Here's a question I've had for some time.

Its become youth soccer mantra that the correct objective for coaches with younger teams is to focus on individual development - ball skills, 1v1 skills, etc.

Why? Because they can't understand tactics well and because they probably don't have the full range of technical skills at younger ages to implement any tactical concept anyway.

Okay. Got it. However...

Why do parents want their kids to play team sports in the first place? Is it to develop individual skills or to learn group effort, respect for authority, and everything else that comes with being on a team?

I think its safe to say its the latter, but somewhere along the line, youth soccer parents are convinced (rather easily, too) to abandon those goals and pursue whatever they can to get their individual child as skilled as possible.

I kind of wonder if we aren't selling parents on phony dreams. I mean at the U12 level the most gifted travel players in any given area still probably aren't going to have a shot at a college scholarship. Maybe a handful will... have a shot at one that is... but the vast majority of even travel players won't.

Seems like we're maybe constantly selling parents on building for the future instead of letting their kids have and enjoy a present.

Parents want kids to play team sports because they did.
Period.

At one time IMG academy in Bradenton had on their web site the perfect explanation to your question. Unfortunately they've changed their web site, but I'll try to explain as best as my memory will allow. There are four basic elements to player development: technique, tactical, physical and psychological. With all but the psychological, you start with the individual, move to small groups, and then to the team, but with the psychological you start with the team, move to small group and then finally to the individual. For example you start with basic technique with a youngster that is just learning then moving to individual tactics, small group tactics and advanced technique and then on to team tactics and advanced technique with speed. You are talking of many years from start to finish. However, with the psychological element, you want to start by teaching the team what it means to be a team, all those positive things that parents attribute to playing sports and finish the whole process by giving the individuals the means to deal with their contribution and role on the team, such as learning to overcome personal adversity like dealing with an injury.



Here's the thing though about learning those skills. If you don't learn them, then there will be no future in the sport even if a player has the athletic ability to be the next C. Ronaldo or Marta. You can't go back in time and undo what should have been done prior to puberty. Puberty is the key here, because puberty is when the neuro-muscular system becomes hard wired. Here's an analogy that should help you understand why. Children who learn a second language before puberty can speak that language without an accent, but those that learn a language after puberty may still be able to speak the language fluently, but they will always give themselves away by their accent. Consider all the Englishmen coaching in the US. Even though we are all speaking the same language, there is no doubt where they were born and that rarely changes even after living here for decades. The earlier children learn too, the easier it is for them to speak a language without thought. Perfect example is the 5 year old daughter of friends of mine whose dad is Irish and whose mother is Russian. The little girl speaks fluent English and Russian and can go back and forth between languages without hesitation.

Appreciate it, Birdie.

It still bothers me that we do what we do - and there's this look in the eye of a parent who has recently been sold a bunch of bull by a hungry coach. I can see it 100 feet away.

A friend had his child guest playing with one club's second travel team in that age group. After the tournament, the coach talked with him about the boy staying on the team. He told the coach it was like they weren't even trying to win. I'll spare you the details, but the coach's answer was that he wasn't concerned about winning; only developing players so they could advance to the first team. Well, I know this team a little, and they have a lot of kids who are never going to play for that club's first team. Don't they deserve to be on a team that tries to win, for this season's sake?

Of course no one wants the other extreme - the coach who is so hyper about winning he'll do anything. But playing to win is fun and training for development's sake isn't. I'll bet a lot of those kids aren't even playing the game a couple years from now.

That team is its own extreme. But I've done the same - put the kids through technique drills and the other clinic-like activities season after season - even though I know most of them just don't have the natural ability to play at higher levels and would have more fun playing pick-up games now. Do they improve? Sure. But I'm wondering to myself the whole time if I were one of these players, how long would I come back? I do all the things I can to not make it seem so repetitive, but when you come down to it, it's still just a flowered up bunch of repetitions.

Now, I also teach introductory tactics at ages under which is prescribed, because frankly, it makes it easy for my kids to beat other teams, which is more fun than losing to other teams.

In other words, Birdie, I'm not sure these parents weren't correct with their original notions.

Your answer is from the perspective of a soccer coach. Its what we have to do to get the kids ready for older ages... of soccer.

Originally the parents weren't concerned about soccer. They were concerned about character development, social development. Soccer like any sport was a means toward those ends. I'm just not so sure those parents had it wrong... before talking to some coach and getting all spun up on how far their child can go in the game.

I think chasing development over developing an all around team does a number of things that are unintentional but have horrible affects.

1) Coaches focus most of their time on those kids that show potential - at a young age this is ridiculous and doesn't give credit to the kid that will be challenged but work their butt off, or the player that doesn't have the speed or size yet

2) The kid that is getting all of the attention from the coach - what does this do that players psychology/ego? What happens when they finally struggle and have to begin to work hard? How will react teams when they aren't the best?

3) Playing to win/do well doesn't matter because we are developing individual skills - You lose the power of "you are only as good as your weakest player" and the coach doesn't help the kids realize that all contribute and have a role to be successful. In a world of "me" this probably doesn't matter, but I've worked with people that have never played a team sport and they don't understand how each person can be valuable, if all contributes efforts are used to maximize the success of the team.

4) Lastly - it's an easy out for coaches. If I set expectations so low that I can keep my job, because, after all, we are "developing individual skill" and winning is secondary. There is nothing to measure me buy or the team. This especially pertains to those coaches that are convincing parents that they should pay big dollars to have a "professional" coaching their team.

Interesting point, Crash. I didn't even think of the possibility that professional coaches advocate this mindset to avoid having to answer for any lacking team results, and thus not losing their cash cow.

Thanks Pual. Sorry about all of the misspellings. I was on a boring conference call and was trying to multi-task.

I just don't believe that individual development is solely "ball skill", but involves a wider understanding of the game. It seems to be an easy out for coaches to just talk about individual development over how the players are all coming together and how they (the coaches) are getting the players to play a beautiful game.

It is tough to get a bunch of U10s to move the ball well, but when they do it is like winning the lottery. Over a season you probably get 6-7 lottery wins.

Crash, I come from the Soviet school of sport thought, where those who were not brain-dead understood the message: you want to be considered the best - you'd better start winning.

Fast-forward 15 years. Now I am a REC U10 Girls coach (also in the Bay Area, BTW). Every season, we are told by the club and the league (CYSA) that the focus of the REC division is "individual dvelopment". When I just started coaching, I could never understand this: shouldn't the team be trying to win games?

But I dutifully "developed the individuals", teaching them the ball skills and passing, and even when to pass. I think I got them totally confused: here's the goal, here's the ball, and why do we have to pass? To get the ball into the goal? But why, if we are not trying to win? Who cares if it gets in? Ah, to let the Mommy take a picture! OK.

Result? - I've got 3 players into Comp in 4 seasons; I've lost 5 players to AYSO; I am happy when I get 2 players who return to me after one season. My longest player retention (besides my daughter) was 3 seasons - one player. My best season (on winning vs. losing) was 5 wins, 5 losses. Best score in a game was 5:2. I've had a season when we lost all games but 1 (which was a 0:0 tie), and the parents were happy, because their kids were developing. Yes, I told them what to look out for in "individual development", and they were looking for these hallmarks of development, seeking to put a checkmark next to a skill.

I think we are kidding ourselves and parents by trying to talk about "individual development". Soccer is a game with winners and, well, not-winners. Kids know the score. I could BS to them in U8 and even in U9; but in U10, they tell me what the score was.

Kids need to know that they need these skills in order to win games, not in order to get a scholarship. They measure success by winning, and we are lying to them, and they know we are, when we say that they did a great job when the score is 0:5.

Maybe I just don't belong in REC? I don't know. But I think REC is too focused on steering the players' attention away from winning.

"I could BS to them in U8 and even in U9; but in U10, they tell me what the score was."

Actually even when I had U8s, and I really wasn't following the score, I found at least some of the kids knew.

Its a bit odd. Most parents worry about the other extreme - their kids getting the win-at-any-cost coach you hear about (mostly in other sports). But I do think this exteme is just as bad. Its okay not to care whether or not they win, but the kids shouldn't know you don't care.

The game should be important, to them. If it isn't, then all that stuff about learning how to win and lose well is missed. Its easy to lose well in a meaningless activity, but harder in a game that actually means something to the players. Additionally, you want them to want to work together to accomplish a common objective, or all that team aspect is missed, too.

Seems to me the kids in the extreme individual skills factories are being deprived of quite a bit.