Thursday, July 07, 2016
We are approaching the time of year again, I was wondering as to your thoughts on running tryouts? In the past we have run 2 hour sessions over 2 days with the majority of the tryout being drill based. As I am sure you can guess some players look totally competent in the drill, but seem to struggle in game formats. I am a believer that if the player can show their ability during a drill it is at least a base to build on. However, a lot of the coaches in my club want success by winning so they only want the best players, we have a relatively small club and sometimes there are not enough players to make a second tier team so it’s only the best players or the ones the coaches see as the fastest or most athletic that make it. I feel we lose a few technically gifted players each year because of this. I am the club trainer and only advise the coaches who have the last say on who makes it and who doesn't. I was hoping you may be able to suggest a more appropriate format with the right balance of small sided games and drills. Is it better to focus on more game related activities or should we be running the regular unopposed drills to see how the players look without pressure? And how much should we balance the two?
I want to be clear from the outset that all soccer clubs must look for players with a good soccer brain first and foremost. Athletic ability is indeed important, but it comes in fourth after that good soccer decision making brain, quality ball skills, a good soccer personality and then athleticism.
In general I believe that try-outs should not begin until the U13 age group. That’s the broad statement, meant for player retention in soccer and the overall health of our sport. Now once we get into holding tryouts much depends on the level of play. So a player trying out in the US Youth Soccer Olympic Development Program will be expected to have good ball skills so we jump straight to match related activities after a warm-up. So no drills are done with this caliber of player.
At a less talented level of play some drills may be in order to assess technique in an isolated situation. However this is more of a need for coaches who have difficulty assessing talent in game-like situations. So the use of drills tends to be used by inexperienced and/or less knowledgeable coaches.
The more talented coach will use games-based activities to evaluate players since the quality of the players’ performance in all four components of the game will show up in those situations. So from small-sided activities like 2v2 to uneven number games, 5v3 for example, to a full match an experienced coach can fully assess players’ capabilities.
In regard to the evaluation of athletic ability the more scientific the measurements the better the data will be. This is a realm where the facts speak for themselves and no subjective evaluation is necessary. Use standard fitness tests but ones that are age appropriate. For example the Beep Test should be done with players 16 or older only.
Whenever I evaluate players I have a short checklist in mind, but it is one that is prioritized.
1. Technical speed and consistency
2. Decision making (tactical awareness)
4. Athletic ability
Then within each of those components I will look at further details but much of that will depend on the age group and level of play. Certainly I will assess an 18-year-old player harder than a 13-year-old on tactical decisions made in the course of a match.
Things to consider
- range of technique
- quality of opposition
- understanding of role
- quality of decisions
- assertiveness / imposing themselves on the game
- leadership / role model
- ongoing assessment (over multiple matches)
In the end the most important factor in player evaluation is the trained eye of the evaluator.