Academies in England

And did your son learn anything by watching the videos?
Or did he just walk away to play FIFA.

I wouldn't discount the benefits of playing FIFA. IMO it gives the kids a lot of perspective on how they should see the game unfolding. BB started playing FIFA at 4, he starting making crosses and wondering why nobody would run in to the head the ball at his YMCA games.

I won't pretend my son had enough patience to actually watch an entire game on video. But he would watch sequences. He would amazingly remember most of the events from all the games, so he would be "this is where X does Y and I do Z etc" prior to most things. But of course he didn't always see the details in real time. The real value was watching and pointing out all of the interlocking pieces/nuances associated with a goal or significant event. Could highlight the effects of not hustling back, of diving in, of failing to make the first good decision, of lack of positional awareness, etc. Those kind of things seemed to stick in his head.

None of this made him any bigger or faster, alas.

"So what are you looking for, I ask Allen, who says he has 'the eye’ – the ability to spot potential. (His 24-year footballing career straddles the extremes of running the Crown and Manor, a boys’ club in the East End, and looking after visiting elite international teams.) Technical skill, he says. 'It’s about trying to beat someone and get the ball past them, not pass it past them, we can all do that. Good movers, very smooth in the way they run. Plus they have to be willowy and athletic-looking. You don’t get many stocky players.’ But what about Maradona? Gazza? Rooney? There are always exceptions, he says. 'Scouting is not an exact science.’ Particularly with the wild card of puberty."


I think this is the biggest issue with identifying true soccer talent.  How do you know what to look for in an 8, 9 or 10 year old to determine if he will be able to play when he is 16 or 17?  I don't buy the method of analyzing the heck out of it with number crunching, passing percentages etc when they are young.  The way a kid plays at 8,9, or 10 should be much different than the way he plays at 15 or 16 when it comes to passing percentage, tackles etc.  He is learning when he is young and his stats may frankly "suck."

The above paragraph spells it out for me.  The main questions are what does a kid look like when he plays at 8, 9, 10?  Is he balanced, how does he run, how does he move, what does he look like with the ball at his feet?  Is he on his heels, off-balance, very slow of foot, just generally out of sync ( you can spot these kids) or does he look like "right".  Knowing what is "right" comes from experience training kids from age 8 and seeing them progress to age 18.   I would bet there are not too many parents on this board that have seen a kid at age 8 and then watched him all the way up to US national team status at age 20 or so, (maybe a few).  How many local coaches have done that?  Clearly that is the gold standard (for me at least) in terms of telling if a kid has a chance to be a great player.  Even that is just the chance.  Most great coaches will tell you they don't know if a kid at 8 will be great but they can tell you the ones that absolutely wont be.  That is the best you can hope for and then simply train the heck out of them.  If they "burn out" they probably weren't meant to do it anyway.

Not an exact science it is. The number crunching is for older fellas.

Good question, Sprint!  How many local coaches have done this?  Which ones? And are they acad?

Soccerinsanity wrote:Good question, Sprint!  How many local coaches have done this?  Which ones?  And are they acad?

I personally have no idea. But, I also think we are talking about two different things: talent identification and coaching. They may overlap and the same person does both, but maybe not.

I am sure there are coaches in the metroplex that have seen kids through from age 8 to pro or college as there are many kids that have gone to play in college and pro from our area.

Lets just assume we are all in the local market.  

Does it matter if there is a coach who can or cannot spot the correct 8 year old to develop into the best 16 year old?   Nobody is getting annointed at 8 or 9 or 10 or 12 or whatever around here.   If the goal is to have the best 16 year old then who cares what somebody thinks about your 8 yr old or whether or not they have seen any 8 year olds become future superstars.  Personally I don't see a "cut" being made at 8 or 9 or whatever that precludes the "fairly good" kids from doing the exact same stuff that an "identified" elite kid is doing.  Maybe that is the joy of a system where the parents are paying.  Develop till you are 16, then if folks think you are the 2nd coming maybe you should get excited...

You might be worried about whether or not the local coaches can spot the best 16 year olds, but that is another matter.

I can sort of understand where parents of little kids want to know "is my kid on the elite player" trajectory?, but that is largely just cause they want a reacharound to feel better about the 600 hours they put into youth soccer last year.  

Personally I think you should have as much fun with the soccer at 6 as you do at 8 or 10 or 12 or 16 or whatever and should disconnect yourself from worrying about what 0.001% become "stars", but then I don't get all fired up about my lotto tix either.

Agreed when it comes to what really matters at a level of "my household" it doesn't matter what someone says about the kid at 8. But on the level of, can the US develop world class players; it probably does. If US soccer can pick the right kids out at 8,9,10 and train them in intense training centers for years, maybe we can get better on the national stage.
What that means to you and me is; eh not much.

0.001% huh? So your saying there's a chance?

Its easier if you just give up on the US. I've applied that to politics and soccer and it helps you sleep at night.

Number13 wrote:I wouldn't discount the benefits of playing FIFA.  IMO it gives the kids a lot of perspective on how they should see the game unfolding.   BB started playing FIFA at 4, he starting making crosses and wondering why nobody would run in to the head the ball at his YMCA games.  
 

On playing FIFA: My BB plays FIFA along with watching tons of soccer on BEIN Sport, Fox Soccer etcetera...I agree that while some parents complain that this is lazy there is a good bit of learning involved. The game can actually teach them how to execute. Can they go out and emulate the game? That's another question.

Sprint wrote:"So what are you looking for, I ask Allen, who says he has 'the eye’ – the ability to spot potential. (His 24-year footballing career straddles the extremes of running the Crown and Manor, a boys’ club in the East End, and looking after visiting elite international teams.) Technical skill, he says. 'It’s about trying to beat someone and get the ball past them, not pass it past them, we can all do that. Good movers, very smooth in the way they run. Plus they have to be willowy and athletic-looking. You don’t get many stocky players.’ But what about Maradona? Gazza? Rooney? There are always exceptions, he says. 'Scouting is not an exact science.’ Particularly with the wild card of puberty."

DID EVERYONE READ THIS PART: "'It’s about trying to beat someone and get the ball past them, not pass it past them, we can all do that. "

This does not mean be a ball hog or dribble every time they touch the ball (we have all seen Goal. It seems that we jump to extremes...there is a middle ground between a player that can dribble (a playmaker) and player that receives and just turns and passes. There is a time for both (decision making).

Enjoy life now! wrote:

Sprint wrote:"So what are you looking for, I ask Allen, who says he has 'the eye’ – the ability to spot potential. (His 24-year footballing career straddles the extremes of running the Crown and Manor, a boys’ club in the East End, and looking after visiting elite international teams.) Technical skill, he says. 'It’s about trying to beat someone and get the ball past them, not pass it past them, we can all do that. Good movers, very smooth in the way they run. Plus they have to be willowy and athletic-looking. You don’t get many stocky players.’ But what about Maradona? Gazza? Rooney? There are always exceptions, he says. 'Scouting is not an exact science.’ Particularly with the wild card of puberty."

DID EVERYONE READ THIS PART:  "'It’s about trying to beat someone and get the ball past them, not pass it past them, we can all do that. "

This does not mean be a ball hog or dribble every time they touch the ball (we have all seen Goal.  It seems that we jump to extremes...there is a middle ground between a player that can dribble (a playmaker) and player that receives and just turns and passes.  There is a time for both (decision making).  

I think that the quote is intended for players 8-14. As a coach, I'd rather have a group with technical skills that can be taught how to pass, tactics, tackling and positioning vs un-technical team that can just be a wall pass. Those are a time a dozen at 14. Players 8-14 should be taking risks, learning to beat a man off the dribble. We can teach a ball hog to play any position if he has the skill.

Real Barcelona wrote:PLF
Which club/s remotely mimick this beauty?

SRSA 03G have been doing this for years and I remember that they filmed and maintained extensive stats on their team in youth academy. My BB was impressed when his team played them and he said that it was tough on the boys because at that age most boys teams hated losing to a girls team and SRSA girls were talented enough to win decisively against most of them. They played with purpose and it was clear that they had the right level of motivation and control at position which was unique for a youth academy team. They ended up in 6th or 7th place in the boys TBPL and it's no surprise that they went undefeated this year in LHGCL 19-0.

My thinking is that clubs should embrace a more sophisticated model for player development and placement especially at the younger ages where identification and placement helps a broader range of players. Development is the key word and measuring performance is an excellent way to identify if a BB is playing to potential.

I wish more clubs would take the time to explain and understand what is meant by player potential and why it changes and also why it means that a player can seemingly rise from the ashes when in fact they were always playing to their potential, but either got stronger or more technically adept or more learned on the pitch or more tactically proficient as they aged. What is most exciting is when they mature and all of these improvements add up and a player becomes well rounded in all four areas and begins to reach a level of performance that is competitive starting at the age range of 16-18.

Instead of guessing or pre-determining a players future it would be more intelligent for every BB to have a go at it and track their player potential rating while making individual adjustments along the way and notifying the player/parent combo of what needs to be improved upon to reach that potential. This kind of method is consistent with current thinking at some successful International football academies and is not a trendy notion. It does answer why we should not hyperfocus on measuring our BB's against the current best teams or best players if our BB's are playing to their current potential.

I have a big, slow, flat footed, BB who is playing close to his potential and is Offsetting his limitations by favoring his current strong points when he plays. It is much easier for him mentally because we have a realistic view of his current potential and we discuss and admire other players who have greater potential at his age level while remembering that his potential is changing with each growth spurt (which for him is not so good) or with improved knowledge and understanding of the game or with improved motor coordination and reflex (which is good for him).

I am trying my best to develop him to his potential with the hope that when is mature and playing at his potential that he will be competitive, however if he reaches his potential and we find that he is not competitive,  we will know that we gave it all we've got and admire those who had more and continue to appreciate the game and our participation in it. I always tell him that if the worst thing that he gets from the game is a good strong mind and body and the ability to work in a team setting then we will have Accomplished a lot.

It's worth mentioning that, while these academies begin picking up players at age 8 or 9, it is very laid back in terms of programming. They are only selecting kids based on perceived future potential...which is difficult to project.

However, because of the competition among clubs, they feel it's better to get them early instead of losing out to another club.

Dribbling has to be looked at in an age/stage of development context. The best players (usually but not always) with the most potential are going to be midfielders and forwards. However, as they get older they tend to move further back on the pitch.

Forwards become midfielders. Midfielders become defenders, etc. The most important aspect thru the age of 14/15 is the technical part of the game. And you begin to develop the tactical side. And at 16/17 the physical component comes into play. From there the psychological mental strength becomes the deciding factor in who makes it and who doesn't.

Creative, attacking talent is much easier to detect. This is why the top attacking players tend to make it sooner than say, defenders (central defenders in particular) and goalkeepers usually don't develop until later. Sometimes much later.

This is where the majority of elite/professional players fall into. For every Messi, Rooney, Neymar and Ronaldo that got first team action as teenagers, there's thousands that don't become regular, first team pros until 22-23.

At any rate, 'we' tend to focus on team results and the upper development of teams rather than focusing on the fundamentals (technique and reading the game)

Having technically deficient, albeit athletic (usually the early physical developers) players that can do well on set pieces and otherwise get league results and promotion to a higher league may look good...but it doesn't prepare them for a higher level of play when it really matters.

This is why USSF should mandate that their member DA clubs have professional first teams. The real way to measure player development. Not to mention it creates a true club culture.

Can you imagine what impact it would have for a Solar u11 academy player going to watch the first team on Saturday night?

Here's the rub though. The level of talent has exceeded the level of coaching in this country. So, the coaching side has to be fixed.

This would also require moving away from 100% parent subsidized clubs. By the time a player reaches DA level it should be completely free.

Comparing what was to now by Coach Michler.

“I’m not 100 percent sure it’s changed so much for the better,” Michler said. “For the longest time, the competition that we had for the youth were Under-19 and Under-16. You had to be pretty special if you were in between those age groups to play in those teams. Most recently, every age group has its own competition now. Before, if you were young and good, you really had to be good, but it really paid off because you were playing way up over your own age against more experienced players."



http://www.topdrawersoccer.com/the91stminute/2014/08/terry-michler-on-the-changing-tides-of-youth-soccer-in-america/?utm_source=All&utm_campaign=General_08_20_14&utm_medium=email

Interesting article. Although I think some will use it to justify that high school soccer is somehow better for the elite player. Maybe, maybe not. It depends on the quality of competition for the individual players. St. Louis has always been a soccer hotbed. I do believe it is good for hs underclassmen to play against older, more experienced players.

While I believe playing up is generally a good thing. The problem lies in talent identification involving the younger players. Club soccer has always been focused on single year age groups. So, even a player that can compete against players 1-3 years older, it is unlikely that he will stand out or dominate enough to turn a scout's head.

Unless the scout knows the player is playing up.

The simple takeaway is for a player to always be competing to earn a spot at the highest level possible. For a 16-18 yr old, that means playing on a pdl/npsl or even a very high level amateur adult team. At least in that case you aren't shelling out huge sums of money.

the beauty of playing up is you don't need GREAT competition. bare with me please. i have a 19 yr old. never was a skillful soccer player. tall, lean, not very athletic (in his own age group). my 14 yr old is the opposite. younger son has benefited DRAMATICALLY from all of the pushing, shoving, cheating that older boy used in friendly one v one games. even though older boy is not tactical, technical or fast in his own age group. he is bigger and stronger and faster than younger BB. 14 yr has to work harder and faster than with his peers or even 15 year old skilled players.

Laimport wrote:This is why USSF should mandate that their member DA clubs have professional first teams. The real way to measure player development. Not to mention it creates a true club culture.

How would that work? Would it be acceptable if the pro team was NASL level or lower or are you thinking just MLS? With an annual salary range of 15k to 30k it would be possible for the top 5 clubs to accomplish this. The other smaller clubs could do the same by creating a multi club deal and playing under a United type banner. I would pay 10 bucks a head to watch a local pro league especially if my BB was in their system.

What works in England is a local club supported environment like we have for minor farm Baseball teams in the US. I would like to see DA clubs with a direct link to a pro team with measurable opportunities for a BB to advance within that structure.

Until pro clubs make more money, fans, and media deals we will have to stick to the parent paying model, but it is exciting to think that we could have a free DA model someday that is subsidized by the needs of a local pro team.

PremierLeagueFan wrote:

Laimport wrote:This is why USSF should mandate that their member DA clubs have professional first teams. The real way to measure player development. Not to mention it creates a true club culture.

How would that work? Would it be acceptable if the pro team was NASL level or lower or are you thinking just MLS? With an annual salary range of 15k to 30k it would be possible for the top 5 clubs to accomplish this. The other smaller clubs could do the same by creating a multi club deal and playing under a United type banner. I would pay 10 bucks a head to watch a local pro league especially if my BB was in their system.

What works in England is a local club supported environment like we have for minor farm Baseball teams in the US. I would like to see DA clubs with a direct link to a pro team with measurable opportunities for a BB to advance within that structure.

Until pro clubs make more money, fans, and media deals we will have to stick to the parent paying model, but it is exciting to think that we could have a free DA model someday that is subsidized by the needs of a local pro team.

It's already starting to happen. Gulf Coast Texans has a usl super 20 team. Scott Gallagher (St. Louis) now has a pdl team. No it isn't truly professional but it's getting there. And I would guess that these teams are not pay-to-play either.

Like I stated earlier, all of the NASL, USLpro teams should have some type of reserve/academy setup. many do.

TFC had a super 20 team for a couple of years. Liverpool has an NPSL team. It seems like a pipe dream but eventually there will be promotion/relegation in this country. It's inevitable. Just a question of when.

Take a kid, say in Mississippi. No DA clubs there. Let's say at 17 he goes and tries out for Mississippi Brilla...or some other PDL team. He makes the cut.

Now, it may be debatable, but in my opinion that player is going to develop much more quickly than he would playing for his local U17/18 club team. (Granted PDL/NPSL leagues are summer only.)

I have read about a few players lately signing with minor league (USLPro) clubs instead of going off to play college soccer. Education aside, that is probably a better developmental option for a young player.

With the exception of a handful of youth national pool players, actual soccer scholarship money is pretty paltry anyway. Especially for freshmen. Most freshmen are getting needs based and academic money. And it rarely covers all their costs.

In England very few, VERY few EPL academy 'frads' ever play for the first team. Most of the time, after the u19 year, they are sold to lower division clubs. Or they drop down and climb their way back up.

Some even drop down to non-league clubs (5th tier and below) Although there probably is little difference in level between that and decent college teams in the states.

Which may explain why so many come here to play college soccer.

Case in point: Dom Dwyer. Norwich didn't rate him highly at 18/19...so he comes to Texas and plays at Tyler JC..then one year at South Florida. Now he's an MLS star.

Most players that do make it have to climb the ranks. (Luke Mullholland for RSL is another example.)

Even at 18/19 you can't determine with total accuracy which players will end up making it.

Based on your facts we are at least moving in the right direction and I think these smaller, local pro/semi-pro leagues should help to develop the process. Of course there are plenty of examples from England, Mexico, etc. that we could learn from also.

Just need to figure out how to push the existing youth clubs to consider fielding teams or having pro am challenges between club and the NASL, etc. Franchises.

For BB's staying local they could have an additional opportunity to continue developing at a higher level and maybe get an additional college look or opportunity for those who were passed on or overlooked in the previous year.