|
|
Post by fidosoccer on Oct 23, 2014 10:58:57 GMT -5
Since every club will state their mission is about developing players, as a parent what is the most objective measure as to whether that club is successful? This is a macro club question, not whether your little Jimmy or Susy is having fun and getting better.
The only thing I can think is something like U13 results standings for Classic 1/2? Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Oct 23, 2014 11:14:18 GMT -5
U13 is also an age where kids start jumping clubs...so some were not developed at those clubs. I guess you would need to look at a teams history also not just current rankings and see how many are original players
|
|
|
|
Post by zizou on Oct 23, 2014 11:30:31 GMT -5
Since every club will state their mission is about developing players, as a parent what is the most objective measure as to whether that club is successful? This is a macro club question, not whether your little Jimmy or Susy is having fun and getting better. The only thing I can think is something like U13 results standings for Classic 1/2? Thoughts? I am going to have to disagree with the premise that individual player improvement is off the table as a metric. This is the very essence of development. This is first. If a player does not have good technique then there is nothing the coach can do to develop the team. One could actually quantify this by running monthly skill testing sessions. After that I would say it is development of team play. Not just winning, but if you wanted to take the time to quantify passing statistics, for instance, that would be a good place to start from my perspective. And as noted above, kids start jumping around, so it is not easy to quantify whether a kid was primarily developed at a previous club or at their current club. I would also include in club interest in development such things as the number of additional training opportunities offered (skill sessions, strength and speed sessions, opportunities for individual instruction, camps, alternative playing opportunities). Then one would have to factor in how successful the club was at getting player participation at these alternative opportunities. That might be a gauge of how useful the membership found them. The extent to which kids get motivated to play on their own, of course, is an additional factor that may or my not be related to anything the club does. This is just not a simple question. Perhaps it would be useful to know the motivation for your question. Simply intellectual curiosity? Looking to move? It could be interesting to try and develop a development metric though! |
|
|
|
Post by fidosoccer on Oct 23, 2014 13:01:19 GMT -5
Since every club will state their mission is about developing players, as a parent what is the most objective measure as to whether that club is successful? This is a macro club question, not whether your little Jimmy or Susy is having fun and getting better. The only thing I can think is something like U13 results standings for Classic 1/2? Thoughts? This is just not a simple question. Perhaps it would be useful to know the motivation for your question. Simply intellectual curiosity? Looking to move? _______________________________________________ Intellectual. I was looking at Jash's recent post about number of goals, adjusted scores, home versus away, etc. and started to think if his/her stats pointed to a club that developed players better than others. But as I thought about it there seemed to be just too many variables - the stats include boys and girls, older age groups could be skewed kids go into DA, could include younger age groups when some clubs are not focused on winning. If not U13 would a better guide be for the kids playing DA or Athena, what their prior clubs were to joining? If you tell me that any method is imperfect I would agree, I am just asking for the best of many flawed ways to judge success in developing players at a macro level. |
|
|
|
Post by oldboy on Oct 23, 2014 13:18:41 GMT -5
I've always liked when coaches and clubs have shown the ability to move players up through their teams. So if club A regularly moves first team players to DA, second team players to the first team, third team players to the second team, etc. while continuing to play well and compete well in those levels then that club is "developing" players.
I think for the most part in Atlanta, this is down to individual coaches and clusters of coaches more than clubs. I don't think I've seen a club in Atlanta that does this type of thing systematically across the board. Some do it better than others of course.
|
|
|
|
Post by blueronin on Oct 23, 2014 13:20:29 GMT -5
No matter what a club advertises, winning is the upmost important thing for a club. Development is sacrificed for winning. Winning is passed on as development. Parents are easily convinced of this. Winning is embedded in our American culture. More winning leads to more kids leads to more money. Development is a risk that clubs will not take. Clubs are in the business of making money.
Chances are if we are asking this question, we are thinking about switching clubs. We may think that there is some club out there that is committed to the development of our children.
However, I would challenge us to change our views on this. Perhaps the parents and children should take a more proactive role in the childrens development by seeking individualized training outside the club environment. Maybe the role of the clubs is just to form teams and schedule games. Maybe these club games are just opportunities for the children to execute what they have been training on. Perhaps the responsibility of the club coaches is to manage game playing time of the players. Perhaps we parents should not be focused on winning.
|
|
|
|
Post by fidosoccer on Oct 23, 2014 13:31:39 GMT -5
No matter what a club advertises, winning is the upmost important thing for a club. Development is sacrificed for winning. Winning is passed on as development. Parents are easily convinced of this. Winning is embedded in our American culture. More winning leads to more kids leads to more money. Development is a risk that clubs will not take. Clubs are in the business of making money. Chances are if we are asking this question, we are thinking about switching clubs. We may think that there is some club out there that is committed to the development of our children. However, I would challenge us to change our views on this. Perhaps the parents and children should take a more proactive role in the childrens development by seeking individualized training outside the club environment. Maybe the role of the clubs is just to form teams and schedule games. Maybe these club games are just opportunities for the children to execute what they have been training on. Perhaps the responsibility of the club coaches is to manage game playing time of the players. Perhaps we parents should not be focused on winning. I feel like a teenager saying this, but omg. Sometimes I just never get why people respond to posts. Why would you assume that I would like to switch clubs? That is a stupid statement, the last thing in the world I would want to do is switch clubs. I like our club, it's not perfect but I like it and there are far to many pluses to consider moving. The question was simply, is there a way on a more macro level to see who is doing the best job developing players. Your response reminds me of that CarFox commercial, where the sales person gets so weird when you asked for a carfax report, like there is some devious reason to ask the question or to actually know which car has been in an accident or which one hasn't. |
|
|
|
Post by blueronin on Oct 23, 2014 13:53:44 GMT -5
No matter what a club advertises, winning is the upmost important thing for a club. Development is sacrificed for winning. Winning is passed on as development. Parents are easily convinced of this. Winning is embedded in our American culture. More winning leads to more kids leads to more money. Development is a risk that clubs will not take. Clubs are in the business of making money. Chances are if we are asking this question, we are thinking about switching clubs. We may think that there is some club out there that is committed to the development of our children. However, I would challenge us to change our views on this. Perhaps the parents and children should take a more proactive role in the childrens development by seeking individualized training outside the club environment. Maybe the role of the clubs is just to form teams and schedule games. Maybe these club games are just opportunities for the children to execute what they have been training on. Perhaps the responsibility of the club coaches is to manage game playing time of the players. Perhaps we parents should not be focused on winning. I feel like a teenager saying this, but omg. Sometimes I just never get why people respond to posts. Why would you assume that I would like to switch clubs? That is a stupid statement, the last thing in the world I would want to do is switch clubs. I like our club, it's not perfect but I like it and there are far to many pluses to consider moving. The question was simply, is there a way on a more macro level to see who is doing the best job developing players. Your response reminds me of that CarFox commercial, where the sales person gets so weird when you asked for a carfax report, like there is some devious reason to ask the question or to actually know which car has been in an accident or which one hasn't. By no means, did I intend to offend you. If my statements don't apply to you, then they don't apply to you. Club hopping occurs all the time. The majority of the time, parents (not you as you stated) will use better development elsewhere as the reason for the switch. My response is that what parents (not you as you stated) are searching for and what is found are 2 totally different things. |
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Oct 23, 2014 14:06:37 GMT -5
not sure if its a question that can ever be truely answered. its similar to the MLS "homegrown" player. they call a player home grown even if they are developed u9-u14 at a club but than play on an MLS developmental academy club.
i've seen clubs that do an amazing job teaching kids to play quality soccer. some of them are huge clubs, others are tiny. you need to find what works for you and what you think is the best fit.
i'll give tophat some serious credit, but they clearly attract top players from the start.
same is true of UFA and concorde, currently 2 giant clubs that just land quality players on every level.
somebody sure knows of Concorde and Ga Uniteds DA teams, how many have been with those clubs since u9, u10, u11 etc.
Same for the local ecnl and R3PL etc teams. how many have been with those teams since being 9s?
Isn't it tophat's current 15s that are so good? how many have been at tophat since u9s? have they always been on the top team. how many girls moved from 3rd, to 2nd to top team?
the tough thing is its about development and player retainment, typically those 2 facets along with quality coaching result in winning or at least playing competitive soccer. say what you want, but to maintain top clubs in this town, you have to show results.
|
|
|
|
Post by blueronin on Oct 23, 2014 14:18:02 GMT -5
No matter what a club advertises, winning is the upmost important thing for a club. Development is sacrificed for winning. Winning is passed on as development. Parents are easily convinced of this. Winning is embedded in our American culture. More winning leads to more kids leads to more money. Development is a risk that clubs will not take. Clubs are in the business of making money. Chances are if we are asking this question, we are thinking about switching clubs. We may think that there is some club out there that is committed to the development of our children. However, I would challenge us to change our views on this. Perhaps the parents and children should take a more proactive role in the childrens development by seeking individualized training outside the club environment. Maybe the role of the clubs is just to form teams and schedule games. Maybe these club games are just opportunities for the children to execute what they have been training on. Perhaps the responsibility of the club coaches is to manage game playing time of the players. Perhaps we parents should not be focused on winning. I disagree with this fairly wholeheartedly. It's popular to paint clubs as these evil empires built on exploiting your children. That's mostly nonsense. I think many clubs and certainly many coaches work very hard to develop players to the highest level possible in their youth careers because they want the kids to succeed at a high level and reach their goals.. Most clubs do this with an eye toward winning. Most coaches and players do as well. The myth we are wrongly endorsing is the idea that development and winning are mutually exclusive goals. They are not. There's nothing wrong with winning. Especially at the older age groups, it usually indicates that players have developed to a very high level. You can win games while developing players. Thinking otherwise is what leads to a lot of false debate. Don't believe clubs are evil empires without parents laying down the bricks. The youth system is built around its customers (us) and their demands. And our demand at the end of the day is to win. We want our children to be winners. From my perspective, the only time winning equals development is when the child is already one of those on the team whose making the team win. In this position, the club and the coaches will pour favor onto those children. If those are already performing well, how much attention do they really need? Yet, they will receive the most since they are critical the teams wins at the moment. However, if the child is on the opposite end of the spectrum, there is little that is done to push that child up. That child will not be given much playing time. Playing time is critical to development. So for that child, while the team is winning, it will not equal development. |
|
|
|
Post by spectator on Oct 23, 2014 16:40:29 GMT -5
I've always liked when coaches and clubs have shown the ability to move players up through their teams. So if club A regularly moves first team players to DA, second team players to the first team, third team players to the second team, etc. while continuing to play well and compete well in those levels then that club is "developing" players. I think for the most part in Atlanta, this is down to individual coaches and clusters of coaches more than clubs. I don't think I've seen a club in Atlanta that does this type of thing systematically across the board. Some do it better than others of course. This IS the issue in metro Atlanta - lots of clubs - lots of levels - lots of opportunities to move. And no matter what club you're at and how deep your pool in that age group, if someone new and shiny shows up at tryouts one year, they're going to get the hardest look - most likely not giving the player on the second or third team the opportunity to move up - hence the complaints about lack of development. Developing a team means developing the team dynamic not just throwing what someone believes is the best, newest, shiniest player out there year after year and hoping they gel. |
|
|
|
Post by rifle on Oct 23, 2014 19:58:24 GMT -5
I would give some consideration to clubs who take teams at low levels, and coach them up to high levels. It may not get as much attention as the ones who exit academy on the top team, but it is still appreciable.
And sure.. Having the top teams moving to regional or national league definitely contributes to helping lower performing teams earn promotion.. But you still have to beat your league to move up, and it is cool to watch a group stick together and grow as one.
|
|
|
|
Post by zizou on Oct 23, 2014 20:04:51 GMT -5
I would give some consideration to clubs who take teams at low levels, and coach them up to high levels. It may not get as much attention as the ones who exit academy on the top team, but it is still appreciable. And sure.. Having the top teams moving to regional or national league definitely contributes to helping lower performing teams earn promotion.. But you still have to beat your league to move up, and it is cool to watch a group stick together and grow as one. That is a REAL sign of development. No other way to conceptualize it. Excellent! |
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Oct 24, 2014 5:52:47 GMT -5
I also think it boils down to certain coaches. I know unsuccessful clubs overall but have one great coach with a successful team. Yes you can use the rankings as a guide but theres just too many variables ad inconsistencies
|
|
|
|
Post by rifle on Oct 24, 2014 7:53:12 GMT -5
I also think it boils down to certain coaches. I know unsuccessful clubs overall but have one great coach with a successful team. Yes you can use the rankings as a guide but theres just too many variables ad inconsistencies This is highly accurate. Just like the workplace, where you often see highly regarded companies earn a poor review due to actions/inaction of an individual. I would like to see clubs put curriculum and development goals in writing. To know what they intend to teach at U8, U9, etc. That also implies accountability metrics, which is what we are truly looking for as a basis for comparison. But they don't... So to me, seeing teams at U13 with no interest in keeping the ball, is a sign of a club to avoid. But that can also be just one coach, so it's a huge challenge to make an informed decision.... And when the DOC coaches 3 teams, there is no accountability other than parent "complaints". So it isn't easy. Bottom line: find the best coach you can. |
|
|
|
Post by Kick Goals 10 on Oct 24, 2014 8:12:45 GMT -5
I agree. My daughter just switched clubs this year at U13, from a smaller club. She was able to make the top team as an outsider. The core group of girls have been playing together for a long time. With that said, the girls have taken her in as one of them. The "NEW" coach has been great! he has implemented that the team travel together, eat together, and do extra training together. This alone has build a very solid team. No super stars....just a group of girls that do a good job at each position. The problem with the smaller clubs at this level is the players that leave for greener pastures. If we could have kept the players that left, we could have been on the top 3rd of Athena A. A good coach backed by a good DOC makes for some good soccer to watch.
|
|
|
|
Post by special1 on Oct 24, 2014 8:43:11 GMT -5
I also think it boils down to certain coaches. I know unsuccessful clubs overall but have one great coach with a successful team. Yes you can use the rankings as a guide but theres just too many variables ad inconsistencies This is highly accurate. Just like the workplace, where you often see highly regarded companies earn a poor review due to actions/inaction of an individual. I would like to see clubs put curriculum and development goals in writing. To know what they intend to teach at U8, U9, etc. That also implies accountability metrics, which is what we are truly looking for as a basis for comparison. But they don't... So to me, seeing teams at U13 with no interest in keeping the ball, is a sign of a club to avoid. But that can also be just one coach, so it's a huge challenge to make an informed decision.... And when the DOC coaches 3 teams, there is no accountability other than parent "complaints". So it isn't easy. Bottom line: find the best coach you can. I think soccermom and rifle are onto something here.......If the coach is really INTO the team, you will see the development, he /she will encourage, training together, nutrition of the team and closeness of the team. Some coaches have a lot of teams to coach along with thei own personal life, so I get it, its a difficult job. They tend to have generic practice for every player on the team, regardless if its a top player or average player. |
|
|
|
Post by fidosoccer on Oct 24, 2014 8:50:27 GMT -5
Here are current U13 Athena A standings (sorry copying the table over didn't work). Subjectively for someone familiar with these teams/age groups would you assume that TopHat is the premier team for girls in ATL through U13? Their club has the best combination of player development and thus attracting the best players. Clubs right below TopHat appear to be Atlanta Fire, Concord Fire Central, GSA and UFA. Large clubs, large player pool, makes sense. Large clubs that have either had tougher early season schedules or struggling look to be SSA, NASA, InterAtlanta. Those clubs are pretty big so they should theoretically be able to produce better performing teams with the right development program. Are those statements fair after looking at the standings or is that bunk? I am not familiar with the Lady Chiefs but sounds like a small club. I assume they are smaller than the other clubs so is it a coach, a team that has stuck together for a few years? Top A1 : Atlanta Fire 01/02 Elite Black A13 : TopHat-20 Gold A10 : Concorde Fire Central Elite A14 : GSA 02 Premier A12 : UFA 02 Premier A4 : SSA Chelsea 02G Elite A2 : Concorde Fire North Black A5 : NASA G20 Elite A11 : Lady Chiefs Premier 02 A9 : UFA-Norcross Premier 02 A6 : CFC Red Star 01/02G Elite A7 : SAF U13G Elite A3 : TopHat-20 Navy A8 : Inter Atlanta FC - 02 - Elite |
|
|
|
Post by fidosoccer on Oct 24, 2014 8:53:43 GMT -5
I guess I would add that current U13 stats are sort of a look in the past, so if clubs have changed their programs. Brought in new coaches you wouldn't expect those changes to manifest themselves the first year, it could take 3-5 before their clubs have more consistent better performance.
|
|
|
|
Post by zizou on Oct 24, 2014 9:12:50 GMT -5
Here are current U13 Athena A standings (sorry copying the table over didn't work). Subjectively for someone familiar with these teams/age groups would you assume that TopHat is the premier team for girls in ATL through U13? Their club has the best combination of player development and thus attracting the best players. Clubs right below TopHat appear to be Atlanta Fire, Concord Fire Central, GSA and UFA. Large clubs, large player pool, makes sense. Large clubs that have either had tougher early season schedules or struggling look to be SSA, NASA, InterAtlanta. Those clubs are pretty big so they should theoretically be able to produce better performing teams with the right development program. Are those statements fair after looking at the standings or is that bunk? I am not familiar with the Lady Chiefs but sounds like a small club. I assume they are smaller than the other clubs so is it a coach, a team that has stuck together for a few years? Top A1 : Atlanta Fire 01/02 Elite Black A13 : TopHat-20 Gold A10 : Concorde Fire Central Elite A14 : GSA 02 Premier A12 : UFA 02 Premier A4 : SSA Chelsea 02G Elite A2 : Concorde Fire North Black A5 : NASA G20 Elite A11 : Lady Chiefs Premier 02 A9 : UFA-Norcross Premier 02 A6 : CFC Red Star 01/02G Elite A7 : SAF U13G Elite A3 : TopHat-20 Navy A8 : Inter Atlanta FC - 02 - Elite These standings are not quite yet a real reflection of team quality, except probably for very bottom and very top. Some teams have multiple games in hand. Some have played easier schedules up until now. Lady Chiefs, for instance, are going to struggle to significantly increase point total over the rest of season. Have to wait a few more weeks to see how things really stand. NASA is a big club but not performing like you would expect if size of player pool was only determinant. I believe their best player from last year is playing U14 now; that really really hurt their production. But kudos to club for allowing her to do that if she was capable. That being said, it would be interesting to know how many players from every team have been with their club from U9. |
|
|
|
Post by rifle on Oct 24, 2014 10:33:49 GMT -5
To clarify my "DOC coaching 3 teams" comment..
I think a club that wants to build an identity based on "development" must pick a style and train for it. If one coach out of three is not on board, the club won't ever accomplish that objective. So the DOC needs to be seeing all his club's team train and play. That cannot be done if he is very busy with his own teams.
In my humble opinion, the only club (big or small) that appears to consistently train a specific style of play is Tophat. Conversely, clubs taking our money and doing things at random.. are unfortunately, numerous and sundry.
|
|
|
|
Post by fidosoccer on Oct 24, 2014 11:31:44 GMT -5
To clarify my "DOC coaching 3 teams" comment.. I think a club that wants to build an identity based on "development" must pick a style and train for it. If one coach out of three is not on board, the club won't ever accomplish that objective. So the DOC needs to be seeing all his club's team train and play. That cannot be done if he is very busy with his own teams. In my humble opinion, the only club (big or small) that appears to consistently train a specific style of play is Tophat. Conversely, clubs taking our money and doing things at random.. are unfortunately, numerous and sundry. Whats the equivalent to TopHat on the boys side? Based on the current standing it looks like GSA, SSA, Concord Central, and UFA stand out. UFA-Norcross, Interatlanta, and NASA seem middle of the road. Concord North Black (I thought they were always really good) and Atlanta Fire at the bottom. Are the standings a good indicator here? Group A A13 : UFA 02 Premier A1 : GSA 02 Premier A5 : SSA Chelsea 02B Elite A11 : Alianza Elite B13 A9 : Concorde Fire Central Elite A10 : UFA-Norcross Eagles 02 A14 : NASA B20 Elite A2 : Inter Atlanta FC - 02-Elite A8 : Lanier Sharks 01/02 Elite A12 : Concorde Fire North Black A7 : AFC Lightning 02 Elite A6 : MAYS Buckhead 02B Elite A4 : DSC 02B Revolution Premier A3 : Atlanta Fire 01/02 Elite |
|
|
|
Post by SoccerMom on Oct 24, 2014 11:42:20 GMT -5
Here are current U13 Athena A standings (sorry copying the table over didn't work). Subjectively for someone familiar with these teams/age groups would you assume that TopHat is the premier team for girls in ATL through U13? Their club has the best combination of player development and thus attracting the best players. Clubs right below TopHat appear to be Atlanta Fire, Concord Fire Central, GSA and UFA. Large clubs, large player pool, makes sense. Large clubs that have either had tougher early season schedules or struggling look to be SSA, NASA, InterAtlanta. Those clubs are pretty big so they should theoretically be able to produce better performing teams with the right development program. Are those statements fair after looking at the standings or is that bunk? I am not familiar with the Lady Chiefs but sounds like a small club. I assume they are smaller than the other clubs so is it a coach, a team that has stuck together for a few years? Top A1 : Atlanta Fire 01/02 Elite Black A13 : TopHat-20 Gold A10 : Concorde Fire Central Elite A14 : GSA 02 Premier A12 : UFA 02 Premier A4 : SSA Chelsea 02G Elite A2 : Concorde Fire North Black A5 : NASA G20 Elite A11 : Lady Chiefs Premier 02 A9 : UFA-Norcross Premier 02 A6 : CFC Red Star 01/02G Elite A7 : SAF U13G Elite A3 : TopHat-20 Navy A8 : Inter Atlanta FC - 02 - Elite Chart is not accurate at all, some teams have 2 or more games than others. Im very familiar with this age group. |
|
|
|
Post by jash on Oct 24, 2014 13:24:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jash on Oct 24, 2014 13:26:23 GMT -5
Oh, and look over at the right of the table of teams... there are two columns: RPI and Strength Those give different (and sometimes better) ways of ranking the teams. The TopHat team has definitely played the softest part of this group so far. |
|
|
|
Post by Anonymous on Oct 26, 2014 18:00:53 GMT -5
I would say that there is no best club for developing players. There's too many other important factors that factor in to this and in every age group at every point in time different clubs are better than others. Coaching, player and team movement, rec coaching (yes those volunteers at a young age can make a big difference), very talented individuals on the team, all can led to a team being successful. Which leads to an assumption of "good development". In a larger club this will be more likely to occur. So I really don't think there is an answer to your question.
BEFORE you go assuming Tophat is best, look at the history. The past seasons are posted on Georgia Soccer and compare the last 5 years of U13 fall and spring results. Maybe that's a good yardstick to determine over time which clubs are better than others.
|
|
