band I played in back in college will reunite and tour Europe, met with sold out arenas and the adoring plaudits of a rapt press.

    What is more likely is that Adam Cristman will win Rookie of the Year, and we will begin to see more and more of Wells Thompson and maybe Gary Flood. Then two years from now I will write about how Ronaldinho is moving to Los Angeles while we idle away our summer atop the standings playing with a team of fuzz-faced college boys and grizzled, but very accomplished, veterans who had the best years of their careers playing in New England.

    Emlyn Lewis can be reached at emlynlewis@comcast.net.
    Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment.

    Comment


      #3
      Interesting, but I think "Kraft Doctrine" might be an equally valid label.

      The Patriots have a very similar player acquisition and development approach with the exception that they will add a star when the situation calls for it (no not Randy Moss, who is more of a reclamation project, Adelius Thomas) and that since the NFL is the best league there is in the sport, when a star is develops they can keep him around (compare the Clint Dempsey situation to Tom Brady or Richard Seymour).

      I for one prefer the Revs philosophy. I'm not convinced the Beckham Experiment will make the Galaxy a better team on the field, although the publicity is invaluable for the league, and when a great player is developed and moves on to Europe it gives me someone to follow when I watch FSN.

      Go Fulham!

      Comment


        #4
        I did not re-copy the entire first post, but I wonder about second coach's quote there (develop a player into a crack dribbler and you have a real player) aligning with the team first/no stars philosophy described in the 2nd post. Maybe what he is saying is that if you can dribble and disrupt the defense, then you can always pass the ball too, and thus a team is born.

        I have wondered about this for years watching my daughter play on several different elite teams, where the central midfielder is often more a dribbler than a passer (or, as my daughter might suggest, a ball hog). Is there something about the CM position that requires the team dribbler to be there, or is it formation and/or coach and style of play dependent? Is a player who is less likely to take on the defense one-on-one but who makes smart, crisp passes to move the ball up the field considered an inferior player (or again, is it coach/style of play dependent)?

        Comment


          #5
          I think it is generally strikers who are expected to take on defenders in a one on one situation. Central mid-fielders are generally taught to attack space either by dribbling, passing or shooting but it will often depend on the formation. Responsibilities are very different for a CM in a 4-3-3 from that of the attacking CM in a flat 4 - diamond 4- 2 or any CM in a flat 4, flat 4- 2. However, the best CMs are akin to a basketball point guard or football quaterback. They may need to hold the ball occasionally but are almost always looking to distribute to create that scoring opportunity by a striker or outside middie on a run.

          Comment


            #6
            thanks, that's why I asked. Because in several different formations (club as well as ODP), she has seen the CM acting more like the forward in the dribbling one-on-one situations. Maybe in some scenarios it's more effective than others, but it seems to be a continuing pattern she has seen over the years. The parents on the sidelines are all saying (under their breaths) - pass it, pass it, pass it, but the coaches have seemed to encourage it. Especially in a 4-4-2 it seems problematic sometimes when the CM isn't using her fellow midfielders enough.

            Comment


              #7
              [sitting cenrter mid] "I think it is generally strikers who are expected to take on defenders in a one on one situation."

              Also maybe why everytime we watch the national teams play (male and female) the commentators often point out players back on defense or defensive midfielders who were actually strikers throughout their careers. Makes you wonder if the coach quoted has a point... why not just all be strikers early on if the player has ambitions beyond college?! (of course not true in all instances, but it seems to be a pattern).

              Comment


                #8
                Pasta, I don't think the coach is speaking of particular positions, but the overall ability to do those things that perhaps many of us think consistent with a forward. Just my opinion, but I don't think at the highest levels of the game, that skill sets determine what position is played as much as the personality of the player. There's a joke about that somewhere and if I can find it I'll post it.

                In any case, here are the words of a coach, I believe he has been associated with the Arsenal youth program, that might help put this other coach's words into perspective:

                Footskill is like Education; without education you have NO choice in life - you will basically have to do what you are told and have no real input into decisions taken on you. With education you have a choice - if you want to be told what to do then you can, but you also have a choice on whether to use your education and make decisions about you, by you!!.

                Without a high level of footskills, your play will be dictated by the level you have , or by how many mistakes you make in control etc. With a high technical level then you have another choice at all times.

                The team is the building, the players are the bricks, skills are the foundations, the roof is the time spent in training, and spirit is the cement that binds it all together.

                ITS BETTER TO HAVE IT AND NOT NEED IT, THAN TO NEED IT AND NOT HAVE IT "
                Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment.

                Comment


                  #9
                  And so since the CM is the "center" of the team, the more "developed" player (the one with the foot skills) plays there.

                  With the last coach quoted saying: learn that first, we can teach the rest later.

                  So if the player hasn't developed the "footskills" and confidence at beating defenders by the time he/she hits puberty, is there any hope or is the player continually playing catch up?

                  I'd like to think there is hope, because I don't believe that all highly skilled players at a young age can necessarily learn the rest of the game. But a player can improve his/her foot skills over the course of his/her youth, especially if they work hard and have a superior understanding of the rest of the game. WITH the right coaching & training.... and by being with a team and coach that doesn't slot him/her into one position at 13.

                  Still looking.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Guest, I'm afraid from my experience with my older daughter, my answer would be it's very difficult to catch up if you didn't get those skills early. But that's not to say a player can't improve or compensate in other ways. She was a defender and until she was a U14 and moved to another club, all that was ever required of her was to win the ball and send it. At the new club, she was placed with kids that had gotten very good footskill training from their town coaches, believe it or not, and from their club coach. I think I nearly had a heart attack when the coach insisted she learn to hold the ball in the defensive end. She improved a great deal in that environment, but never was able to catch up to those kids that had that training from day 1 and for her, the biggest issue was confidence on the ball. She was one of those kids who would get rid of the ball as fast as she could and sometimes even hide from it. Those are all confidence issues.
                    Good judgment comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgment.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by FSM
                      Guest, I'm afraid from my experience with my older daughter, my answer would be it's very difficult to catch up if you didn't get those skills early. But that's not to say a player can't improve or compensate in other ways. She was a defender and until she was a U14 and moved to another club, all that was ever required of her was to win the ball and send it. At the new club, she was placed with kids that had gotten very good footskill training from their town coaches, believe it or not, and from their club coach. I think I nearly had a heart attack when the coach insisted she learn to hold the ball in the defensive end. She improved a great deal in that environment, but never was able to catch up to those kids that had that training from day 1 and for her, the biggest issue was confidence on the ball. She was one of those kids who would get rid of the ball as fast as she could and sometimes even hide from it. Those are all confidence issues.
                      Footskills means more than being able to dribble past someone. It also provides a comfort on the ball and confidence to be able to do something positive with the ball, no matter the circumstance presented. Nealry anyone can get the ball and then kick it away. What seperates the good players is the ability to do something positive with it every time.
                      "If they hadn't scored, we would've won."
                      -Howard Wilkinson

                      Comment


                        #12
                        I (same guest as before) very much agree with that, Zap, but the coach from the original quote (#2 from first post in this thread) seemed to be really focusing on the dribbling aspect of the player's repertoire. So is THAT an area that can improve tremendously beyond U-little in a club/coaching environment? Or will it only work (if at all) if the kid goes out on his own and tries to dribble past big brother in the backyard all summer long?

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Anonymous
                          I (same guest as before) very much agree with that, Zap, but the coach from the original quote (#2 from first post in this thread) seemed to be really focusing on the dribbling aspect of the player's repertoire. So is THAT an area that can improve tremendously beyond U-little in a club/coaching environment? Or will it only work (if at all) if the kid goes out on his own and tries to dribble past big brother in the backyard all summer long?
                          I think both need to be done. Just doing this things in a clinic environment clearly isn't enough. I think these skills are developed while playing with friends, just hacking around, trying stuff for fun. Little 1 v 1 or 2 v 2 with a friend where you can be outrageously creative with no risk.
                          "If they hadn't scored, we would've won."
                          -Howard Wilkinson

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Think of three things: 1. first touch and control, 2. creating space and possession, 3. moving the ball into a more advantageous position. There is a lot to these three things but the bottom line is that without adequate foot skills you are unlikely to get to numbers 2 or 3 very often. The problem once you can master 1 and 2 is figuring out how to get the ball into that more advantageous position. For some it means holding the ball too long and losing it, for others it is about not making a good decision to attack space on the dribble in order to set the defense and offense in motion so a pass, through ball or shot has some purpose.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              FSM writes:

                              She was a defender and until she was a U14 and moved to another club, all that was ever required of her was to win the ball and send it. At the new club, she was placed with kids that had gotten very good footskill training from their town coaches, believe it or not, and from their club coach. I think I nearly had a heart attack when the coach insisted she learn to hold the ball in the defensive end. She improved a great deal in that environment, but never was able to catch up to those kids that had that training from day 1 and for her, the biggest issue was confidence on the ball.
                              My kid was the same except they had no problem picking up the footslkills at U14. My kid went on to play ODP excetra,..., so there is no standard formulae.

                              Think of three things: 1. first touch and control, 2. creating space and possession, 3. moving the ball into a more advantageous position. There is a lot to these three things but the bottom line is that without adequate foot skills you are unlikely to get to numbers 2 or 3 very often. The problem once you can master 1 and 2 is figuring out how to get the ball into that more advantageous position. For some it means holding the ball too long and losing it, for others it is about not making a good decision to attack space on the dribble in order to set the defense and offense in motion so a pass, through ball or shot has some purpose.
                              This is much better said. If your child is a defender in a "non-skills oriented scheme", that is not important as "first touch and control". In a "non-skills environment" if your child learns "first touch and control": then moving to a skills environment at u14 IS NOT AN ISSUE. My kid tried out for the best team in the state at U17 and made it because they "could trap and control the ball with their first touch". The talk about "skills" is very limited in scope. At the older ages, it is about one and two touch (at the higher levels) which requires trapping and turning (turning is the same a creating space and possesion).

                              Comment

                              Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
                              Auto-Saved
                              x
                              Insert: Thumbnail Small Medium Large Fullsize Remove  
                              x
                              Working...
                              X