Commentary
How Club Structure Impacts Development
- by Christian Lavers @clavers1, Mar 21, 2011
By Christian Lavers
While the coach interacting with the players on a daily basis is the key influencer in their individual development, there are many structural
factors surrounding the club that will impact the likelihood of a player reaching his or her potential.
Some factors are more obvious than others, but having an understanding of how club
structure impacts growth is helpful both: (i) as a club director considering how to build your organization; and (ii) as a parent looking to make long-term decisions about where your child should
play. Some examples:
* Controlled Coaching Turnover: In general, it is very difficult for a coach to remain with the same group of players for more than four years. Over
time, the messages from the coach tend to get stale (since they’ve been heard so frequently), and the opinions of the coach about individual players (and of the players about the coach) tend to
become rigid and inflexible. For this reason, controlled changes over time within the coaching staff working with a team are important.
At the pivotal skill development age groups of
U12-U14, where players change physically and mentally very quickly, it is advisable that the coaching staff changes somewhat even after two years. When you see the same coaches staying with the same
group of players for six-seven years, (which many of us have done at one time or another), it is usually a sign of a very special relationship between the coach and a group of players, or a lack of
depth in the club’s coaching pool.
* Coaching Development: Just as coaches should be in the “business” of developing soccer players, clubs should be in
the “business” of developing soccer coaches. Clubs that take seriously the need to develop their own coaches tend to be better at developing soccer players.
Clubs can help
develop coaches in many ways, for example: (i) using younger coaches as assistants with more experienced coaches; (ii) having senior coaches regularly observe and assess sessions run by younger
coaches; or (iii) having a required continuing education program for all coaches within the club.
* A “Program” Structure: The model for building a
successful soccer club in the 1990s involved having one coach for one team, where, within this team, the coach was king and almost entirely independent. This model has become outdated.
Now, the most enlightened clubs are structuring their teams and staff into “programs” that cover multiple age groups. This structure means that one staff of coaches is responsible for
several teams over multiple age groups (U12-U14, U15-U18, etc.). This structure: (i) ensures developmental continuity over time; (ii) allows coaches to specialize in coaching different age groups;
(iii) provides multiple coaching perspectives at each age group; and (iv) allows for more roster flexibility and movement of players between teams.
* Training and Roster
Flexibility: The clubs that are most serious about player development have a player-centered, not a team-centered, approach when it comes to where players train and play. This is most obvious
by looking at the number of players who are playing or training with older players within the club.
The opportunity to train with older players, and for the most special players the
ability to regularly “play-up,” is a key factor in individual development. In the best environments, this means that there is regular movement of players between various age groups and
levels in training and in games. (Of course the leagues that the teams participate in must have rules allowing this type of roster flexibility in competition in order to allow playing-up.)
* A Developmental Base and History: There are some very “successful” clubs in this country that are very good at recruiting entire teams from other clubs at older age
groups, putting them in the same jersey, and then winning games. This “recruitment” model is very different than a “developmental” model.
While it is a reality
that the best clubs will attract better players over time, and that this attraction tends to occur more at older age groups (U14 and up) when the disparity in development between clubs begins to show,
the core of any successful youth team should consist of “homegrown” players.
A club with (i) a vibrant youth program, potentially even a recreational base at U6-U10, and (ii) a
history of successful players with 8-plus years in the club, is typically better at developing players than those without these elements. (On a similar note, clubs with competitive adult or U20/U23
teams provide good opportunities for “senior” youth players -- U17 and U18 -- to be challenged by training or competing with men and women.)
* A Professional Management
Approach: Successful businesses are led by individuals who are hired for their expertise in a particular field and then are given the freedom to make decisions.
Successful soccer
clubs are led by coaches hired for their developmental expertise, and then given the freedom to make developmental decisions without undue outside influence. While the involvement of parental
expertise can be very positive in certain aspects of club management (financial management and controls, facility development, etc.), when untrained parents or parental boards become involved in
decisions regarding team structure, roster selection, and league/competition participation and scheduling, bad decisions from a developmental perspective are almost always eventually made.
At the best clubs, the governing body of the organization hires the Director of Coaching, allows him or her to structure the program based on their own expertise, and then holds him or her
accountable for the developmental outcomes of players and coaches.
(Christian Lavers is the Executive Vice President at US Club
Soccer. He holds the highest coaching licenses in the United States - the USSF "A" License, the USSF "Y" License, and the NSCAA Premier Diploma, and is the USSDA Director and ECNL Director with
FC Milwaukee Nationals in Wisconsin.)
Unfortunately, even if all of the views are accurate, it is ultimately a system that is designed to provide money making opportunities for many club coaches and directors. The vast majority of the kids and families will pay a lot of money to develop a few top level players. If the clubs truly wanted to develop players, rather than make money, all of the extra training sessions, shooting clinics, camps, etc would not be $25 here and $100 there...or more.
It's impossible or at best very hard to find a travel soccer club that has any type of structure like the one mentioned in this article. If you know of one in the Palm Beach Florida are please let me know.
Great article.
Thank you.
The issues mentioned in this article are due to lack of a strong educational soccer coaching system. The author, the article emphasizes at the end, has a A license. Which means, he has taken a 50 hour course to get certified. In Spain, to obtain the highest license, it takes 3 years, and about 2000 educational hours.
And that is without all the magazines, TV & Radio shows, workshops, and conferences available to them. Simply put, the blind cannot lead the blind. The US needs to revamp its coaching courses and develop coaches that not only understand soccer, but also the administrative side to it.
I had coached over 8 years and had my B license before returning to college for my BA in Sports & Fitness. And it was an eye opener. Without proper education, we will continue to have zealots instead of coaches that can guide and form talented young soccer player.s
This structure does not recognize the difference between "coaching" and "training". It emphasizes using a cadre of "trainers" to teach skills but devalues the importance of actually coaching all aspects of a team and being accountable for game day performance. Soccer needs to look at the strengths of other sports coaches/staffs and how they develope talent instead of living in a soccer "silo".
Spot on Lorenzo. There can be no doubt that we have the blind leading us. Spain and holland have great coaches because they have produced great players and many of them took up coaching - sure. But we dont have to wait around for good players to create good coaching. Our licensing programs are brainwashing opportunities where coaches learn the virtue of speed and size. Great coaches have a quality to them, and it was so sad to see the USSF ideology preached at these camps destroying their ability to think. Education programs play a major part in getting rid of the bad apples, and it kills me to think of what the Beckham contract money would have done if applied to an education overhaul. Why does Mr. lavers want coaches to rotate? Because he knows how bad the bad ones are- spread them out and make them rotate and you lessen their impact. the only thong worse than an untrained parent is a trained USSF coach! The parent has gone 0-1 in producing a soccer player, the USSF coach? 0-ten thousand.
Lorenzo, your facts are inaccurate. It's a 50 hr course preceded by three other 50 hr courses. Each course requires at least a one year wait in between so that coaches can apply and adapt to what they have learned.
Coach Laver's assessment is very astute. Or, at least as astute as reasonably possible within the limited space allocated.
But, to Chris van Duin's point -- a club MUST find ways to make costs affordable if not nominal so that it can include players of ALL social and economic backgrounds. Consider that the best players in the world arose from near or below-poverty conditions. From there comes a greater drive, passion and creativity. Not only does that make them great candidates for development it also influences their teammates, fellow club members and opponents.
The question is -- do clubs reach out to these players? Or, just those that can pay the escalating cost of club operations and coaching fees?
solid.