How does that $$*@$$$$$ Legends post keep resurfacing! Is it time to start the bump again?

It is so, so far beyond any real debate. We all know what Andy is going to say before he says it.

I am grumpy, better get some more coffee. Or cut down.

Sorry, i posted on that debate before i read this.....I agree, I don't read his posts, he can keep it as far as I'm concerned, he's doing more damage to the club than good. The legends club is no longer a club for the competative athlete.

PEOPLE PLEASE, NO MAS LEGENDS TOPIC! LET IT DIE A SLOW, LINGERING DEATH WITH ANDY TALKING TO HIMSELF.

ANDY, IF YOU WANT TO TALK WORLD CUP, GREAT LOVE TO HAVE YOUR INPUT, BUT LEAVE YOUR CLUB AND PHILOSOPHY OUT OF IT!

SICK, SICK SICK OF IT!

Sorry TAFKAVL I will stop now, I just got sucked in and couldn't help myself. I will boycott Andy's propaganda topic from now on.

I'll keep it going

We know you will, all by yourself.

Does Norton sell an anti-Legends program I can set up, or can someone release a Trojan bull#@$* virus and kill that topic?

The Legends club is more like a Leawood rec program.

No it isn't. As far as I can tell, its not like a soccer club at all. Its a for profit business, and its marketing plan includes trying to exploit this free mode of advertising until the end of time, or someone kicks 'em off, whichever comes first. You won't embarrass them away, you can't reason them away - seemingly there's too much money involved for them to care.

Paul

The reason why the Legends won't go away is far more simple than your cynical post hypothesizes.



We do the right things for children and we're willing to stay the course in order to make socer and life better for all children.

Andy

Paul

Here's something for you to ponder from the book, "Happier" by Tal Ben-Shahar:

"Those for whom making money is the primary objective are less likely to actualize themselves and reach their full potential. They generally experience more distress and are more likely to be depressed and anxious. Moreover, given the mind/body connection, they are less healthy, less vital.

Having sufficient money to provide for food, shelter, education, and other basic needs is essential to our well being. However, providing beyond these needs, money or prestige need not and should not be our central pursuits."

Andy

"The reason why the Legends won't go away is far more simple than your cynical post hypothesizes."

I don't believe that. Don't think many do.

Say, has anyone else been contacted by any KC newspapers about the Legends embezzlement and sales tax stuff?

Man, I haven't looked at that thread for months.
Seems simple enough.

Paul,



Here's some more food from thought:

Most people see other people from their own paradigm. What they live is what they project onto others.

If this research is true what does this say about you and NeedTuition? Neither of whom know me?

Andy

in ur eyes Andy

us parents are all dumb about club soccer

all coaches but ur guyz are evil and bad even if they brake laws

winnin' is bad unless Legendz teams are doing the winnin'

kids cant learn about life from anyone who doesnt have the Legendz logo on his shirt

great "paradigm"

Andy, here's what I know about you. Not "paradigm" points (and it would help you to some day actually look that word up), but facts as I understand them.

You run a for-profit business and call it a soccer "club."

You frequently post what can only be viewed by a rational person as advertisements for your business on these discussion boards.

You commonly engage in negative advertising against others and (this part is admittedly beyond fact) seemingly so instinctively you may not even know you're doing it half the time.

For any non-legends folks who would like to reply, to the best of your knowledge have I over-stated or misrepresented any facts?

tried to understand "paradigm" so eyes googled it. Here is my fave. According to google, andy is a novelist. fits dont it

•is a Japanese publishing company headquartered in Suginami, Tokyo Prefecture, Japan. The company mainly publishes novels based on adult visual novel video games.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_(publisher)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define%3A+paradigm&rlz=1R2ADRA_enUS354&aq=0&aqi=l1g10&aql=&oq=paradigm+de&gs_rfai=CuZaI2EYRTOPFL6DSgwTT-_jFCgAAAKoEBU_Qi5Dk

Paul

Here are your statements and my responses:



Teachers get paid. Teachers can put in 40-50 hours per week and learn to be experts at what they do because they are "for profit". Isn't it a wonderful thing that teachers can get paid and help young people enjoy the benefit of all that study and experience.

Our coaches love kids and soccer. They are purist. They get paid for doing a great job. Our parents would vote with their feet and walk away from our club if it wasn't for a combination of great coaching, a great philosophy and great training facilities. It is the "for profit" part that makes all three things possible.

In my humble opinion there are few opportunities in society (outside of needs) better than what we do for children. This would not be possible if the many good people who make all or part of their living from teaching soccer within our organization were forced to reject their passion and do something they don't believe in as much as purist education for life through soccer.



I receive emails from all over the world thanking me for the different educational perspective most of my posts provide. I know unequivocally that for the majority of children what our wonderful coaches teach will make them braver, more creative leaders in life and on the soccer field. I firmly believe that by comparison we have a much better program than the vast majority of more traditional programs. I have great reason to believe this because hundreds of our ex-players and their parents have shared their appreciation for what our unique methods have done for their children.

You may see this as an advert while I see this as a proven fact. This is why I suggest strongly to intelligent parents that they consider having their child enjoy the same unique benefits that other children have enjoyed by training and playing with the Legends. I see it as my responsibility to spread this message no matter how unpopular it makes me with coaches and parents from other clubs.

You see it as an ad' while I see it as a vision and mission delivered with incredible passion.

We see children that I believe are suffering the destruction of their dreams because traditional coaches don't understand the importance of process based education and reinforcement. We see the "Enron" culture of "talent is everything" result in team hopping, recruiting and many other short-term, instant gratification ways for the coach to get his name in lights. We see children sit on the bench and told to "take one for the team" while the reality is they are being value judged and subjected to conditional rejection.

There's a whole book of answers to your perception that I'm “advertising” when what I'm really doing is offering children a chance to join a purist club that will value and respect them as an individual with immense potential to be something very special in life.



You won't find one negative reference to any individual on this forum. In many instances I know the identity of people who attack me (like you). However, I have chosen to respect your desire and the desire of every other anonymous poster to remain so. To the best of my memory it’s been a very long time since I have mentioned any individual or club in a negative light. Any recent connection made by you, (or others), to an individual or club, is of your own making.

One of the main challenges of living a controversial philosophy in such a brutally competitive environment is retaining self-control and class when others aren't. I strive to achieve this and though on occasion I may come up a little short do my best under difficult circumstances.

I welcome the opportunity to discourse with people who choose to be anonymous. I know that those who think they can remain anonymous often say what they really feel not the antiseptic version they don’t have the guts to say face to face or with their real name.

The reasons why I take the time to communicate in this manner include the following:

1) It allows me to understand the greatest criticisms of me and our philosophy which creates an opportunity for self-analysis in order to improve what we do for children.

2) It affords me a chance to educate those who are open minded enough to take something good from the unique Legends perspective and use it with children.

3) It affords children who play for those who change as a result of these posts, a greater opportunity to optimize their potential.

4) It gives those who understand what their kids are missing the knowledge that there is a better option.

If any of these aren't in the best interest of the kids please let me know.

Please keep the feedback coming! It's fun crossing swords with you even if you are boycotting the "Legends For Life" thread.

Andy

Well, I don't see direct negative attacks on people from him. He's been an exceptionally positive person to me. The people who do know him as a person feel the same way. He's got a very good and unique product. He's known here in Colorado. I spoke with one parent who remembered a game from more than two years ago against The Legends. He said, "Yeah...we got pissed off at our coach because they were doing things with the ball our kids had no clue how to do." I apply as much as I've learned from him in my coaching and the parents of my players and of players on other teams notice the difference. In my opinion, those who follow his approach to the game and his methods will be able to hold their own very well on a field of other players who may have better speed or size.

Andy promotes and promotes, but he doesn't slam and slam. He give you no reason to attack him as a person. He loves the game, he knows the game, he's developed a very logical and beneficial approach that he doesn't waiver on. He understands and relates well with kids.

Most people who take digs at him or the Legends way only think they know what his book says and actually haven't read it & analyzed it. If you seek first to understand before being understood, give the guy who was one of the first to build up competitive soccer in KC over the last 20+ years a little respect and learn what it is he's teaching. Those who have don't seem to spend too much time slamming him.

I simply resent the fact that the topic has taken over the forum, and nearly every contribution Andy makes here ends up as an advertisement for his philosophy and club. Nothing personal, I think I would probably enjoy watching a game with Andy over a few brews.

He has claimed that all coaches that don't coach the "Legend's Way" are child abusers. Does that not give anyone a reason to attack him? I think he deserves most of what he receives.

Coach B,

I agree with most of the things he's trying to teach, our club also coach skills and fast footwork but for some reason he only has a handful of people who respect him.

Many have left his program and many have left his business, some very negative people here in KC don't like his methods and preaching, he's turned the Legends into a recreational club where all can have fun and it's all about large number and money.

I think he would do well in Colorado where he's unknow. It's a shame that he's laughed at in the KC coaching circles, he sounds like a nice guy but annoying to all.

Classics



Inconvenient truths are almost always annoying. The response to having no good alternative argument is often to mock. I believe that the reason some of the other coaches in KC "laugh" at the Legends methods is because they have no rational argument that can be defended to intelligent parents.

How can anyone defend sitting children on the bench or encouraging kids to "clear it"?

Bench sitting can only be a losing proposition for the victimized and a bad example of unfair preferential treatment in the quest to win for those who are chosen to play more.

To clear it is to fear it! Kids who kick it away for fear of giving up a goal always lose an opportunity to bring the ball down and learn something creative.

These are just two examples of what other coaches choose to do to children that can only have negative effects for all children no matter which side of the issue they are on.

The really good news is that I'm not laughed at by the Legend's children; because they love what we do and it makes them believe they are very special, or by their parents. In my opinion the parents are happy because they see the amazing growth their child is enjoying.




Thankfully many of the intelligent parents in KC are hearing, listening, studying and, as a consequence, joining the Legends club. Because we have a very kind and caring team of coaches, a great philosophy and tremendous indoor training facilities, we are gaining many more new players than we are losing and retaining a fantastic percentage of those we already have.




We have turned the Legends club into an organization that maximizes and optimizes the potential of every player instead of the typical approach where coaches only select the very best players at tryouts and use them to win games.

The incredibly interesting fact is that is this approach that most guarantees to develop the genetically gifted child into a high level pro, as well as develop the least genetically gifted child to the highest level possible.

Because of its equal optimizing benefit for all children it truly allows children to achieve their best potential no matter what their genetic aptitude or previous soccer experience.

Shouldn't all child education programs aim for this lofty goal?

Andy

"Hey kid! Come join the legends, I'll give you another Klondike and you'll play at the next world cup!!"

"nah!! I play for Piper Magic SC who play in a higher league!"

You're just laughed at by those knowledgeable in children competitive sports.

I've shown a couple of Legend's parents some of these narcissistic posts. They felt sorry for you, they were clearly embarrassed.

Need

Do my opinions really upset you that much?

Andy

Need there were several hundred players out this morning that would disagree. I guess its possible that none of them are knowledgeable though. If your theory is correct shouldn't our club numbers be shrinking? I seriously doubt you would make these claims if you had to back them up by providing your actual identity.

Bad Zizou. Forgot the old adage, let sleeping dogs lie. Send a PM if you just have to ask.

The Legends club is more like a Leawood rec program.
The legends club is no longer a club for the competative athlete.


Reading this stuff just makes me laugh. If the LEGENDS are nothing but a REC program you can say the same for every club in the city. RUSH, KCFC, Fusion, BVSC, Shawnee,. Every one of these clubs have lower level premier teams, and upper level teams. Saying that the LEGENDS are a REC program is a very IGNORANT statement

Any more, just be thankful that your kid has a decent team to play for that you don't have to drive to Timbuktu, to get them to 2-3 times/week, costing you an arm & a leg. With all of the comings & goings of players & teams this past weekend, who knows what is going on, & it isn't over yet.

ok, thats 2 AB posts back to back on the monster post. Let's see how long Andy will keep posting to himself to keep it alive. DO NOT FEED IT.

Years! Andy

That's 3!

Man,
That animal just wont stop!

Up to 5. Do I hear 10?

HELP ME!!!

He really is posting to himself. I tried last week to bump it off the first page. I received some nasty messages about that,wow! Andy has a lot to be proud of in the KC soccer community but knowing when to stop is very hard to do. Just ask Muhammad Ali.

Only 3 more to hit 10 in a row. C'mon Andy, you can do it, I believe in you(r ego).

12U40, if this was a sci-fi movie, your role would be the scientist who lets the creature out of its confinement.

Hmmm, I wonder what happens when I expose this benign glob of alien goo to some toxic waste?

Shoot I goofed maybe he will get 10 on this subject deceptive dribbling ver. one touch short passing

12U40

Deceptive dribbling trains the flexible stance base for passing. Shooting best trains the technique.

Look back in my posts and you'll find a complete rationale for this hypothesis.

Andy

Andy,

For the last 2 to 3 years you’ve spent countless hours and numerous restless nights, cutting and pasting pages from you 9000 page book on stepovers!


You’re on the forum marketing your club and advertising your Legends Brazilian approach and it took you approximately 8 hours to change this around and start criticizing the Brazilians! Excellent! What next…….?

CHAPTER 17,000 – Spanish Possession Legends style

You really are great Andy…we appreciate your humor on here…fantastic work!!

Andy's reply was so short. Almost like he tweeted. I think that's progress for him.

Classics,

Much of the soccer world has been discussing how unBrazilian this Brazilian team was. The sad thing for soccer is that even though they were least Brazilian team we have ever seen they were still Brazilian enough to look technically superior to the Dutch despite the result. Bring back Tele Santana! All is forgiven!

Andy

"The only thing that we can count on any more is France acting like they're French."



There are other constants, too. People from the countries not still in are convinced this World Cup (just as they have for every World Cup that preceded), is the worst officiated ever.

Overall I think the officiating has been excellent.

Of course 2 very high profile mistakes have lowered the level across the board.

I do think that the officials have been let down by lack of technology too.

Why are these posts on the animal thread?

Well its always easy after the fact watching numerous replays on tv while the officials have a few seconds to decide.
Thats why technology is a must.

He may have had something to be proud of once upon a time, but he is now just a joke because of what HE HAS CREATED. His system, to try and BREED his own players, instead of true competition is finally backfiring on him. He thinks getting kids from diapers on is the only way people will buy into the crap he is selling. He is right... but, finally people are figuring out it is crap even from the beginning... "It's all about the kids" yeah, right! It's all about Andy Barney making money, PERIOD.

Ha ha ha ha ha,
lol, lmao, and all that stuff.
That last post on "The Thread" was hilarious.

Suggesting brevity????

Reiterating that "less is more."?????

Think that's been done to no avail.

...and that is why this thread warns
"DO NOT FEED THE ANIMALS."

Keepitfun



So lets assume that I know great left footed players are in great demand but short supply. That I also know that my baby could develop the "margin of greatness" with the left foot if I encourage her/him to specialize. In your opinion I should still encourage two footed training even though I know it will result in average ability with each foot instead of greatness with the foot that most coaches salivate over????????????????????

Andy

"Oh wait. I forgot the soccer teaches life lessons so you've already established that you know everything."

Just thought of a great new commercial for Andy's lash-up, should he ever decide to expand the marketing beyond this discussion board. Picture a crash scene, with someone getting out of his car, pushing aside the first policemen there, and then barking out orders for how to assist treatment of an injured person. The policemen start doing what this guy says.

Another rider in the damaged car says, a family member, exclaims, "Thank heaven you were here, doctor!"

The guy responds, "I'm not a doctor, ma'am, and I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but I am a legends-trained one-footed player."

Spot the Euphemism!

You have to be two-footed. All this dribbling stuff aside, soccer is primarily a passing game and you have to be able to play the ball after it crosses your body - and that's a basic skill expected of all players from pretty early ages.

You have to be able to pass with either foot. On a wall pass for instance, you greatly increase the chances of the ball getting through if you play it with your forward foot, which kind of ends up being your more comfortable foot only about half the time.

For shooters, well, if Robben was two-footed the Dutch might be on top of the new FIFA Coca-Cola rankings. He had a clear opportunity for a right-footed strike at a range similar to Iniesta's goal in extra time. Tried to cut the ball back onto his left foot, defender recovered, Robben never got a shot off...

I don't believe you have to be two footed to make it but it's good to get to a reasonable standard with your weaker foot.

For all the criticism of Arjen Robben he is at the top of his profession to be playing in Champions League and World Cup finals in same year.

I cannot remember many truly two footed players over the years so it seems it's a case of better to be great with one foot than average with both.

"...so it seems it's a case of better to be great with one foot than average with both."

Yet above that you said its good to get a "reasonable standard" with the weaker foot.

Most players are always going to have their preference. They're always going to take free kicks for instance with their more comfortable foot. But to consciously not work the weaker foot just so you don't "waste" time that could be spent working the stronger foot strikes me as a bit foolish.

In tight spaces, you simply don't often have time to adjust to get the better foot on the ball. The players who try probably won't have the same opportunities in terms of their future in the game.

(Yes, I realize the obvious comeback is comparing youth players in the U.S. to Robben, but we're talking matters of degree. I'm sure Robben has more skills in his weaker foot than I do in my stronger one... but at the level in which he plays, he sure doesn't seem confident with his weaker foot.)

Plus, one thing I've noticed is that kids can compensate for a lot of poor technique via leg strength... with their stronger leg. One of the benefits of getting them working the other foot is because they have to use good technique to get something. And by them slowing down and learning to do that, often you see some benefits with both feet.

You also see some benefits in general on the field because you've added to the player's confidence level.

I didn't start playing until high school, and had crappy coaching until I got to college. Plus I was a keeper so even there my coaches didn't much care about my weak foot. But sometimes in scrimmages and one entire indoor season (had a broken bone in my hand) I'd get some time out in the field. I remember I was always concerned about someone playing me a ball from my right side, because I had zero confidence in my left foot. So I tried to avoid those situations.

This is something of Andy's philosophy that I've yet to 'buy' 100% in to yet...

For those of you that don't know I played for Andy from age 6 to 17. I'm 100% a product of his coaching philosophy. As has been stated many times on this forum shooting is a massive piece to the Legends curriculum. Something that is given hours and hours of attention through the course of a Legends player's youth career. Shooting has been trained primarily playing wall ball. Wall ball is just as it sounds. It consists of two players playing a two touch shooting match where the goal (rebound surface) is 8 feet wide. The two players are literally playing side by side with two other games happening to either side of them totaling 9 simultaneous matches (at one of our two facilities). The benefits of wall ball include a large amount of repetitions in a short amount of time that is pressured as each shot could lose the 'point'. Over the course of an hour practice players will get 300-400 pressured shots.

I'm explaining this because it relates to the one foot vs two foot argument. Until the last 4-5 years Andy was adamant about us learning to strike a ball with power and accuracy using both feet. We spent way more time training shooting than any other club or team that I've ever seen. And since we took, literally, every other shot with our weak foot we spent far more time training our weak foot than most. As a result I score most of my goals with my left foot as my best moves come out on my left foot. I've often been mistook for a left footed player. It is probably fair to say that my weak foot is much better than most, however I'm not sure that my strong foot is anything better than average.

As an aside, this is taking way to long to explain...

I guess my point is that I spent an inordinate amount of time training my weak foot but am no better than average (my left foot is better than most weak feet however rarely does anything spectacular) on both feet rather than special on one. So from that perspective Andy's premise makes sense.

If we're going to spend so much time working on shooting and ball striking the kids are better served to not spend 50% of their time training their weak foot. I've taken the approach (the mushy middle) to not encourage, require, or dictate which foot the kids use but instead to let them decide. I'm hoping this approach allows them to, through wall ball, develop a great strong foot since they get so many more repetitions but still develop a 'proficient' weak foot.

Final aside: Brian Tomkins the head coach at Yale said that the Animal's, I mean Andy's, chapter in his book about training only one foot 'made his skin crawl'... but from a logical perspective made perfect sense.

Thanks for reading this, if you made it through...

Andrew

Appreciate the input, Andrew. I still say it only makes sense if you can guarantee you'll always have full initiative. In the scenario where an attacker can move to space in the direction he wants, to set up the foot he wants... sure.

But as you know that's not always how things work in a game, and there's a lot more to the game than stepping to space and shooting.

Hey Paul,

I, like Andrew, was very skeptical when Andy first revealed his new theory. I developed a pretty solid weak foot and could keep position left footed more times then not. However when I got to thinking about it, I realized how few significant touches I took with my weak foot. Those from KC can attest to the left footed brilliance of Preki. Defenders knew he was going left and still couldn't stop him (ask brazil in the 98 gold cup). How much better would my right foot have been if Andy wouldn't have had me spending almost half my practice time on my left foot?

Ask yourself how many college or NBA players you've ever seen shoot a jump shot with their weak hand. Basically if they are proficient enough to make a layup or take a few dribbles with their weak hand that is good enough. Even most tennis players have have gone away from a true two handed backhand shot.

I still haven't completely adopted this method in my coaching but I've definitely gone away from demanding equal touches with both feet.

Seems like if your dominant foot is the go-to foot, focus on the weak foot is there to help you salvage the 20% of the times that your dominant foot is shut down. Your Preki example is good, but even in the World Cup semis, you saw otherwise strong players fail to finish because they had no confidence in their weak foot and took the extra touch to try to set up their strong foot. Even Robben did it on occasion.

You see it all the time in U9 through U11--kids taking three or four extra touches to set up their weak foot. What surprised me in the World Cup is that there were world class players who were still doing the same thing.

Out of curiosity, at the international level, what players are counterexamples to Preki--players who are dominant with both feet?

Isn't it possible that players at the world class level wouldn't be "world class" if they had divided up their training time equally? We may not have ever heard of Robben if he wasn't so dominant with his left foot.

Good point, but I think it's more likely that we never would have heard of Robben had he not been the 9th fastest player in the tournament (top speed: 30.88 km/h). Athleticism and speed make up for a lot of skill; but skill makes up for a lot of athleticism.

This is similar to the criticisms against Eddie Johnson--he got to a dominant level in US Soccer because of athleticism (speed) but never had to develop comprehensive finishing skills because his go-to skill was good enough to let him beat 98% of the people he ever faced. That made him less effective in international play because the overall talent level was higher, devaluing the effect of his speed.

I've seen this at lower levels and believe it applies at higher levels--raw athletic talent hides deficiencies in other skills. Having a better weak foot in no way negates Robben's or Johnson's speed. In fact, it would make them better players.

In U7 you see it because Jimmy has an August birthday and is in the 98th percentile for height, and Johnny has a May birthday and is average, and Jimmy cleans Johnny's clock not on skill but on coarse athletic ability. Then at U13, puberty starts hitting Jimmy and he has 6 inches and 40 pounds on Johnny and it keeps going. Finally Jimmy starts running into the other Jimmy's (or more likely, the Jack's with the killer work ethics) and he can't rely on his physical skills alone.

But I see your point. If you have world class speed, most of your edge comes from that brute force burst to get clear, so why bother on anything other than maximizing your chances after clearing the defender? The only problem is that in being one-dimensional, you're far more likely to be easily shut down because you're so predictable. And since 98% of players DON'T have world class speed, deception and balance become much more valuable to the majority of players.

Paul,my point was that a players weaker foot, at most levels should still be able to control,short pass and even risk a shot in the penalty area if it needs to be fired in quickly.

I'd imagine even Arjen Robben is capable of this but lacks the positive mental attitude needed to do it because of his brilliant left foot.

"Ask yourself how many college or NBA players you've ever seen shoot a jump shot with their weak hand."

Don't think that's a relevant analogy because a jump shot is over the top. With the vast majority of shots taken from a foot, the key is to find horizontal space rather than vertical space. The more relevant analogy, if intent on using basketball, is the guy trying to go around a defender's hands for a lay-up. And pretty much everyone in the NBA who drives to the hoop can switch from one to the other when need be.

"I'd imagine even Arjen Robben is capable of this but lacks the positive mental attitude needed to do it because of his brilliant left foot."

I think that's exactly right.

If so, then maybe its a case of where one of his feet - in his mind - is so dominant he passes up the scoring chances with his right foot. In those moments, there isn't a whole lot of time for thought. Mostly learned reaction. You do what you've practiced how many thousands of times, etc. Robben seems to have practiced pulling things to his left a lot, because his right foot had as good an opportunity as that which resulted in Iniesta's goal. Iniesta scored, Spain won and Robben didn't even get a shot off.

I guess I don't mind that the enormous sucking forum vortex that is Legends has now engulfed my little post, if it will keep the ridiculous "Vehicle for Life Lessons" thread from being at the top of the forum list.

The other thing is I suspect this conversation might be a little too focused on finishing.

Watch an MLS game - even the lowly MLS. You'll see players using the proper foot for first touch. Well, trying to use the proper foot. I really think the main difference between an average team and a good team is the usual quality of its players first touches.

In the MLS, you see a lot of balls coming up off the foot (either foot), or squibbling away to a piece of grass where the player seemingly didn't mean to send it. Then it takes a step and a half second to recover... which obviously the opponents try to exploit... and you end up with the kickball effect for much of the game.

In terms of personal skills, that's where games are primarily won and lost, I believe. Give me a team of players with great first touch and I'll work on finishing as we go along. We'll do well. Give me a team of great finishers, but with lacking first touch, and we're not going to get many shots off.

That's what I was saying about being two-footed. And even with finishing, while you maybe won't ever get to the point where the weaker foot isn't a weaker foot, you still don't want players who can't or won't take advantage of an opportunity to strike with their weaker foot. Because if you try to touch it to your stronger foot, that opportunity might not be there anymore.

Not saying it has to be a 50-50 thing in training. To be honest, I don't do that. Actually I don't do much finishing at all, which I've kind of questioned in my own coaching approach. But in the end, there's only so much time and not everything can be a top priority. We seem to score our share of goals (last season we also gave up our share, which is a new attribute for us - especially embarrassing because at least half of them were pure keeper gaffes - but that's another story).

Lol, TAFKAVL. At least it keeps folks from feeding the animals.

TAFKAVL-You can try my ever popular method of: "bump".

keep up the good work.

Pau12

Wasn't Iniesta's goal with his strong foot?

Doesn't that render your point moot?

Shouldn't finishing be every team's top priority?

If you literally mean, shouldn't scoring goals be the top priority......well to a certain extent....YES! But, some probably feel that preventing goals is just as important.

There are also points during games where "finishing" may not be the top priority. We have all watched the foolish player trying to score at the end of the game with a 1-0 lead........only to give up a stupid turnover and give up a goal. At that point in the game, perhaps scoring should not have been his top priority.

But I hope that you are not so shallow as to really be taking yourself literally on everything you say.....in which case.......of course scoring is a priority. That is what is being disucussed......figuring out what is the best way to do it.

YES.

You can stop goals and still not win a game while if you don't score you will NEVER win a game.

Young players should learn from the front backwards and not have any fear of conceding goals while constantly trying to score goals.

It can be quite easy to prevent goals,just condensing space with bodies achieves that but scoring goals takes flair and game intelligence and lack of fear of failure.

I would suggest that this is something the US could do with improving as their basic defending is pretty good, but you need to score goals to win matches.

John, I think you may have missed my point. Even in the attack phase, there are other skills to be executed, and most of them outnumber the actual skill of shooting.

Like I said earlier, I'll take a team of great first-touchers with bad finishing over a team of great finishers with bad first touch. The team with great first-touchers will do fine, even if they have to work it around until the final "pass" is in the goal. The team that lacks first touch isn't going to get to show off its finishing skills much.

"I would suggest that this is something the US could do with improving as their basic defending is pretty good, but you need to score goals to win matches."

Not sure what you mean, but the U.S. seems to be able to score on anyone. It was our shaky defense that hurt us this World Cup.

You might notice that we won the group we shared with England because while our points and goal differential were the same, the U.S. scored two more goals in group play. Needless to say, that also means we gave up two more.

I know your thoughts on the England team, and you probably doubt they should have been seeded at all. But they were. The World Cup officials thought they were one of the eight better teams there.

Curious as to whether your view of developing from the front is common in England. Here in the U.S. - at least the U.S. Soccer part of the U.S. as opposed to the NSCAA part - the focus is more of developing phases of play concurrently. Maybe that's an offshoot of us being encouraged to build practices around SSGs - not sure.

Just to add to that point that we seem to be able to score on anyone, consider how many teams in the last 18 months have scored three against Egypt, or two against Spain, or two against Brazil, or two against Slovenia.

I don't think there's too many other national teams that can claim any of those accomplishments. I'm certainly not trying to argue that the U.S. was the best attacking team in South Africa. But prioritizing what aspects of the game we need to develop, I'm not sure finishing is a logical top priority.

We absolutely saw moments of terrible finishing. But basic defensive organization would seem to be up there, as well as the skills associated with possession - especially first touch - so we'd become more multi-faceted. This would help our counter attacks, because we'd become a team in which opponents wouldn't know that's all we have.

I agree of course that finishing is not just shooting at goal and takes many other skills,dribbling,disguise,range of passing etc but in the UK almost all street games are based around shooting and finishing,the likes of World Cup etc.

But if you introduce games based on goalscoring straight away it sort of gets the kids or adults on your side straight away and gives you a solid platform to build on.
You can introduce crossing and finishing,then maybe killer passes from outside the area and work backwards.

As for the US,based purely on my World Cup observation,1 goal,2 goals then 1 goal scored then 1 conceded against a so called big team,2 more then 1 and 1 again seems quite well balanced to me except that the US seemed to rely on Donovan and another for flair and goalscoring threat while all the others were very comfortable when not in possession but struggled when in possession.

I've said before that when I first coached I worked too much on defending and passing and not enough on attacking so I would advise doing it vice versa now.

To me the USA don't look like a team that could score say 4 goals in a game but don't look as though they could concede 4 either.

I would also add that players love to score goals and stopping them creates a bit of resentment and using attacking games as much as possible helps both the coach and players maintain a good relationship.

Not really. Hindsight is 20/20. Now that Iniesta has struck the game winner, it is easy to forget the numerous opportunities that he had from the left side of the area in which he failed to get of shots, crosses or squared balls because he had the ball on his left foot and refused to play it there preferring to try to get the ball on his right and failing.

Had Robben scored one on one with the keeper. Iniesta's goal may have never come and instead we'd be focusing on the chances that he squandered refusing to play with his left foot.

Dad is right. I was really surprised when Iniesta would not use his left on several good chances he had.

Besides, the logic in the question is wanting anyway. Why would Iniesta scoring with his strong foot when Robben didn't with his weak foot invalidate anything said here?

Fortunately the sportsmanlike giving up of possession to the Spanish - you know, the one Casillas let bounce over his head - wasn't put on frame. I doubt that would have been good for the game at all, lol.

Can you imagine if...

The Unites States hasn't had a forward score a goal in the last 2 World Cups I believe, and here is part of the problem in my opinion.....youth coaches not developing & focusing on finishing. I will take the team of great finishers all day long. If your team with a great first touch is not proficient in finding ways to finish the opportunities they potentially may create, what is the point? In t-ball/little league baseball, how many times do you see practices that revolve around hitting, making contact, proper batting stance, etc. from the very earliest ages - even coaches pulling players off 1 by 1 to work on batting individually?? How many youth basketball practices has you seen where they do not work on shooting, layups, etc. from day 1 at the earliest age?? There are basketball goals in millions of driveways around the US, loads of batting cages where players spend a significant amount of time working on hitting the ball - maybe even hundreds of times in an evening.....both of these the equivalent of putting the ball in the back of the net. Why should soccer be any different? I agree w/ johnmc04....you have to teach the game from the front back & striking/finishing should be a big focus from day 1

"If your team with a great first touch is not proficient in finding ways to finish the opportunities they potentially may create, what is the point?"

Chicken and egg question, lol. Yes, team one might not finish all the opportunities it creates, but team two isn't going to create opportunities. Like I said, I'll take team one.

As for the U.S. not having a forward score in the last two World Cups, consider one of our two starting forwards wasn't there this time, and last time Arenas had the team playing in a 4-5-1 with an intent on that one forward feeding overlapping wings. Also consider Altidore is like 20 years old and the youngest forward to ever start in a World Cup. Davies is only a couple years older. Both of those guys could be with us for multiple World Cups to come, and hopefully present a more potent threat.

Besides, what's your point with that? Our midfielders are better finishers than our forwards? Okay, maybe... so? If you're stuck in the template where forwards are the ones who have to score because no one else is moving off the ball much, I suppose that might matter.

Let's look at that - teach soccer from the front back.

So I'm guessing you advocate drills to teach attacking skills, and start kids on that before they learn how to defend? Not saying its necessarily a bad idea, but that's not to dissimilar to the approach my high school team back in the 1970s and 80s took. Put kids in lines and feed them balls. We did that a lot, because its all the biology teacher who couldn't find his way on the football coaching staff knew to do.

Needless to say, US Soccer as represented by its varying national teams is doing a little better these days than in the 1980s. These young kids today are far more skilled than me and my teammates were back in high school, and probably (talking about U14-15) more tactically advanced than me and my teammates were in college.

Brian...I'm with you. Great finishers are always great passers. Rebounding is the best way to learn finishing. Developing a great first touch is an integral part of the rebounding process.

Great coaches will also develop deceptive dribbling because this is the best way to learn to create your own goal scoring opportunities. The bonus is that while learning to beat opponents you will also learn a wide variety of instantaneous stance points and flexibility in their application.

Those committed to this approach will be more intuitive dribblers, passers, receivers and finishers than players trained using other methods.

Andy

.

Paul,both you and me know that that isn't the best way to teach finishing,although some less aware coaches might think that way.

We can create better game like scenarios to practice finishing than using lines.

I know, John. Just threw that out there to see what conversation it would dredge up

But you know, with the focused situational scenarios, there's defenders, too. Right? So is it really teaching the game from the front back?

The one thing I suppose would be a good example is discussion of the focus of the session. When you're doing your 2v2s or 4v4s or 5v3s or whatever, where are your coaching points focused?

Most coaches I know like to rotate them each session, so even by the time you hit your first game of any season you've organized pretty much everywhere on the field. I've played around with different rotations.

The one I think I liked best was last fall, in which we did a toggle of varying defensive topics with various possession topics in pre-season, and then when we hit the season we toggled between three main focuses: near-ball movement, first touch, and passing combinations.

Great coaches will also develop deceptive dribbling... Those committed to this approach will be more intuitive dribblers, passers, receivers and finishers than players trained using other methods.


MOTTI
Any attack made by the Rebels
against this station would be a
useless gesture, no matter what
technical data they've obtained.
This station is now the ultimate
power in the universe. I suggest
we use it!

VADER
Don't be too proud of this
technological terror you've
constructed. The ability to
destroy a planet is insignificant
next to the power of the Force.

MOTTI
Don't try to frighten us with your
sorcerer's ways, Lord Vader. Your
sad devotion to that ancient
religion has not helped you conjure
up the stolen data tapes, or given
you clairvoyance enough to find the
Rebel's hidden fort...

Suddenly Motti chokes and starts to turn blue under Vader's spell.

VADER
I find your lack of faith disturbing.



Lord Barney, PLEASE release me!

Brazilfan,sometimes I've got no idea what planet you are on!

I'm certain they are Star Wars references but not sure what they have to do with football!

but they are entertaining anyway

Keep,

I see your point. However there are several players that play on the opposite side of 'strong' foot so that they can cut in on their better foot.

Robben may be the best example of this. Henry played wide left for Barca. Ronaldo will often times move over to the left wing... I don't think it pigeonholes players to positions but does obviously limit their ability to go either direction...

Use the Schwartz, Lone Starr! Use the Schwartz!

Keepitfun



The following clip should answer your question. It goes part way to illustrating the "Margin of Greatness" principle that Anson Dorrance has built 21 NCAA DI winning teams around.

Incredible Rivelino move and Behind Leg Cross by Diego Maradona

Pretty awesome don't you think?

Andy

Keep,

Personally I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.

Kill it by starvation! Pull the plug!

Tafkavl, you are entirely too nice. Yes, let's pull the plug and give andy his own thread- I will start it - For Andy ONLY. If anyone replies, your kid is off the team! Love ya. Stop the ridiculous merry-go-round and Andy, here is your STAGE - Enjoy It!