We’re doing youth soccer wrong: Put me in coach
Positions and playing time
“I play left midfield.”
When I ask my patients about their soccer experiences I often hear children, some as young as 7, identify themselves as “defenders” or “strikers.” This is not good for young players, and it’s another sign that we’re doing it wrong.
One of the most significant advancements in world football came out of the Dutch concept of totaalvoetbal or “total football” wherein any outfield player could be moved into any position and maintain the tactical game plan. The values of this system continue to prove important today at the highest levels where a striker is expected to be the first defender when losing the ball, and defenders are expected to have passing vision and 1 v. 1 skills to get out of tight situations.
While tactically important for professionals, these well-rounded skills are absolutely critical for young players to be successful in soccer. Playing striker gives children more opportunities to shoot on goal, find space and attack 1 v. 1. The midfield offers opportunities to transition in tight spaces and increases awareness in all directions. In defense, children get more chances to defend 1 v. 1, tackle away 50-50 balls, and position to prevent goals.
All of these skills will improve a player’s abilities no matter what position he or she eventually gravitates toward in their teen years. Too often, we see coaches labeling children into one position at a young age and limiting their opportunities for learning. Why would they do this? Because they want to win, of course.
Some coaches, driven more by the desire to win than to improve their players, will place their biggest/strongest players at central defense and center forward. That way they increase the chances of their team producing goals-for and preventing goals-against. At the same time, they will place their players with less-developed abilities into wide areas, knowing that mistakes here will cost the team less.
But by trying to “hide” their weaker players, what are they doing for their development? And what about the stronger players? What does the sweeper learn other than to kick it long, bypassing the weaker players, to the center forward who may get better at shooting but never learns to win a tackle on defense?
This tactic is criticized widely among many elite coaches, including U.S. Soccer’s Claudio Reyna who notes, “The inclination for our coaches to put their stars in the middle is one reason our country often has a problem finding talented players to fill the other positions on the field. And it explains why a lot of young stars fade when they hit a higher level.”
Even the “Special One,” Jose Mourinho, echos these ideas: “At this level who knows? A kid that’s now playing central defender may in 4 or 5 years be a midfield player. They don’t need to specialize at a young age. They need to go through all the situations.”
Games provide valuable learning opportunities above what practices can afford. If anything, children who excel on defense should be played more often in other positions to improve areas where they may be weaker. The more time they spend working on difficult skills and tasks, the better player they will become.
And that brings us to a most contentious topic:
Put me in coach
If the stated goal of a soccer club is to develop young players abilities, yet they do not offer equal playing time, they are either uninformed … or lying. There’s no nicer way to put it.
In Part 2 of this series, we explained how one of the most important factors in developing talent was simply the amount of time spent practicing difficult skills. Games allow children to try difficult skills in a fast-paced and competitive setting. By preferentially playing the more advanced players, opportunities for learning are limited for other children.
Could you imagine a scenario where this would be acceptable in our schools? The smarter kids get to join the teacher in the classroom for a lesson, while those with lesser academic abilities are forced to sit in the hallway and watch through the window? When parents put in equal amounts of time, energy and money, and kids show equal levels of interest and effort in playing, why is it acceptable to offer unequal training opportunities? It’s not.
How do we expect weaker players to improve if they are given less opportunities to do so? Because they won’t. Several research studies confirm that children who spend more time on the bench feel rejected, worthless, incompetent and ultimately prefer to quit playing altogether. It’s not just the players on the bench who suffer.
This system also hurts the players who are perceived as stronger. These children, sometimes subjected to playing the entire game without a break, are more vulnerable to injury. In my practice, a majority of overuse injuries occur in these more advanced soccer players. They also experience more psychological stress than others. By rarely, or never, having to sit on the bench, they become keenly aware that they are expected to perform at a higher level and so place more burden on their shoulders. They begin to evaluate themselves based on whether or not the team won, rather than on their learning and improvement. This decreases enjoyment and often leads to burnout at a young age.
As a justification for preferential minutes, some coaches will purport the benefits of “fighting for your place.” As parents, we accept this as common practice in professional sports where adults may need extra incentive to increase motivation. We forget that professional athletes are paid to perform whereas children pay to learn. Kids naturally want to perform their best at all times. The only thing a “fight for your place” mentality accomplishes is that it creates less teamwork because players see other teammates as their competition. They begin to blame their mistakes on others and focus their play on avoidance of risk rather than trying difficult skills.
As Craig Stewart and Michael C. Meyers found in theirresearch on motivation of young soccer players, “In (this) environment, coaches not only emphasize beating the other team, but foster a rivalry among their own players, pitting them against each other for positions on a team. It develops and nurtures… ’A what’s in it for me’ attitude among participants.”
More importantly, how much fun do you think it is for a 10-year-old to feel like every move he or she makes on a soccer field is being evaluated and could ultimately determine whether or not she gets to play the game she likes? As Mairs and Shaw state, “Unconditionally receiving equal playing time also helps to reduce players’ fear of making mistakes, and therefore, their self-esteem, motivation and confidence levels become significantly elevated.”
Equal playing time can also improve the overall experience of an entire club. It significantly reduces the stress on parents to push their children to perform, yell from the sidelines and resent coaches and other parents in the organization.
During the developmental ages, children deserve the opportunity to play all possible positions, and they should do so with an equal distribution of playing minutes. You would be hard pressed to find a single expert in child development or elite developmental soccer programs that would disagree.
Then why do we accept these problems as the norm in youth soccer? Again: Because we’re all obsessed with winning. We care more about what these children can do for our adult egos in the short term rather than what we can do for their long-term growth.
This is unacceptable, and it needs to change.
Written by: Scott Pugh
Full Article here: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865632468/Were-doing-youth-soccer-wrong-Put-me-in-coach.html?pg=a
