Earlier this year, the US Youth Soccer Association published their Vision for Youth Soccer in America. It generated a smattering of debate, but not much. It certainly should, because this vision sums up much of what the USYSA is thinking and advocating for youth soccer in America:
Too often in America a professional sport model is used in measuring youth sports success. Youth soccer is not immune to this misapplied standard. For soccer the situation is made worse by a desire of many adults to use measuring tools from other sports. In fact it is maddening to many adults that soccer is not as black and white as with some sports in judging successful play. Many team sports played in our nation are statistically driven and coach centered. Soccer is neither of those! Indeed just like the Laws of the Game our sport has many shades of grey within it. As a player centered sport some coaches become disillusioned as they learn that they are the ‘guide on the side’ and not the ‘sage on the stage’. Too many soccer coaches bring a “Pattonesque” attitude to the youth sport environment. This coach-centered perspective has been handed down to us from other sports and coaching styles of past generations.
So consider this your OTP Holiday reading assignment and post some thoughts in the comment section below. I’m hoping to take some themes from this document and write articles this winter where we can discuss the merits of what the USYSA is trying to do.
Loading...
December 11th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Just went through this at my local club. A group of parents fought for a club board meeting to, essentially, beat up on a couple of coaches for a U9 girls team. The biggest complaint was number of losses–though the parents recognized that this was not supposed to be important and prefaced much of their complaint with “it’s not about winning or losing” before going on to complain about losing games.
Anyway … that was not fun to sit in on (I was there as the U10 girls coach and licensed coach to support the U9 coaches and answer questions as needed).
However, the article, or vision, in question really never answers or attempts to deal with the question, “it’s all well and good to say we cannot apply adult measures to youth soccer, shades of grey, and all that, BUT won’t my kid have more fun if my kid’s team wins more than it loses?”
How much fun is it to get whupped in 7 out of 10 matches in a season? If we’re not winning, we’re not having fun. If we’re not having fun, we’re not learning. We are U9 (or whatev) and clearly our coaches aren’t coaching the right thing if we’re losing 70% of our games–especially since the losses are all by 4-6 goals.
Anyway, my thoughts as Devil’s advocate.
Cheers,
Sean
January 6th, 2010 at 3:42 pm
Sean – that’s a tough balance..especially when your state association will say “we don’t keep scores at U-10 and below”..but both the kids and parents do. I would agree with your comment the “vision” seems to struggle with the balance – “winning is important, but not the most; trying your best is more important because that leads to winning, except of course in soccer because it’s a cruel game”
Two major concerns about the vision
I don’t like the hard distinctions (stages) model that gives the impression these specific objectives are a sequential process. I would like the vision to think of the sport as a lifelong continuum. Take the Coerver system with its pyramid of development. The system does not say “master the bottom, then go to the next step.” It states you work on each portion continually, with different goals within each of the portions depending on the player’s progression.
So, why should “fun” stop when you get older and why shouldn’t ‘competition’ and ‘winning’ be part of the early stage? Why doesn’t retention include getting kids to be coaches, referees, and junior ‘administrators?’ I’d rather them portray the stage model more like the Coerver pyramid.
Second – I would like to see a better linkage of the measures of success and vision to a strategy (ends – ways – means). If you are measuring success in a flawed model, then how can you expect change. An example – If USYS were really serious about taking out ‘winning’ and implementing ‘developing’, then go beyond just the “non-results” oriented guidance in a system based on individual team outcomes. Instead of the “team” concept at young ages, promote forming cohorts of players. Train together in cohorts. For in-house and external league competition, schedule cohorts to meet, but scramble the players (yes, even the players from different clubs) for the match..even rescramble at halftime. You can keep score, but since teams change continually, there is no “my team loses every game.” (I can hear the groans of administrators). Tournaments at a younger age become where the club picks similiar ability kids to participate and then they go back to their different cohorts.
The vision starts by saying “don’t apply the professional model of success to youth sports”; however, we mimic the professional model (leagues/division/teams) in creating the youth model. So, why wouldn’t you expect then the measurement criteria to mimic as well?
Oh, and I’m scared about the 4% of parents who say fun is NOT a benefit for their kid playing..