“You have to join the side you’re on.”
Midge Decter
The EU
Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Winning Isn't Everything
Winning isn't everything. And, no, it isn't the only thing. But, as this article tell us, organizing the team so that you are not maximizing your potential is not a good approach in the long run.
"I filled in for my child's coach and the team won" is the worst possible argument in favor of one style and against another and it makes me blind irate to hear it.
Soccer is a sport that almost no American parent understands. It's NOT about the one kid who has matured ahead of his or her peers and can run around them all and poke the ball into the net at age 11. It's a sport that requires effective teamwork well beyond the abilities of any 11 year old to comprehend, let alone execute on the field. (Though American parents think, because kicking a soccer ball is easier than hitting a baseball, that the whole game must be that way).
I'm not trying to defend that "we're all winners" tripe that the author clearly despises as well. But I am calling out his ignorance of the game, and questioning whether he may very well have set back his child's and his child's teammates' understanding and ability to achieve in the sport by months if not years.
The give-away is that he put his least-talented and capable kids in the back to play defense. The central defense requires the MOST capable players on the field, not the least. It's similar to NFL defensive backs, who are all faster and more athletic than the wide receivers they are required to cover. (Otherwise they'd be worthless as players). Like NFL wide receivers, a specialized subset of skills (in the case of receivers, the ability to catch the ball, and in the case of soccer players, the ability to shoot to score) can be used to differentiate one group from the other. However, the greater truth is that if I played my team "upside down" to the way this yahoo played his, his "best players" wouldn't score, and, sooner or later, mine would. (The more talented players you have "behind the ball", aka with the ball in front of them and not behind them, the more often they will have opportunity to touch it in good position to take advantage of their abilities).
The list of mis-perceptions about soccer is far longer than just this, and this ignoramus I'm sure enjoys just about all of them.
Coach a sport you understand, and understand that the "object" for 11 year olds, first of all, is to learn and ENJOY the game so that they keep playing it, and second of all to learn the components/skills that will enable them to become successful at it. ("Become", not "be"). If we all recall our childhoods, we learned all our sports by playing them amongst ourselves without coaches, lines, referees or any of this BS. The fact that we think we're "teaching" 11 year olds anything beyond how to be poorly behaved parents is the funniest part.
I think you are a little hard on the author. He gets thrown into the job of coach and takes a different approach, but stays within the rules of the league. Sure, "the beautiful game" is hard to grasp—I didn't grasp it the year I played soccer in Junior High School, before moving to a new school, in a new state.
The guy was saying that the regular coach wasn't on some long-term building program that was going to produce great soccer players, someday. He was saying that the regular coach was an accountant, who was making sure the accounts balanced, but only the accounts about playing time and getting to do your own thing, at the expense of building a team that could win.
And, as was discussed on the way from lunch yesterday, where at least one of the folks coaches young kids in hockey, the kids are always keeping score. They know how they did, individually and as a team. I know I did when I was young.
2 comments:
"I filled in for my child's coach and the team won" is the worst possible argument in favor of one style and against another and it makes me blind irate to hear it.
Soccer is a sport that almost no American parent understands. It's NOT about the one kid who has matured ahead of his or her peers and can run around them all and poke the ball into the net at age 11. It's a sport that requires effective teamwork well beyond the abilities of any 11 year old to comprehend, let alone execute on the field. (Though American parents think, because kicking a soccer ball is easier than hitting a baseball, that the whole game must be that way).
I'm not trying to defend that "we're all winners" tripe that the author clearly despises as well. But I am calling out his ignorance of the game, and questioning whether he may very well have set back his child's and his child's teammates' understanding and ability to achieve in the sport by months if not years.
The give-away is that he put his least-talented and capable kids in the back to play defense. The central defense requires the MOST capable players on the field, not the least. It's similar to NFL defensive backs, who are all faster and more athletic than the wide receivers they are required to cover. (Otherwise they'd be worthless as players). Like NFL wide receivers, a specialized subset of skills (in the case of receivers, the ability to catch the ball, and in the case of soccer players, the ability to shoot to score) can be used to differentiate one group from the other. However, the greater truth is that if I played my team "upside down" to the way this yahoo played his, his "best players" wouldn't score, and, sooner or later, mine would. (The more talented players you have "behind the ball", aka with the ball in front of them and not behind them, the more often they will have opportunity to touch it in good position to take advantage of their abilities).
The list of mis-perceptions about soccer is far longer than just this, and this ignoramus I'm sure enjoys just about all of them.
Coach a sport you understand, and understand that the "object" for 11 year olds, first of all, is to learn and ENJOY the game so that they keep playing it, and second of all to learn the components/skills that will enable them to become successful at it. ("Become", not "be"). If we all recall our childhoods, we learned all our sports by playing them amongst ourselves without coaches, lines, referees or any of this BS. The fact that we think we're "teaching" 11 year olds anything beyond how to be poorly behaved parents is the funniest part.
Kad
I think you are a little hard on the author. He gets thrown into the job of coach and takes a different approach, but stays within the rules of the league. Sure, "the beautiful game" is hard to grasp—I didn't grasp it the year I played soccer in Junior High School, before moving to a new school, in a new state.
The guy was saying that the regular coach wasn't on some long-term building program that was going to produce great soccer players, someday. He was saying that the regular coach was an accountant, who was making sure the accounts balanced, but only the accounts about playing time and getting to do your own thing, at the expense of building a team that could win.
And, as was discussed on the way from lunch yesterday, where at least one of the folks coaches young kids in hockey, the kids are always keeping score. They know how they did, individually and as a team. I know I did when I was young.
Regards — Cliff
Post a Comment