How important is playing experience for you as a parent?

Meaning, is it important that your bb's or dd's coach be an ex player? How about someone that has never played the game at a HS level or above. What if the coach has a real passion for coaching kids and is effective? What would you chose, pro's vs non pro's?

Reason I ask is that my son's current coach is great, has many certifications however he didn't play the game at any level. I am not thinking about leaving our team so coaches dont PM me, I will immediately block you.

I am looking for input from parents

I don't think it counts for much (or anything). Dick Motta won a couple of NBA Championships and never played a high school, college, or pro basketball game. He could coach though. Most great coaches were middling players (Wegner, Mourinho, etc.) were frustrated players at best. Better question to ask is what about having been a player at a pro level (or whatever) contributes to your child's development? What about the training methods as they were implemented and understood at the time are relevant today? I am not saying it does not mean anything...but i cannot think of what it would be...i have had both and candidly, the former pro players you can keep. Most have never gotten over their lack of success after their playing days were over...

Rightback wrote:I don't think it counts for much (or anything). Dick Motta won a couple of NBA Championships and never played a high school, college, or pro basketball game. He could coach though. Most great coaches were middling players (Wegner, Mourinho, etc.) were frustrated players at best.  Better question to ask is what about having been a player at a pro level (or whatever) contributes to your child's development? What about the training methods as they were implemented and understood at the time are relevant today?  I am not saying it does not mean anything...but i cannot think of what it would be...i have had both and candidly, the former pro players you can keep. Most have never gotten over their lack of success after their playing days were over...

Interesting ...

Thanks for the feedback.

Dennis Franchione never played football. Ask an Aggie how that worked out.

no it doesn't matter to me at all. Look at Wenger from Arsenal or Morinho neither had a stellar playing career. Even Alex Fergusen has his star studded career as a manager not a player. Sometime a playing career can be a hinderance. Instead of being a student of the game they rely on their experience as a player which after a number of years can have little relevance to the modern game. Put it this way if a teams coach played pro soccer a number of years ago. The skill he had and what he took would no longer suffice to make it in todays world

Coaches that have never played are ok so long as they have 1.) slept at a Holiday Inn Express or 2.) have a thick foreign accent. .... If you can find one that has both, you can probably make it to the Dallas Cup or Ayses Summer Classic.   

allen04 wrote:Dennis Franchione never played football.  Ask an Aggie how that worked out.

Weird too seeing how well every other Aggie coach has worked out. Not playing must have been the problem. For all of them.

go99 wrote: Even Alex Fergusen has his star studded career as a manager not a player.  Sometime a playing career can be a hinderance.  

Fergie was top scorer in the Scottish league, and a record transfer price when he moved to Glasgow Rangers. Not too shabby a playing career if you ask me. Yes he went onto greater things over a 40 year career in management but I think his playing experience was a big part of that.

Agree that frequently the better managers are coming from the ranks of those that hang up their boots early through injury etc. I think in part this is because they have to make it the hard way in management as opposed to the super stars who walk into the big job the day they stop playing and are out of their depth. Think Alan Shearer at Newcastle. This seems to be a particularly British disease though. For example Denis Bergkamp has gone into coaching in Holland but is learning his craft before taking on a high profile job.

As far as our kids are concerned. I prefer a coach that has played to a sufficiently high level e.g. college because I feel that they should really get the ins and outs of tactics and the finer details. I coached my son in Rec and that was fine. I know the game and I have the accent  but did not play to any great level. By the time it came to select I was only too happy to hand over to the pros.

Of course being a good player does not automatically equal a good coach. A coach needs to be a good teacher. The playing experience just provides the detailed inside knowledge.

rdeal486 wrote:Meaning, is it important that your bb's or dd's coach be an ex player?  How about someone that has never played the game at a HS level or above.  What if the coach has a real passion for coaching kids and is effective?  What would you chose, pro's vs non pro's?

Reason I ask is that my son's current coach is great, has many certifications however he didn't play the game at any level.  I am not thinking about leaving our team so coaches dont PM me, I will immediately block you.

I am looking for input from parents

It's comparible to the difference between a rocket scientist trying to teach something that may come easy to them as opposed to a struggling yet intelligent (less than certified Scientist) that remembers how hard it was to learn x,y or z. The "BEST" in any profession may not be the best "Teachers". Your bb and/or dd could play advanced wall ball games daily at home and end up being among the best technical players in the world WITHOUT coaching  

It's comparible to the difference between a rocket scientist trying to teach something that may come easy to them as opposed to a struggling yet intelligent (less than certified Scientist) that remembers how hard it was to learn x,y or z. The "BEST" in any profession may not be the best "Teachers". Your bb and/or dd could play advanced wall ball games daily at home and end up being among the best technical players in the world WITHOUT coaching

My preference would be a coach that played beyond high school with a proven track record of development. However at the younger ages it is okay if they played some, have certifications and teach according to the lesson plans outlined by US youth soccer. US youth soccer lesson plans and technique should be taught regardless of experience. I see too many coaches who played significantly that do not have a clue. Lesson plans for 8 year olds will be quite different than 16 year olds.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1544547-top-5-world-football-coaches-who-never-played-professionally

davito wrote:

go99 wrote: Even Alex Fergusen has his star studded career as a manager not a player.  Sometime a playing career can be a hinderance.  

Fergie was top scorer in the Scottish league, and a record transfer price when he moved to Glasgow Rangers. Not too shabby a playing career if you ask me. Yes he went onto greater things over a 40 year career in management but I think his playing experience was a big part of that.

Agree that frequently the better managers are coming from the ranks of those that hang up their boots early through injury etc. I think in part this is because they have to make it the hard way in management as opposed to the super stars who walk into the big job the day they stop playing and are out of their depth. Think Alan Shearer at Newcastle. This seems to be a particularly British disease though. For example Denis Bergkamp has gone into coaching in Holland but is learning his craft before taking on a high profile job.

As far as our kids are concerned. I prefer a coach that has played to a sufficiently high level e.g. college because I feel that they should really get the ins and outs of tactics and the finer details. I coached my son in Rec and that was fine. I know the game and I have the accent  but did not play to any great level. By the time it came to select I was only too happy to hand over to the pros.

Of course being a good player does not automatically equal a good coach. A coach needs to be a good teacher. The playing experience just provides the detailed inside knowledge.

enough said. And his record transfer fee was a record for the time between scottish clubs not an overall record. I stand by the fact that his soccer career was not outstanding

[quote="davito
As far as our kids are concerned. I prefer a coach that has played to a sufficiently high level e.g. college because I feel that they should really get the ins and outs of tactics and the finer details. I coached my son in Rec and that was fine. I know the game and I have the accent  but did not play to any great level. By the time it came to select I was only too happy to hand over to the pros.

Of course being a good player does not automatically equal a good coach. A coach needs to be a good teacher. The playing experience just provides the detailed inside knowledge.

[/quote]Totally agree…
Also liked the accent bit, I tell everyone I’m from East-Texas  
Here are my criteria: 1) has to be good with kids (and parents), 2) has to know/understand the game, 3) has to be fair and tough on all the players…, and 4) and this is important one – your kid has to like and respect him…
 

I agree with 34blast that having playing experience at or beyond college level definitely helps for younger age groups say u8-12. This is the critical stage for developing individual skills and the ability to read the game. Repetition is the key to master individual skills. So in general, telling a u8-9 kid to do something versus showing him how to do it right are two very different learning experiences.

[/quote]enough said.  And his record transfer fee was a record for the time between scottish clubs not an overall record.  I stand by the fact that his soccer career was not outstanding[/quote]
Ok so he wasn't Pele but Scottish football was a bigger deal back then and he was hardly a nobody like, say, Brendan Rodgers.