The high school soccer debate, and where we get it wrong
by Steve Davis on Jan 3, 2011 10:41 AM EST
Email
Print
High School soccer starts in my city this week. And there are plenty of competent players who won’t be signing up – even though they would probably like to.
Why? Because their clubs will discourage them, or even forbid it outright.
Why do the clubs take this stance, especially when the young men and women would like the chance to represent their school and their community, would enjoy playing in front of their friends, inside the pretty stadiums?
The “Why” in this case is everything that’s wrong with club soccer.
I’ve said before and I’ll say again, the worst part of club soccer is that most decisions are made based on what’s best for the clubs and for the coaches. This isn’t to say that a lot of good people aren’t involved in club soccer. There certainly are. I know a bunch of them.
But the system at large is off center. The axis is askew – and that throws everything else off balance.
This prejudice against high school soccer is the perfect example.
Again, kids have always enjoyed playing for their schools. A sense of “community” is important for everyone. This is a young players’ chance to be part of it. Bottom line, it’s fun to play for your school, to get your letter jacket, to play in front of their friends, inside a proper stadium on a Friday night rather than at a city park on a Saturday morning.
Besides, these are young people. Young people don’t just need to improve their proficiency in certain activities and sports. They need to mature socially and emotionally. Being part of something bigger than themselves (the high school) helps.
As for the soccer, here’s something that I think gets left out of the debate. Some club coaches like to say that high school soccer is ineffective or even counterproductive because it promotes bad habits, because good players don’t have to push themselves. That may be true for the elite player; but how many kids are we really talking about there? Most of them are just … well, kids. The vast majority will never even sniff professional soccer.
But here’s where I think this argument is wrong: high schools practice more or less every day, after school. The structure is built-in, and four or five two-hour practices a week is going to help most players. Meanwhile, how often do club teams practice? Twice a week?
A soccer player who touches the ball a lot is going to improve. So even if the coaching at high school level isn’t always the best – and by the way, I think it gets stronger every year, with lots of good folks involved who know the game – two hours of “scrimmaging” isn’t going to hurt a player.
Don’t we always hear about how the talent in South America and third-world lands teach themselves the game by playing in the streets, etc.? I suppose if clubs moved in and had their way, they would discourage this type of pick-up soccer bliss because “it encourages bad habits, and because good players don’t need to push themselves.”
In too many ways, the club soccer system exists only to support itself. That’s the basis for too many decisions when, clearly, the basis should be one thing only: what’s best for the overall happiness and development of young people.
25 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
While I believe NCAA soccer is detrimental to most player development
I don’t see that same level of dichotomy in club/high school. Most club soccer doesn’t use rules radically different from High School, so it’s not a terribly different game, IMHO. So yes, I agree with you here. That still doesn’t remove my spite for the college game.
College has a better argument than HS
The rules differences you harp on are annoying trivialities. They SOMETIMES make for a less watchable game (on the substitution rules, top programs often don’t use them), but they have about as much to do with player development as the college 3-point line does with developing NBA talent. When listing the reasons college soccer is limited in its development, the rules are pretty far down the list.
But college, at least, has national recruitment and national schedules, so that there is at least the possibility that college kids would practice with the best 18-22 year olds on their own team, and play a good dozen games against teams with a smattering of real talent. HS is so dispersed that the differences in how you play are much greater than a couple rule differences.
'Gentlemen' he said,
'I don't need your organization,
I've shined your shoes,
moved your mountains and marked your cards,
but Eden is burning.
Either get ready for elimination,
or else your heart must have the courage,
for the changing of the guards.'
by Sgc on Jan 3, 2011 2:57 PM EST up reply actions
I don't bitch about NCAA anymore
Too many solid players have been finding their way into MLS and elsewhere out of the NCAA.
That doesn't vindicate the NCAA.
It only says MLS needs players. But that’s another discussion.
by Shawn Gillogly on Jan 3, 2011 12:03 PM EST up reply actions
Another discussion we didn't finish last time.
I’ll just quote my comments to which you did not reply:
SUBJ: You’re not thinking about these issues very carefully
US players are bad.
US players went to college.
Therefore college caused US players to be bad.
That’s about the summary of this popular line of thought, and it’s a simple post hoc fallacy.
You’re trying to say they aren’t 4 years behind in real development compared to an International who plays club football in Europe or South America? "
This is why I asked you what the point of comparison was. I could tell, even though you didn’t say it, that your comparison point was some European star vs some average American. But that’s apples-to-oranges. The European star was in a development system for six, eight, often ten years before he would ever hit college age. If we had the same development system as Span from 8-17, an American Messi wouldn’t be going to college because his skills would be worth millions before the subject even came up. The short of it is, guys go to college because they aren’t international stars, not that they fail to be international stars because they went to college.
The actual apples-to-apples comparison is the same 18 year old with vs without college. And on the rare occasions when guys’ talent has been missed, like a Clint Dempsey, college hasn’t stopped him from being relatively successful. You have to compare what came out of college to what came into college. Not to what Real Madrid is putting out.
"And 18-22 is when most of these players break into the 1st team of those clubs at a regular basis."
And if you were thinking carefully, this would be evidence against your claim that these are the prime development years. The first team is a business, and guys on the first team have to be >90% finished products.
"There’s nothing new about NCAA players playing on MLS rosters. That doesn’t prove NCAA doesn’t perpetuate a gap in talent between the USMNT and foreign players that then becomes unrealistic for MLS to close."
Again, that wasn’t the claim that was being made. The rules force college players onto rosters, but they don’t force college players to acquit themselves well once they get there.
We actually have an example of when they didn’t, the NASL. Back then, the rules not only had to force US players onto rosters, but onto the field. And teams back then tended to play somewhere close to the minimum US players, and tended to have to ‘hide’ the ones they had.
You can see the difference between then and now. US players (often but not always ones that went to college) don’t just make rosters. They don’t just play, either. They often shine in the league.
And that’s not because college is great. It’s just not as terrible as it’s made out to be. The key point is that college. . . well. . . isn’t the key point. What’s key to development happened at a much younger age than college.
'Gentlemen' he said,
'I don't need your organization,
I've shined your shoes,
moved your mountains and marked your cards,
but Eden is burning.
Either get ready for elimination,
or else your heart must have the courage,
for the changing of the guards.'
by Sgc on Jan 3, 2011 2:50 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I have seen some of this...
but most of the club players play some high school if not all four years. I think it is mostly the Academy/ FC Dallas Junior players that now have this issue. Correct me if I am wrong but i think they are now getting 4 days of training each week.
On a seperate note. Steve who do you go through to get your tickets when you go to England for your soccer trip? I am thinking of making a similar trip this year.
People like you are why soccer in this country will go nowhere!
As the title reads, it is ignorant and irrational people like you, who share these ideas that will derail any progress of soccer in this country. There are so many flaws in your arguement. Lets start from the top:
- Clubs are not acting in their own self-interest by discouraging high school soccer. They are protecting the soccer interests of their own players. Clubs want their players to continue to develop at a high level, so they can move on to the next level, either at a D1 (or D2 or D3) college, or even beyond college and into the pros. The reality of the situation is that school soccer does nothing to promote this development, and can at times be detrimental. Yes, there is a good social aspect of high school soccer, but social benefits never helped players improve and continue to develop, which is the ultimate goal. The clubs are unattached from these social aspects, and therefore have the objective goals to continue to develop and improve their SOCCER players. The best way for them to do this is by playing high level SOCCER, not playing in high school
- Most elite clubs in the country train at least 3, usually 4 times a week nowadays (US Development Academy). But even if they train for less hours a week than high school teams, the fundamental problem still exists that they are playing against inferior players, which is THE MAIN REASON high school soccer is detrimental. Elite players will try in their respective games, but it is in training when they can slack off because they can get away with it (also known as a bad habit). So, training in a bad environment 5 days a week is what the problem is for elite players that play high school. In contrast, even if an elite player only trains 2 times a week, the training environment will be much more competitive and the player will continue to build good training habits and improving. Players improve not by how much they train, but by the quality of their training. Therefore, “scrimmaging” for 2 hours a day against inferior competition may make the player a little better, but the same player will improve significantly more by training 2 times (usually more) a week in a good training environment.
- Also, your point about South American players that are famous now but grew up playing in the streets is ridiculous. I’m not saying its not true because there are many examples in which it is, but these players did not get to where they are today by just “playing in the streets.” The base of their technique and ability stems from these roots, but surely these players did not make it to major European teams by just their time in the streets. These players were identified and in virtually all cases, spent time in clubs youth systems before making their professional debuts. It was these youth systems which truly developed the players to where they are today. A great example is La Masia, the youth academy in Barcelona. Under the guidance of professional coaches, players such as Messi, Xavi, Iniesta and Pique have all emerged from there to become the stars they are today. These players were identified as potential future stars and were brought into the academy, where, surprisingly enough, under intense training environments and knowledgeable coaches they made it to where they are today.
It is clear that you have a very limited and distorted perception of high school soccer in this country. The continuous defense and promotion of high school soccer is only detrimental to the elite players in this country. And it is these elite players who are the future of U.S. soccer.
by Bapple10 on Jan 3, 2011 12:23 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Bapple, you bring up the players Barca develops without noting that no club soccer player in the US has ever developed to a truly elite level. Interesting.
Who are you? Why should we value your opinion on this subject, especially in contrast to a respected soccer journalist?
by fennsk on Jan 3, 2011 12:57 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
make example about Barca was just that, an example. I could have easily mentioned many young players in the U.S. who skipped high school soccer as it was a backwards step for their development. You can look at the many graduates of the residency program at IMG to illustrate the positive effects of not playing high school soccer. I think that graduates such as Landon Donovan, Damarcus Beasley, Jozy Altidore, virtually all of the Akron soccer team, Johnny Agudelo, and countless others demonstrate U.S. players who have succeeded from skipping high school soccer and continuing to train and play in a high level environment.
Just like anyone else, i have my own ideas about this…whether you choose to agree, disagree or respect my ideas is your decision.
so ...
just so I’m clear here … “whether you choose to agree, disagree or RESPECT my ideas …” I guess that only applies to YOUR IDEAS, right? Because your thoughts are so clearly superior, you have no obligation to do the same, apparently. Because you began all this by saying I was “ignorant and irrational.” Just checkin’
see below...
as you can see below, I have already said, before you posted that comment, that my previous claims were extreme, unnecessary and over the top.
that's only half the story
There are just as many kids who skip high school soccer and start training in high level environments who never really make progress — Freddy Adu ring a bell? Look at this article about the players from the 2001 U-17 team that was in Bradenton together: http://soccernet.espn.go.com/columns/story?id=641424&sec=us&root=us&cc=5901
They should all be at the peak of their careers right now, but the reality is that they’ve really made little impact on our national team and only a handful of them have even made an impact in MLS. High level environments are not necessarily guarantees of success. A lot of it has to do with the mentality of the individual player — the mental toughness and competitiveness that is the hallmark of a professional player can manifest itself just as easily in a high school game as in a club game. And how many Barca youth players never even make it onto the reserve team?
Besides, if a player plays for his club 9 months out of the year and only 3 for his high school, shouldn’t the habits he develops at his club predominate over the habits he supposedly learns in high school? Habits work both ways, so if the clubs are really that good at teaching good training habits, then shouldn’t those habits carry over into high school?
Your ideas are intriguing to me...
… and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
by vineyarddawg on Jan 3, 2011 12:59 PM EST up reply actions
Whaaat?
As the title reads, it is ignorant and irrational people like you, who share these ideas that will derail any progress of soccer in this country.
Sharing ideas will derail all progress? What are you, the Catholic Church? I happen to think Steve is at least partially wrong here, but you do discussion no service when you make this kind of claim.
'Gentlemen' he said,
'I don't need your organization,
I've shined your shoes,
moved your mountains and marked your cards,
but Eden is burning.
Either get ready for elimination,
or else your heart must have the courage,
for the changing of the guards.'
by Sgc on Jan 3, 2011 2:39 PM EST up reply actions
your argument applies ...
… to about 1/10 of one percent of young soccer players in this country. So, yes, to the tiny percentage of players in the US development academies, the tip-top elite level, you are correct. For the 99.9 percent who never reach that level, I stand by my arguments. Not all soccer is about developing national team players. In fact, very little of it is. My arguments are about developing young people.
The trouble is
How do you know who they are?
For a 16 year old kid, you know that only a handful have any shot at pro careers. And it would be fine to let all the rest play in HS, except. . . how can you be sure which handful it will be. The ratio of kids who look like they might have a shot versus the number who will actually make it must be at least 10:1.
'Gentlemen' he said,
'I don't need your organization,
I've shined your shoes,
moved your mountains and marked your cards,
but Eden is burning.
Either get ready for elimination,
or else your heart must have the courage,
for the changing of the guards.'
by Sgc on Jan 3, 2011 2:59 PM EST up reply actions
yes...
… well the top elite group is who I was mainly discussing. To clarify, when I previously claimed “progress in this country”, I meant progress for the national team. As in the United States national team being able to compete successfully on an international level. I still feel though that your portrayal of “club soccer” is unfairly negative in the article. The clubs have a group of elite players that they are simply continuing trying to develop and improve them so they can make it to the next level in their respective careers. The reality of the situation is that playing high school soccer is a backwards step for these individual players and clubs. Therefore, it is not unreasonable for the clubs to promote or enforce not participating in high school soccer. If this is the case, the individual players can decide what they want to do. It is a sacrifice for some, but that is what is necessary to achieve success and continued improvement. Other players who may not want to take this path can simply decide not to. They can continue to play high school soccer and play with the numerous other clubs who allow high school soccer, and GENERALLY SPEAKING, they will not be as successful (in developing elite players) as the few clubs who prohibit participation in high school soccer. I think high school soccer is great for many kids and certainly am not overlooking its values and benefits. However, from strictly the perspective of the elite player, from the perspective of someone who wants to see the US national continue to make strides and compete on a international level, the truth is that high school soccer is a detriment for the small elite group of players in this country, who will in the future write the history for the national team.
I don't know enough about the US High School scene
to comment whether this is right or not, but I know that in the UK school soccer tends to be very detrimental to player development since the whole emphasis is on winning games rather than allowing young players to make mistakes and develop.
I think the longer that a youngster can actually enjoy playing the game the better the chance he will develop into a good player. Any kid can be taught the basics but the great (and very good) have imagination which can’t be taught, and needs to be allowed to thrive for as long as possible.
"Serious sport has nothing to do with fair play. It is bound up with hatred, jealousy, boastfulness, and disregard of all the rules."- George Orwell
by Arizona via Slough on Jan 3, 2011 1:19 PM EST reply actions
club soccer is the issue
As it is organized today in the US, most club systems are simply built around money and those who can pay get to play, which means a lot of talent gets left out. I do like the MLS’s attempts at building a solid academy system and one day I hope they will be able to offer slots simply based on the most talented players.
If you want to know how broke the system is, look no further than “the Don’s” new pet project the Cosmos, they charge $100 dollars for a one day clinic. Yup that will ensure you get the most talented players, or rather the most talented ones with parents who have extra money. At least in the high schools, kids get to play based on talent more than at the club teams.
The whole of the system is in trouble when you have two paths that compete against each other instead of working together.
Club soccer is far from perfect
I coached high school boys & girls soccer for 7 years in a major city with one of the largest clubs in the nation (including development academy) and several other large, successful clubs. 95% of our varsity players played in these clubs, but far too many of them lacked any real understanding of the game. We were consistently having to teach basics like team defending, movement off the ball, keeping possession, how to strike a long ball, how to finish a game when leading, etc. Things that you expect successful clubs to be teaching kids long before they get to the high school age. So, if they don’t learn those things at club levels, why would it be wrong for them to learn them at their high school? Many high schools in our area had far more qualified coaches (in terms of playing experience, licensing, coaching experience, etc) than the clubs. And because all the school teams were stacked with club players the games were very competitive, it was simply a mix of clubs and ages.
Clearly a Development Academy player is going to be further along than the majority of other players. Maybe they would be better off training with their clubs year round, but that is such a small number of players in the big picture (which as adults we should be looking at).
We had 3 development academy players on our team the last year I coached there (their academy team went to Finals week) and all 3 grew through their experience. It’s positive for a young 14 or 15 year old to play against bigger & faster players to teach them things they don’t learn against players with the same athletic ability. It’s also positive way for a player to grow in their leadership ability. They may be a role player on their club team, but at their school they may be the best player or one of the best so they are pushed to grow as a leader and learn how to make others better.
So, if you want to make the argument that the top 5-10% of the players in our country shouldn’t play school soccer, maybe that’s fair, IF you can ensure that the club environment is truly better. But we must admit that school soccer has great value for the other 90-95% of kids that aren’t future pros or national team players.
Cheers.
High School Coaches Share Some Blame
I will be out at the high school games watching my daughter play for her school starting this week. She is grateful that Sting, her club, let’s her play, albeit somewhat reluctantly. She loves playing in the nicer stadiums, especially in playoff games. Playing for her school is an aspect that she’ll carry on when she plays D1 college ball next year.
From watching her high school coach, I know that her coach is an example of some of the problems in the club vs high school battle. Her coach does not like it when her players go off to a college showcase with their club team even though it is through their club that the college coaches will notice them. Her coach went as far as to bench her best player (who verballed to one of the Final Four schools) last year after she attended a national team pool function. How can a high school coach gain respect when that happens?
What is sorely lacking is any dialogue between the clubs and the high school coaches to see where they can work together to promote better play and a better environment for their players. Both sides have responsibility to approach the other, but neither one seems to want to talk and work it out for the kids.
Andy Najar....
…was playing HS soccer (which was how DC United discovered him). He stopped playing at Edison HS but only b/c of the amount of practice time he was putting in with the DCU Academy team. I don’t believe that Najar played a game of club/travel/select soccer before turning pro.
I think the larger point of the article is being missed somewhat. While it is my experience that HS teams practice more than select/travel clubs I’m sure there are plenty of cases where that isn’t true. What I think is the LARGER point of the article is this: clubs exist in and of themselves and often times, maybe even most of the time, clubs make decisions on the basis of what is best for the club, not what is best for the player. For instance, so many clubs…it’s about if you can afford to pay to play (I know, I know, some have scholarships but let’s face it…too many clubs and select teams, if you don’t have the bucks you can’t participate).
Now, I won’t argue it’s the forces of good (HS) vs. the forces of evil (club) b/c I know too many coaches who are a HS coach AND a club coach (hey…it’s a way of making ends meet if you aren’t a teach at the school). They don’t suddenly get smarter or dumber by moving from one role to the other.
I think if there’s any lesson we can learn from pro soccer players who wear the USNT kit, it’s that one size doesn’t fit all. To put it another way, some guys skipped HS ball, just played club ball and then went pro. Some went to Europe. Some didn’t. Some went to college. We might conclude that one model is the most likely to produce good pros. But what the US experience seems to have shown is that even if we send all of the best youth players into club and than US Developmental programs and have them skip college, we’ll still get some talented players that come out of college. Maybe they mature a bit later. Or the local club options weren’t good. Or something happened in their life that changed their view and commitment to the game and they got better.
