"What skill does is allow a lesser athlete to play at a higher level."

Birdie, you are seriously wrong here. Soccer on the boys side is so competitive there isn't much room for any lacking qualities. If the kid doesn't have quick reflexes, he simply won't make a high school team in Northern Virginia, and I'm guessing most of the country is pretty much the same.

I've got a perfect example on my U12 team - a player who can juggle all day and has beautiful touch on the ball. Actually that's a different problem, in that his reflexes are okay but his top speed is lacking. He can compete right now at a high level in this age group, but he's rapidly reaching the point where he won't be able to pull that off anymore.

When Europeans talk about lacking athleticism, they aren't referring to anyone who is outright slow. They're talking about very good athletes, but who can't sprint as fast as some from the Cameroon team, or who doesn't have reflective reactions like some from Brazil. There isn't anyone outright slow in professional soccer.

Birdie, you ought to take a look at the World Class forum and a new thread started about a new academy idea in the U.S.

For God sake, Paul. The kid is 12 years old. Expect as he enters puberty for things to go to hell in a handbasket. Many kid do and you are probably now comparing him to early mature kids. Huge mistake and one that is quite common.



I've read all 5. Check out this article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/4938593/Football-academies-kicking-and-screaming.html Check out the quote by Glen Hoddle, "18 is far too young to make a judgement" and you're making a judgement at U12? I'm not trying to be confrontational, but your experience as a youth coach is???

I found the part on Lilleshall Hall of interest because I read another article that stated Steven Gerrard was overlooked the same year Michael Owen made it. The difference between the two at age 14? About 9 months. Look at the description of Tottenham's 17 year old player, Ryan Mason, "unequivocally unathletic: pale, nervous, gangly" but also described as "brilliant" by those who watch him play. I recall another article that described Paul Scholes the same way, "How many clubs would have taken Scholesy on at 16?" mused Kershaw (ManU Academy director, Les Kershaw) a few nights earlier, while watching the Under-9s strut their stuff over on the club's small-sided pitches at Littleton Road in Salford. "At 16, we could play Scholesy for only 20 minutes a game. He couldn't run. He was a little one. Had asthma. No strength. No power. No athleticism. No endurance. 'You've got a bleeding dwarf,' I remember somebody said to Brian Kidd [the then youth-team coach]. 'You will eat your words,' said Kiddo. If Scholesy had been at a lesser club, they would have got rid of him and he would probably not be in the game now. We stuck with Scholesy, a wonderful technician.

The problem in the US is we judge kids on their athleticism, not theur technical ability and that athleticism is judged all too early.

Some more reading for you, Paul: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/sports/playmagazine/04play-talent.html?8dpc

"Want to Be a Superstar Athlete? Build More Myelin
While favorable genetics and a well-conditioned body are essential, some scientists believe that physiological changes in the brain that take place during repetitive practice at a young age may make the difference between a world-class athlete and the rest of us."

"The reasons that the United States is losing ground on the talent map have less to do with training mechanisms and more to do with bigger factors: a highly distractive youth culture, a focus on the glamour of winning rather than on the brickwork of building technique and a sporting environment that is gentler than those found in many of the world’s harder corners."

"You don’t need a fancy academy. You need fundamentals and discipline, and in this country nobody gives a damn about fundamentals and discipline.”

Birdie, again you are comparing good athletes to great athletes. What I'm saying is that by U9 you can already tell who won't even make the 'good' rating.

Do I judge kids? Yes. Don't you? I have to select kids for my team. I have to recommend kids to other teams for selection. How do you propose that is done without judging them.

Had you read all my posts, you may have noticed I'm not advocating treating the slow kids any differently. But what I have seen is that a slow kid never gets faster. Sometimes kids who are fast when they are younger become relatively slower, but I've never seen it in reverse.

And to be blunt, this is a difference between the girls game and boys game. The boys game is much faster - almost to a fault as some believe girls learn tactics faster because they get more time to see field shape. The simple fact is that all the skills in the world aren't going to help when you can't get to the ball, and eventually the boys game reaches a point where they can't anymore. You can't lay a ball into space in front of a player when he just isn't quick enough to get there before an opponent. And other than the back four, any pass to the player is met by an opponent.

This doesn't happen much at U9s, and not all the time at U12s, but these kids soon after lose their ability to demonstrate their skills. In the girls game, for the most part, this isn't the case.

Remember a couple women's world cups ago when the tournament was basically a U.S. v China competition? I watched the Chinese team come and play three high school boys teams in Northern Virginia. In each case, the Chinese women - the second best women's team in the world - had difficulty handling the high schoolers ability to press and close space. All their tactical advantage and skills were neutralized. They did manage to beat one team. Against another, Bishop Ireton in Alexandria, it wasn't even close. Those boys make it look like they were playing a girls high school team instead of the Chinese national players.

And you're earlier reference to how skills and tactics could overcome speed is sometimes true in the context it was meant - a context I believe you missed.

What they are saying is that a player like Beckenbauer can think and pass his way around faster opponents. They aren't saying you can take an average guy off the street and do that.

What I'm saying is that by U9s you can tell who the average guys off the street are going to be.

Also, note Birdie that you have transitioned to arguing in favor of just skills training to now skills and tactics - which does demand a team approach and thus closer to my original point behind starting this thread.

Selecting kids for your U9 team is hardly the same as judging where those kids will be at age 16, or 18 or 21. But since you picked the team, you have a responsibility to teach those kids how to play to the best of their ability regardless of where they may end up down the road.



If you can't lay a ball into space, then maybe you play it to feet. That's the point of good soccer skills. Having the ability to see what needs to be done and the skills to be able to execute it. The bigger the tool box, the more that can be accomplished. Coaches that base their game solely on speed, end up with players like Eddie Johnson.



No kidding and as I've said before it relates to puberty, especially with boys. That infusion of testosterone makes boys bigger, faster, stronger. At u14 you often have men playing amongst boys. And the men get selected to the better teams because they help their youth teams win today, while the late bloomers get cut loose. Yet studies show that the late bloomers actually have more athletic potential. Why? Because the ones that won't allow themselves to be cast aside learn to use their skills to compete until their bodies catch up developmentally.




You can't compare women to high school age boys to prove your point. While testosterone is making boys bigger, faster, stronger, estrogen actually tends to slow girls/women down. Ask any high school girls' track coach and they will tell you that the majority of girls they coach reach their peak speeds as sophomores. Ask any club coach who has scrimmaged college age teams and they'll probably tell you their U16 teams are faster than the college teams. When comparing women to adolesent males you're not only talking about out right foot speed, but the explosive speed that is so important to the game of soccer. That is why women's national teams compete against adolescent males, to help the women learn to compensate both mentally and physically with a faster speed of play. This is done with some regularity in preparation of big tournaments. The US WNT played 92 and 93 ODP teams in So Cal in January to prepare for the Algarve Cup. The women lost to the boys in both games and in the opinion of one of the boys coaches' not only was speed an issue, but so was poor execution. And a recent meeting of a So Cal U14 boys club team and the U17 Women's National team also resulted in a loss described by Top Drawer Soccer as the boys dictating the game through quickeness and creativity. So you aren't just speaking to the issue of physical speed when the girls play the boys. The whole point of these teams playing one another is to give the women the opportunity to better cope with a faster speed of play. That part of the game can be learned. It's not enough to have technical skills, but to be able to use them at higher and higher speeds of play and that comes from repetious learning.

I've never argued for skills training alone. What I have argued is for training that is progressive and age appropriate. It starts out with individual skills which for most kids is around 5 or 6 and that eventually overlaps with individual tactics at 6 or 7. You then move on to small group tactics at 8 or 9 and more advanced skills around 11 or 12. Around 14 you should be introducing team tactics and advanced technique at speed.

"Selecting kids for your U9 team is hardly the same as judging where those kids will be at age 16, or 18 or 21. But since you picked the team, you have a responsibility to teach those kids how to play to the best of their ability regardless of where they may end up down the road."

Yeah, no kidding. Which is why I help them to learn tactics as well as skills. But clearly you've missed my point in this thread entirely.

"If you can't lay a ball into space, then maybe you play it to feet."

Not sure you understand the boys game. By the time they get to U16 level or so, they can't play on competitive teams if they bring that kind of limitation.

"...as I've said before it relates to puberty..."

I know a little about puberty, having lived through it. What I'm saying - again, for like the third time I believe - is that I've never seen a slow kid get fast. If you have, please just say so.

"You can't compare women to high school age boys to prove your point."

Actually I can. You may have noticed the point I was making at the time was how much faster the boys game is than the girls game. I'd say comparing high school boys to the second best women's team in the world (at that time) kinda proves that point.

Now that relative speed of the genders' respective games seem to be a point with which you agree, so I'm wondering why you now are going after the example I used.

To outline this further for you, the relative speed of the boys game point was being used to backup the earlier point that slow boys can't play at competitive levels up through the age groups.

I have two words for you - Michael Bradley. Considered slooooowwww at age 14.