Player Development II

Striking A Balance In Youth Soccer

"Tell me how you play, and I will tell you who you are."
-Eduardo Galeano

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."
-Einstein

Part II In The 192 Square Feet Player Development Series; Read Part I Here.

One of my favorite soccer aphorisms, the quote from Galeano's "Soccer In Sun And Shadow" applies to the themes currently at the forefront of my thinking as I observe youth soccer.  With Klinsmann taking over the National Team (much of his agreement included influence over player development nationally), and Claudio Reyna's production of the USSF Curriculum, and the advancement of the USSF Development Academy the pipeline to the men's National Team is changing faster and more profoundly than at any other time in the history of US soccer.  See the 10-month rule FAQs regarding the Development Academy, for instance.  That's the subject of another post to be published here later*.

The main concern is the "how" of player development, and the pressures that have taken youth soccer away from the youth.  Many lament the loss of unstructured play - though that never really existed in the US.  Europe has truly lost the informal play; soccer was organized from the get-go in the US, at least on the mainstream level.  So, in resolving the "how," we have to examine whether or not the genie can be stuffed back into the lamp; can we organize disorganization?

The quotes below, while coming from knowledgeable sportswriters, do contain some fallacies but in general hit the issues that need addressing.  It begins with a determination of the goals.  For Klinsmann, the goal is to get players to the national team who are among the best in the world.  For mom and dad, it's about the kid having some fun, getting exercise, social interaction, maybe some character-building, what have you.  The disconnect is clear.

The gap ought not be insurmountable.  In particular, for the youngest players (meaning 6-7-8 year-olds) up through the last small-sided age group (U12 here in PA), the characteristics of what make a good environment for a future pro are the same as what make a good environment for a future casual amateur player/fan of the game.  Put another way, the professors at our finest universities took the same elementary classes as a jock like me.  The difference between that system of education (at it's best) and the youth sports model is that the instructors in sport are trying to build good teams...and that does not correlate to educating the individuals.

Teach each player to become their best self and we'll create far more adult players who know the game, and can play it a high level.  We've seen what results-oriented approaches accomplish here in Philly in the schools.  The teachers and schools recently taken to task for cheating on standardized tests are little different from every coach who cuts a kid simply because, at the youth level, they aren't big and fast.  You don't inspire a love of learning by beating a kid over the head with test results; you don't inspire creative and dynamic football by doing the same with scores and wins and losses (at the younger age groups...at the older levels, being static, uncreative and safe can be a major flaw).

Here's the sportswriters take (click to read full articles...interesting reads):

Ann Killion

Klinsmann said he wants to tap into America's "melting pot" and find a style that reflects the culture of this country. He's learned a lot during his years of living in the U.S.: about the push for college, about the rigid youth system, about the lack of pickup soccer or hours of kicking a ball around outside of an organized practice.

"It doesn't matter how he plays, with his dad or with his buddies in the street, this will show later on with his technical abilities, with his passing, with his instinct on the field," Klinsmann said of his hypothetical player. "I think that's certainly an area where a lot of work is ahead of us."
Our athletes play in organized, regimented club systems that give them a certain amount of technical ability but little creativity or fluidity and our soccer style reflects that. 

While there have been strides in youth development it still remains an entrenched pay-to-play system run by youth coaches that are making a decent living. Can you turn back the clock to a simpler system of banging the ball around the neighborhood, where nobody is getting paid to supervise?

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/ann_killion/08/02/us.klinsmann/index.html#ixzz29ITXkmag

I'm on board with Killion, except for the bit about coaches who "...are making a decent living."  The only coaches I know who are making a decent living from coaching are the club administrators (and whoo-ee do some of those folks make bank!) or college head coaches.  And lots of head coaches are part time in the NCAA.  There's a reason virtually every college assistant in America works with a club...they're all broke.  Haverford College, for example, has 3 assistants...and a $3000 per year budget line for assistant coaches.  Not per coach...total.  A half-billion dollar endowment just doesn't get you anywhere these days.  Anyway...her points are good ones.  Kids need to be able to just mess around with a ball...the youth system needs to be both better organized and more creative.

One wonders if coaches could make a living in the game, if that wouldn't improve things significantly.  Coaches with day jobs just don't have the luxury of time to invest in educating themselves and others.

From Brian Phillips article in Grantland:

Does this mean what I think it means? Let's keep score. We're in the market for young talent. Attacking flair. A bit less organization, so we don't get so inhibited. More technical nuance, as opposed to raw athleticism. Oh, and more Latin players while we're at it. This is a heretical sentence for an American soccer fan to write, but … is the secret fantasy of American soccer to turn into Mexican soccer? Are we looking for a team that's wild and free? Have we been paying lip service to our guys' can-do-it-iveness while smothering our desire to cheer for a fleet of stylish rock stars? Maybe that's crazy, but the Klinsmann call-up I was most excited about when the lineup was released Thursday was José Torres, a 23-year-old playmaker whose father is Mexican and who plays for Pachuca in the Mexican Primera División.

What is interesting is that the the gist is coaches need to be less rigid...but not non-existent.  Neither writer (nor anyone else I can find out there who's serious about the subject) is suggesting that more games is the answer, or more tournaments.  They're both, correctly, suggesting the coaching and training be improved to better serve the game.  Time spent with the ball (and every bit as importantly, watching the game) is vital...but in today's world, anyone who thinks just cutting kids loose is going to make US Soccer stronger is nuts.  With the snowplow parents these days (yup, it ain't "helicopter parents" anymore...the hovering is so 2001; now it all just gets plowed out of the kid's way...) pickup anything is a anachronistic ideal.

More to the point however, it's the balance of how clubs do their work.  Clearly, there is a sentiment out there that the problem in the US is polarized.  On the one hand, our clubs are ineffective at developing true individual technical skill (offensively and defensively) ... but are also so hyper-organized that those players who do manage to acquire top-flight skill lack the unstructured playground creativity to use that skill set to it's utmost.  What to do, what to do?  Probably don't keep doing what clubs have been doing since the inception of the modern club format.

For all the hand-wringing that's going on, and all the griping about the DA and the 10-month rule, and the failures of the national team, and the status of MLS as a bastion for wizened international retirees, it's not quite as bad as all that.  Our youth system (whether at a macro- or micro-level) will, sooner or later, shift to one in which coaches teach proper technique (offensively and defensively) in an environment that takes into account the developmental stage the players are in, and one that is fun, competitive (as suits the age group), and challenging (again, based specifically on the capabilities of the players involved).  Adults, for their part, need to take their egos out of it (I mean, seriously, does winning youth soccer matches make a grown person more deserving of respect?  Or a justify one's parenting skills?)  and help each and every kid find their niche in the game.  We'd all love to be a top pro, but our places in the game will most likely be elsewhere.

Robert Kurzban on NPR (great new book by him) the other day said "Most of us are meatballs... but we think we're filet mignon."  Player development is like that, too.  The empirical evidence is there, and more is piling up every day, that embracing individual development within a carefully balanced training environment is not just the replacement of George Best's kicking it off the curbstone and playing in the streets of Belfast, but a vastly superior method.  And it's a better method for both the kid who will go on to fame and glory, and the teammate who'll go on a barstool to watch him.  Instructors can teach nuance and intangibles like teamwork and the culture of the game.  They also can inspire good conduct, passion for the game, and even work- (soccer-) life balance.  It's ok to be a meatball...so long as one works with enthusiasm and effort to make the most of the potential within.

As Killion's article points out, we need to allow players to be creative with the ball- periods of training sessions within which there is little or no instruction.  Striking a balance of fun and instruction, with sufficient time/opportunities for unstructured play within a training session is hard...but administrators, coaches, parents and even players should demand everyone try, for the sake of the game and the kids that love it.  Clubs that have the access to facilities in which they can train 2-3-4 times per week will be far more effective in providing the optimal balance.  With a bit more time, even an hour of training per week more than a team does currently, a coach can invest more time in letting the players have that "unstructured" free play.

The new line of thinking, then, ought to include lots of free play - certainly few stoppages/lectures in training - excellent technical instruction, organizational coordination from bottom to top, and a greater value placed on technical ability.  And it's not just the clubs.  Leagues could help with some really simple adjustments.  What if punting were banned at the youngest levels?  Force everyone to kick out to feet, and the need to teach and encourage technical skill would increase drastically.  Give players freedom to experiment, but sufficient guidance and discipline in their game that they reduce bad habits.  Most of all, there has to be buy-in with the notion that player development and winning are mutually exclusive goals in the youth game.  Ironic that coaches are wising up to this idea and are putting the individual ahead of the team, in a sense.  But it is a much better, longer view approach for both the players and the game.  It requires patience, coordination, and intense concentration on the technical side of the game.

*Up next in the player development series:

Posts on the number of touches a player takes in a training session versus a game; the USSF and the Development Academy decision to require 10 month commitments from all the players (and no scholastic sports); why so many "great" youth attackers find themselves playing in wide positions when they go to college.