|
Post by Keeper on Feb 7, 2017 12:52:47 GMT -5
So question time for you all that have any experience dealing with Academy soccer. This goes for parents, coaches, admins, or you very young former players. Do you prefer the pool academy programs where every kid is equal, and everyone in that age group practices together with coaches making rosters weekly moving players up and down depending on how they play/practice each week, or the set team philosophy where teams are set preseason and that team play at their level of A, B, C, D or however their club assigns top teams. Pools allow player movement but set teams allow for more team bonding but players that get better are typically stuck at lower levels. The last option is just chuck the whole academy idea and go back to rec only till U11 then select teams could be formed instead of the current U13 age minimum.
Love input from everyone! I know every system of each club is a little different so feel free to share. Ive been surprised talking to other parents from other clubs that didn't realize they're different options.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Feb 7, 2017 13:11:49 GMT -5
I couldn't imagine the randomness of soccer from week to week if I didn't know my kids schedules until the wed of each week. With mulitple kids, sometimes its a challenge getting kids to games.
That aside -- I prefer the set teams model with a dedicated coach for each team. I don't care if the same coach coaches both teams, ie teams A and B lets say, but I do not want them training together. I do not like the idea of 3 nights a week of 1 coach and 20+ kids < u12 etc.
However, I would like to see the top 3 kids from the 2nd, 3rd team getting more opportunities with the team above them. Training opportunities and playing in games if needed. Too often coaches will use kids from the younger age group over kids from the 2nd team when players are needed. If a kid can't hack in training thats fine, thats where communication and discussion is necessary, because you don't want players "ruining" a session etc because they can't keep up. From my experience the top players on lets say an A team are light years beyond the bottom players from lets say a B team. Not sure it does anyone any good having those players mixed together. The lower players will get extremely frustrated and probably go backwards.
so in summary, set teams, with set coaches, but flexibility on the roster and movement of the players. And most importantly, open dialogue between the coaches of the teams in every age group and they must communicate on the status of their rosters etc.
|
|
|
Post by jash on Feb 7, 2017 14:04:12 GMT -5
If we accept the premise that the goal of academy soccer is twofold: 1) develop players 2) identify players
then a pool is the very best model. Mixing players challenges the top group every week to keep up their game or get replaced on the top team. Middle players get a chance to player with and against better players, and this can substantially improve their game. And bottom players get the same opportunity if they work hard to play with and against the middle players. Pooling increases competition amongst the players, and makes sure that someone who showed well at tryouts but gets lazy doesn't take up a spot of someone who didn't show well at tryouts but is working hard and improving.
To me, team bonding is only important if the goal of academy soccer is to win games, which I would argue it emphatically is NOT. That is to say it SHOULD not be, but obviously it is to most players, parents, coaches, and clubs, even while they say something quite different publicly because it sounds great to say you are "all about development" even if it is a complete falsehood.
Having said all that, I think it does depend on the size of the pool. A pool of about 40-50 kids is quite large enough. If it gets much bigger then I think you have to split into multiple pools. Whether you divide that into a top pool and bottom pool, or do two mixed pools, is another discussion entirely. I can see merits both ways.
|
|
|
Post by guest on Feb 7, 2017 16:17:11 GMT -5
Pool.
We had set teams with an older kid and then the club switched to pool in time for a younger kid. I liked that style better. With the set teams, we didn't even know other players in your age group. Different practice times and days. For pool, we had three teams with three coaches. Practices were pool drills on Tues and them small sided games on Thurs. One coach for every 8-10 kids.
Benefit: all that has been mentioned about competition and growth. Also somewhat forces the better kids to bust butt during practice. Loaf too much or miss too many, and you may wind up on the lower team one weekend. Also kind of silences the parents who always want another look for their kid who 'missed' the top team. Tryouts every week!
Downside: not finding out what game you were playing until Thurs night after practice, late. And at Academy levels they were always overscheduling. So we would have three teams play a total of 5 games. 9am, 1030am, noon at home and then 3pm and 430 at another site. You would wake up Friday morning and find out you had a 9am game at home but then a 3pm game across town. #nosaturdays
|
|
|
Post by allthingsoccer on Feb 7, 2017 18:20:16 GMT -5
Set teams for younger age groups with a system in place to move up. I know we have done this for years and has worked. A player on team C shines and gets a look by the B team or A team. Player on B team earns a chance to play on A team etc.. This provides an opportunity for the kids to bond as a team but also rewards those who earn a chance.
As you get older... Maybe a pool system. That's was seems to happen anyways. Roster 18-20 on a team and only 14 get play time that week.
|
|
|
Post by fan on Feb 7, 2017 21:05:14 GMT -5
My kids always had a pool of players for Academy and I thought that worked well. There was usually one coach for every 10 kids or so. There was typically a core group of players who would end up playing on the top team each week but there was definitely movement up and down for other spots.
Kids change so much over the years or even over a season. The tall, strong kid at U9 might impress at tryouts but other kids might shine by spring. I know several kids who were rarely on the top team at U9 or U10 who now play on higher level teams in Select than those top team players.
My kids haven't played at a mega club so there weren't games at multiple parks in one day. Usually we'd know at the beginning of the season if a day had morning games or afternoon and we'd know by Wednesday what time they'd play.
|
|
|
Post by spectator on Feb 8, 2017 0:10:57 GMT -5
I'm definitely for the pool of players format - even though our Academy experience was the complete opposite. For us, Academy was the set rosters, no one ever moved up or down format. Dismal failure - need proof - there are no older teams (or at least competitive ones) at that club right now - NONE. Whole thing caps out by U13. U14 most teams fall apart and move to other clubs. That's what we did.
Academy is about teaching - learning skills, small sided play. If you want the set roster format, then all you care about is winning or that your kid is on the top team. From U9 until tryouts for U13 Classic/Athena - soccer should be a continuous learning process with zero focus on winning or rankings.
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Feb 8, 2017 7:08:55 GMT -5
Pool for the younger kids (u9 & U10), set teams for the older kids. We have done it both ways for our kids
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Feb 8, 2017 9:21:15 GMT -5
Regardless of all our opinions and what is right or wrong, I wonder if we will see a shift towards pooling at the DA academies from u8 to u11 -- Why because they are pooling for the u12s. They are all being thrown together at u12 anyway, why even bother keeping them separate at the younger ages any more.
|
|
|
Post by jash on Feb 8, 2017 10:01:28 GMT -5
Soccerhouse reminds me of another reason I like pooling... team unity -- but not like you think If you are separating the kids into teams up until they start 11v11 (and that's what, u7 for most Atlanta clubs now?) then when they finally DO form a real 11v11 team many of those kids won't know each other. In the pool my kid went through friendships were made across all levels, and there was very little of the "you aren't good enough at soccer to be my friend" nonsense that you sometimes see. Ultimately for most of these kids they are just children having fun playing a sport and having more opportunities for friendship and camaraderie is great. I know that most parents of these youngsters have big stars in their eyes (and I'm not excepting myself), but aside from the fact that I think it HELPS overall development, I also like the idea that the kids have more fun.
|
|
|
Post by jash on Feb 8, 2017 10:02:39 GMT -5
And yes, the scheduling part of it sucks for everyone involved -- coaches and parents. The kids, of course, don't care. They're happy to hang out at the fields all day and watch their friends play, and maybe pick up an extra game if someone doesn't show up.
|
|
|
Post by spectator on Feb 8, 2017 22:24:17 GMT -5
And yes, the scheduling part of it sucks for everyone involved -- coaches and parents. The kids, of course, don't care. They're happy to hang out at the fields all day and watch their friends play, and maybe pick up an extra game if someone doesn't show up. I used to love (sarcasm) the parents who would say 'my kid can play the 11am game only - knowing that was the 'top' team scheduled for Academy that day. Of course this is only topped by the parent who said - during a tournament - that her child was available for Saturday games but not Sunday - unless it was a final then they'd tear themselves away from Church to be there. #rolleyes
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Feb 10, 2017 7:57:16 GMT -5
And yes, the scheduling part of it sucks for everyone involved -- coaches and parents. The kids, of course, don't care. They're happy to hang out at the fields all day and watch their friends play, and maybe pick up an extra game if someone doesn't show up. I used to love (sarcasm) the parents who would say 'my kid can play the 11am game only - knowing that was the 'top' team scheduled for Academy that day. Of course this is only topped by the parent who said - during a tournament - that her child was available for Saturday games but not Sunday - unless it was a final then they'd tear themselves away from Church to be there. #rolleyes We had a parent like that, and the coach said to them once, I don't need them for the "11am game" so I guess he wont't play this weekend. Their schedule magically cleared after that
|
|
|
Post by randomparent on Feb 11, 2017 23:29:22 GMT -5
I have mixed feelings on what is better.
Lets say there are 20 kids. 10 on a team for two teams to keep it simple.
I am a fan of pooled players with minimal movement. Sometimes that is frustrating but it is better than the "every week we are going to adjust rosters" pooled academy environment. In that scenario if you are one of the top five kids on the A team it is awesome. You play with the same group every week, gain confidence. Sort of like that old TV show survivor but you always have the immunity idol (coach thinks your awesome). If you are one of the bottom five kids well you are probably just there for fun anyways and have accepted your fate. If you are player 6-15 it can be a psychological torture experience. One week your on the top team. The next week on the second team. You will rarely get any type of explanation and much of your kids movement up or down is attributed to who knows what (e.g. some weeks your kid might not play well and be on the A team, other times they could totally dominate and move down to the B team).
|
|
|
Post by randomparent on Feb 11, 2017 23:31:37 GMT -5
I would add one positive about a set team environment. Both your kids and the parents have a much better opportunity to develop strong friendships. In a pooled environment it seems you get a lot more, less meaningful relationships.
|
|
|
Post by rifle on Feb 12, 2017 8:58:56 GMT -5
I have mixed feelings on what is better. Lets say there are 20 kids. 10 on a team for two teams to keep it simple. I am a fan of pooled players with minimal movement. Sometimes that is frustrating but it is better than the "every week we are going to adjust rosters" pooled academy environment. In that scenario if you are one of the top five kids on the A team it is awesome. You play with the same group every week, gain confidence. Sort of like that old TV show survivor but you always have the immunity idol (coach thinks your awesome). If you are one of the bottom five kids well you are probably just there for fun anyways and have accepted your fate. If you are player 6-15 it can be a psychological torture experience. One week your on the top team. The next week on the second team. You will rarely get any type of explanation and much of your kids movement up or down is attributed to who knows what (e.g. some weeks your kid might not play well and be on the A team, other times they could totally dominate and move down to the B team). With a proper academy whose coaches and DOC can be bothered to communicate the goals and structure... This isn't necessarily bad. Telling a mid-pack player s/he will play with the B team to get lots of playing time vs. playing half of the A team games, would be beneficial. Telling them "you're in the B team again".. not so much. Likewise a coach who can explain tactical objectives, such as playing out of the back (knowing you will give up some goals as they figure it out) is an absolute necessity. The soccer is the easy part. Communicating to "investors" is the necessary evil that too often gets overlooked.
|
|
|
Post by spectator on Feb 12, 2017 22:21:33 GMT -5
Side question - how many of the kids your child played with at U9 Academy are on their team this year? How many do you stay in touch with and consider good friends (you with the parents or your player with the kid?)
Same questions but bump it to U11. U12. Did your U12 team stick together and play select/athena as a team?
How many kids on a set roster at U9 or U10 are really forming 'meaningful' relationships?
|
|
|
Post by soccerparent02 on Feb 12, 2017 23:17:25 GMT -5
I agree. Those at small clubs generally leave for a bigger club by u13 if they desire to play with the best. Most small clubs don't have consistent talent to have RPL or NL representation. In this case, the only concern is player development at the Academy level not friends. That may seem abrupt but it's a true fact.
|
|
|
Post by spectator on Feb 12, 2017 23:50:17 GMT -5
I agree. Those at small clubs generally leave for a bigger club by u13 if they desire to play with the best. Most small clubs don't have consistent talent to have RPL or NL representation. In this case, the only concern is player development at the Academy level not friends. That may seem abrupt but it's a true fact. You missed my point if you only think I'm talking about small clubs - even at the mega clubs with the pooled talent at academy - any 'meaningful' relationship is temporary because the nature of the game is that the stud at U10 isn't always the impact player at U16 - but it's the parents that keep thinking they are. Talent will pool and ebb and flow as needed regardless of whether junior was on the 'A' team at U10 on his Academy set roster. Which is my point - the set roster with the argument about establishing 'meaningful' relationships or identifying talents is bogus - talent will develop and relationships are fluid.
|
|
|
Post by cantgetright on Feb 13, 2017 9:03:47 GMT -5
Our team stayed together from u9 up to u12. Large club. I'll say the core stayed together with 8 players at the u9 age. As we got older and we went from 6v6 to 8v8 to 11v11, we added players. The added players seemed to be a little different year after year, but the original 8 stayed together. At u12 the original 8 all moved on to DA. The relationships made have lasted. We don't see each other as often due to differing schedules, but my son made some great friends.
|
|
|
Post by randomparent on Feb 15, 2017 13:37:30 GMT -5
I agree. Those at small clubs generally leave for a bigger club by u13 if they desire to play with the best. Most small clubs don't have consistent talent to have RPL or NL representation. In this case, the only concern is player development at the Academy level not friends. That may seem abrupt but it's a true fact. You missed my point if you only think I'm talking about small clubs - even at the mega clubs with the pooled talent at academy - any 'meaningful' relationship is temporary because the nature of the game is that the stud at U10 isn't always the impact player at U16 - but it's the parents that keep thinking they are. Talent will pool and ebb and flow as needed regardless of whether junior was on the 'A' team at U10 on his Academy set roster. Which is my point - the set roster with the argument about establishing 'meaningful' relationships or identifying talents is bogus - talent will develop and relationships are fluid. Many relationships in life are temporary (even the ones that aren't suppose to be), everyone knows that. The type of pooled environment I spoke was the kind where teams change from March 6th to March 13th. Obviously kids are going to change from age 9 to age 15.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Feb 15, 2017 13:45:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by randomparent on Feb 15, 2017 15:03:18 GMT -5
That was a good article. Thanks for sharing.
|
|
|
Post by goteam on Feb 27, 2017 16:50:19 GMT -5
I would like to see set teams, with coaches having space to pull up 3-4 players throughout the fall for a look-see. Then at the end of the fall season.. move down/move up players and readjust. Our experience from the time of U9 - one kid moves up / one kid moves down at the new season.(a whole year away!) Kids were defined at age 9 basically & tryouts not effective at of evaluating talent. This adds to kids moving from club to club.
|
|