Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Currently:

The Obsession With Winning 5 1

[tripleplay]

I don't think there is any evidence that ethnic or other communities are shut out of US soccer.

I just picked up my kid from the guy I share carpooling with - who happens to be black and I live in a good neighborhood.  I told him my wife and I were playing tennis so could he drop off my son at the Starbucks instead of my house.  As he pulls up I notice a police car following him.  He stops the car to drop off my son the police stay about 50 feet behind in the parking lot.  My son gets out comes over to our car, my friend leaves, the police car follows him out.  He calls me five minutes later - police pull him over ask him a few stupid questions let him go.  Trust me, if you are white you don't get what life is like for others. 

On this specific topic let me just say that with all the Latinos in Seattle there is an under representation in some clubs.  At least part of that has to do with the cost of premier soccer.  I know this because many of my sons friends are Mexican and Brazilian.  Their fathers are envious that we can afford to pay $6000 a year on nonsensical soccer related things.  There is a problem.  It's just a problem that most white people can't relate to because they don't know many working class hispanics.

I am not saying that the US is some sort of racial Utopia, or that every team, club and league reflects the racial make up of the community. Far from it.  But sports are pretty open, and talent is obvious and rewarded. So if a whatever wants to play soccer, and is good, he has the chance. But the reality is that we live in a society that has a lot of options for most people, and people will self-select sports where they will have the most fun and most opportunity. Unless you are a suburban girl, soccer isn't going to be high on most people's lists.

[tripleplay]

Look, it's really easy to armchair quarterback here about development over winning. Reality is, parents won't put their kids on teams that are losing, regardless of individual development. How many parents have watched their team win, and then commented on how the development of the the individual players on the other team was awesome? I will tell you as a former DOC, none.

The chance to develop a DK into a leader, or expand on their already substantial individual skill, will never be allowed on a team that is not winning. I cannot count how many kids have moved on to other clubs, because a parent wants better. Very few of those that moved were ever from winning teams that were progressing up the ladder as a team. There will always need to be shared philosophy of individual development, and team growth, together. But God forbid the parent sees it in a different light.

Parents are the customer these days. Players very rarely have issues with coaches, or teams, and wish to move. Parents are who the clubs and teams try and keep happy...so it's definately not about the kids. That's the true shame in it all.

This is mostly nonsense. You can't have winners without losers so lots of people choose losing teams. And a player's ultimate potential is determined by how he plays, not where he plays, or who his coach is or what league he is in. BUT the experience is better when you win. It's more fun for the same input, so it is perfectly rational (from the player's perspective) for a good player on a losing team to move to a winning team. The problem occurs because what is rational for the individual leads to an outcome (mismatches and no parity) which is globally inferior. So trying to win all the time isn't wrong. Actually winning all the time is.

That's true at U9 and it is true in La Liga. Mismatches are boring and unentertaining.

[silverdad]

Look, it's really easy to armchair quarterback here about development over winning. Reality is, parents won't put their kids on teams that are losing, regardless of individual development. How many parents have watched their team win, and then commented on how the development of the the individual players on the other team was awesome? I will tell you as a former DOC, none.

The chance to develop a DK into a leader, or expand on their already substantial individual skill, will never be allowed on a team that is not winning. I cannot count how many kids have moved on to other clubs, because a parent wants better. Very few of those that moved were ever from winning teams that were progressing up the ladder as a team. There will always need to be shared philosophy of individual development, and team growth, together. But God forbid the parent sees it in a different light.

Parents are the customer these days. Players very rarely have issues with coaches, or teams, and wish to move. Parents are who the clubs and teams try and keep happy...so it's definately not about the kids. That's the true shame in it all.

I agree with this to some extent, but I also think things are changing.  Parents of very young players tend to get sucked into the importance of winning.  After winning state cup for a year or two, I have seen many parents - and PLAYERS - from Crossfire conclude that they want more than winning at all costs, and look at alternatives that focus more on development even though those alternative teams don't win as much. 

At some level, though, winning is quite relevant and important.  It shouldn't be the only thing, and it shouldn't be accomplished with shortcuts that won't be available once the kids get older and/or play higher-caliber teams.  But, to all of those parents out there that hide behind the magnanimous "we don't care about winning, we are above that, we are all about development", you are fooling yourselves.  Kids compete in sports to win.  If your teams are losing all of the time, are your kids really developing?  There is more to the sport than fancy footwork and one-touch passing, intangibles like competitive grit, resilience, work ethic and desire are also critical elements.  Kids in some of these clubs can get their individual accomplishments (some earned, some not), but learning to succeed in a team sport is highly valuable and the individual "development" theme can be taken too far at times.

[blacksheep]

Ok Silverdad everyone knows kids can't go much beyond winning and thinking winning is everything.  You can see it when they are doing drills in practice.  All that matters is whether or not they score.  They often lose complete sight or indeed never ask what the whole purpose of the drill was in the first place.  But that's not the issue at hand.  The issue at hand is that because they are so young and likely (if we are talking about boys) have strong relationships for the most part with their fathers (although I have seen situations where mothers are the soccer players in the household) that the pressure coming from their adult male coach to win suppresses their creativity.  In other words, they can't separate the act of pleasing the male role model figure with playing soccer well. 

I will give a perfect example.  Let's suppose your kids happens to be an amazing defender or defensive midfielder who happens to be stuck on a team with other great defensive players but saddled also with lazy attacking players.  It's unlikely he is going to win many games.  In order to thrive in that program your son or daughter is going to have to develop a philosophical detachment from the importance of winning. There are going to be a lot of close games, a lot of ties.  But very few wins.  I think the parents are also going to have adopt this attitude.  'Hey, this is a team game and my son or daughter is going to have to do their part as part of the team and just accept that very little production is going to take place despite their best efforts.' 

Yet what typically happens from my experience is that pressure comes from the parents for wins and all success is measured in terms of victories.  The reality is that very little coaching is directed at improving the attacking abilities of the team.  Sure there's a lot of running, shooting and passing drills but in the end the way real football teams win games is through advanced tactical methods and strategies and you need players and coaches who are on the same page and moreover players who are smart enough to focus on what the coach wants them to execute rather than what dad is shouting on the sidelines and tells them before and after the game. 

I go back time and again to my basic point that the most important learning that takes place on these teams is within the minds of the parents - and especially fathers.  'Why isn't my son getting playing time?  Why isn't my son getting the ball?'  all this nonsense.  It's the parents who are causing most of the problems for their kids - not the coaching staff. 

I should have clarified that my point was directed at younger aged soccer players (i.e. under U14). 

[ForTheKids]

I go back time and again to my basic point that the most important learning that takes place on these teams is within the minds of the parents - and especially fathers.  'Why isn't my son getting playing time?  Why isn't my son getting the ball?'  all this nonsense.  It's the parents who are causing most of the problems for their kids - not the coaching staff. 

I would not disagree.  However, the coach should be educating the parents as well.  Rarely does that happen so they own it on game day when parents are not on the same page.

[kinznk]

I will give a perfect example.  Let's suppose your kids happens to be an amazing defender or defensive midfielder who happens to be stuck on a team with other great defensive players but saddled also with lazy attacking players.  It's unlikely he is going to win many games.  In order to thrive in that program your son or daughter is going to have to develop a philosophical detachment from the importance of winning. There are going to be a lot of close games, a lot of ties.  But very few wins.  I think the parents are also going to have adopt this attitude.  'Hey, this is a team game and my son or daughter is going to have to do their part as part of the team and just accept that very little production is going to take place despite their best efforts.' 

This is fairly descriptive of my son's career thus far. He's played with some decent players but on teams without much depth in the starting 11. He's enjoyed playing with them nonetheless and the majority so far have turned out to be decent kids. He's on a smaller RCL club and has never played in a division 1 game and only one season in D2 during 9v9. His team's have to fight and scratch for every tie or victory, rarely has any game been easy. Because of this, he has learned to battle and compete (much more of a battle and competitor than I ever was). For his teams nothing has been easy, so he plays with a bit of a chip on his shoulder. He was good enough to make EPD for 2 years at 10 and 11. Then got cut at Sounders open SDP tryouts then again at EPD later that summer. That adversity combined with having to battle every game and wear the "bad" warmup jacket at school had sharpened his game.

He made EPD this past year as well as the SDP.  Mostly because I resisted moving him to a bigger club and him accepting it. He has a lot of pride in his club now, and wears his warm up proudly. I feel that he could have become complacent by winning and only been an ancillary player. Instead he learned to carry a team even if they didn't win all that much.

That being said there are good players that come out of the big clubs. There is no one way but having to compete every game and at times carry a team has been immeasurable in his development.

[Tacotruck]

I go back time and again to my basic point that the most important learning that takes place on these teams is within the minds of the parents - and especially fathers.  'Why isn't my son getting playing time?  Why isn't my son getting the ball?'  all this nonsense.  It's the parents who are causing most of the problems for their kids - not the coaching staff. 

I would not disagree.  However, the coach should be educating the parents as well.  Rarely does that happen so they own it on game day when parents are not on the same page.

Right. And coaches in their infinite wisdom give out beauties like this,
Your kid needs more soccer IQ to get able to start and get more playtime. - Coach
Ok, how does my kid get more soccer IQ? - parent
Well, soccer IQ can only be learned by playing in games. -coach
Ok, how can my kid if he doesn't get to play?  - parent.
Well, he needs to try harder when he does. - coach

You think it is only the parents who want to win? True nature of coaches come out when during
state cup and tourneys. It is ALL about winning. Development and being fair go out the window
and forgotten. The kids know that the coach is a liar and do not trust them anymore.
That's why the kid want to leave. Not always the parents. There should be a coach flag
next to people who are coaches here.

[skagitcoach]

With respect to your idiotic soccer claims the fact that the EPL is 'the most watched league' has everything to do with Empire again. .

The EPL also has a long, storied history.

Let's be precise with our language here. While individual clubs in English football certainly have long and storied histories (Manchester United and Liverpool top the list), the league currently known as the English Premier League is a mere 25 years old. The EPL -- conceived by Spurs' owner Alan Sugar in the early '90s -- is a breakaway league formed by clubs that sought financial autonomy from The Football Association in a quest to increase their revenues.

David Goldblatt's "The Game of Our Lives: The English Premier League and the Making of Modern Britain" is a very good read on the history of the Premier League. He goes into great detail explaining how the economic and social climate in England in the decades preceding the 1990s gave rise to the current EPL. In essence, the power in English football has shifted from the industrial regions towards the financial centers of London, paralleling shifts in the post-World War II economy of England from the industrial heartland towards London.

Simply put, it's all about money. And that explains why former first-division regulars such as Sheffield Wednesday, Sheffield United, Leeds United, Derby County, Nottingham Forest, Ipswich Town, Blackburn, Wolverhampton, Bolton Wanderers and so forth have all but disappeared from the top flights of English football.

[tripleplay]

There are rule changes and rebranding but it is the same league. 4 of the 6 most followed soccer clubs in the world are from England. England has the same population as the west coast, CA to BC. It has 7000 clubs playing FA games.

[skagitcoach]

There are rule changes and rebranding but it is the same league.

Not even close, TP. It's more than mere rebranding. The operation of the Premier League is vastly different from its predecessor, the old First Division of the Football League. The EPL operates under Football Association rules regarding scheduling and disciplinary issues, but in all other matters the EPL is a 20-club corporation that manages its own affairs independently of the FA. The EPL negotiates its own broadcasting deals and member teams control their own finances.

The influence of the Football Association has diminished significantly since the advent of the EPL. The FA runs the leagues below the EPL, the FA Cup and other tournaments, and appoints the manager of the English national team. But make no mistake, the power-brokers of English football are the members of the EPL, not the Football Association.

[tripleplay]

There are rule changes and rebranding but it is the same league.

Not even close, TP. It's more than mere rebranding. The operation of the Premier League is vastly different from its predecessor, the old First Division of the Football League. The EPL operates under Football Association rules regarding scheduling and disciplinary issues, but in all other matters the EPL is a 20-club corporation that manages its own affairs independently of the FA. The EPL negotiates its own broadcasting deals and member teams control their own finances.

The influence of the Football Association has diminished significantly since the advent of the EPL. The FA runs the leagues below the EPL, the FA Cup and other tournaments, and appoints the manager of the English national team. But make no mistake, the power-brokers of English football are the members of the EPL, not the Football Association.

You are talking about soccer politics. I am talking about soccer. Nobody would say that titles won before EPL weren't real titles. Who cares whether the FA's power is up or down? A few people employed in the FA. Soccer fans shouldn't care in the least.

[skagitcoach]

You are talking about soccer politics. I am talking about soccer.

So am I. We Liverpool supporters gladly claim all the silverware our Reds earned prior to the advent of the modern EPL 
My point is that the Premier League as an entity is hugely different from the old Football League First Division because of the huge amounts of money involved and an influx of international players. When the FA was in control and held the reins on the finances -- and limited the signing of international players in English football -- the First Division frequently included clubs like Leeds United, the Sheffields (Wednesday and United), Ipswich Town, Blackburn Rovers, Nottingham Forrest, Derby County and so forth.

The EPL controls its own financial destiny, and as a result the face of the league has changed considerably! Only six clubs have never been relegated from the EPL in its 25 year history -- Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Spurs, Liverpool and Everton. And those six also happen to be among the most wealthy clubs in the EPL.

[blacksheep]

I think skagit's point is probably valid.  As I've mentioned before my father was a German footballer who was supposed to be pretty good but he left Germany before the Bundesliga was created.  As an interesting side note to this discussion (interesting to me at least) is my father's POV about foreign players 'invading' Spanish football at the time (this was a few years ago).  He was convinced that foreign players were bad for the development of homegrown talent.  I am not so sure.  He thought that one of the reasons why Germany was so successful in the World Cup was the fact that the Bundesliga at the time had so few foreign players - it allowed for playing time for homegrown talent.  The counterargument is that playing with the best allows for the best to get better.  Not sure what's correct any more. 

With my own son he played on the second team (B team) for a year and I think that really helped solidify his confidence before moving back up to A.  Is there a cut and dry rule about playing with the best of the best (i.e. foreign players with respect to league soccer) or is it better for the national team to have as many homegrown players get as much playing time in the top home league? 

The same kind of arguments come up with respect to player development at our level - at younger ages is it better to always be at the best team at the highest level with limited playing team or go down a level and play 60 minutes per game? 

[tripleplay]

I think skagit's point is probably valid.  As I've mentioned before my father was a German footballer who was supposed to be pretty good but he left Germany before the Bundesliga was created.  As an interesting side note to this discussion (interesting to me at least) is my father's POV about foreign players 'invading' Spanish football at the time (this was a few years ago).  He was convinced that foreign players were bad for the development of homegrown talent.  I am not so sure.  He thought that one of the reasons why Germany was so successful in the World Cup was the fact that the Bundesliga at the time had so few foreign players - it allowed for playing time for homegrown talent.  The counterargument is that playing with the best allows for the best to get better.  Not sure what's correct any more. 

With my own son he played on the second team (B team) for a year and I think that really helped solidify his confidence before moving back up to A.  Is there a cut and dry rule about playing with the best of the best (i.e. foreign players with respect to league soccer) or is it better for the national team to have as many homegrown players get as much playing time in the top home league? 

The same kind of arguments come up with respect to player development at our level - at younger ages is it better to always be at the best team at the highest level with limited playing team or go down a level and play 60 minutes per game?

The reality is that who you play with, who you play against, who you play for (coach) ... are all irrelevant to first order. A player's path is determined by a player's potential and that player's input (simplistically just the number of hours played). That's what the evidence from many sports and activities tells us.

Of course, those selling something (the "best" league, the "best" training blah blah) will dominate the discussion because they have a vested financial interest in being the loudest. That's not evidence, though.

As far as England's league, there have been changes to the league but it is the same league. Is Major League Baseball not Major League Baseball because it is increasingly filled with non-Americans and the pay has gone up? Of course not.