An Avalanche of knowledge

By WILL C. HOLDEN Chronicle Sports Writer 06/18/08

If you flipped on ESPN around lunchtime Tuesday you would have heard Scottish striker turned commentator Andy Gray calling the game as Italy defeated France 2-0 to escape elimination in the "group of death" at the UEFA Euro 2008.

McNicol was in town Tuesday leading his first camp as technical advisor of the Montana Avalanche soccer club. And Scott Johnson, Director of Administration for the club, was beaming. "Our theory is that we're only as good as we're taught, so we try to get coaches with a lot of experience," Johnson said. "In the case of Billy, we were really lucky because I'll be dead before we have two former U.S. national team coaches in this state."

Before his coaching days, McNicol was a member of a national team himself, the Scottish U-18 national team, as well as the Glasgow Rangers, a club that has won more major trophies than any soccer club in the world. After five years, McNicol began coming to the U.S. in the summer during the Rangers' off-season to hone his skills in the North American Soccer League. His first club was the San Antonio Thunder  "I wasn't quite sure of the American leagues at that time. No one was." McNicol said. "But it was nice to see sunshine on a fairly regular basis compared to Britain in the 60's and 70's where it was kind of gray".  "The football in Britain was getting grayer as well, so it made sense to test the market here. I loved it and decided to stay."

After San Antonio, the forward moved on to the Los Angeles Skyhawks of the American Soccer League, where he played three seasons and earned All-Star honors in 1978. When outdoor soccer in the United States collapsed during the late 70's and early 80's, McNicol played for the Pittsburgh Spirit of the Major Indoor Soccer League from 1979 to 1982 before ending his playing days with the San Jose Earthquakes of the NASL in 1983. But McNicol's coaching was far from over. He got his start as the Director of Coaching for the Utah Youth Soccer Association in 1984. His high school boys teams won five state titles in six years and his girls won eight consecutive state crowns.

"There weren't a lot of quasi-soccer experts in the area so no one could come in a say, 'This guy doesn't know what he's talking about,' " McNicol laughed. "And I had time to take kids like my three boys out in backyards and schoolyards and say here's a trick and here's a move. All of a sudden that became a team and that team became a successful team and I just kept moving up that ladder."

The next step for McNicol was joining the national instructional staff at U.S. soccer, where he coached players like Cobi Jones, who called McNicol his "first real coach" and is currently the all-time leader in appearances for the U.S. national team. McNicol also coached Carlos Bocanegra, the current U.S. national team captain.

In 1996, McNicol was handed the duties of coaching the U.S. U-16 national team, which included fostering the growth of Landon Donovan. During that time McNicol also got his first taste of Montana as he served as state coach from 1995-99. After his work with youth soccer, he returned to the professional ranks, coaching the Utah Blitzz, a member of the third division of the United Soccer League. The team he helped found won national championship in 2001 and 2004.

McNicol joined Los Angeles Galaxy of Major League Soccer the following year; after leaving in 2006, he missed David Beckham's arrival by a year. But he did get an opportunity to coach some of the most talented strikers U.S. women's soccer has ever seen: Christine Lilly, Abby Wambach, Heather O'Reilly, Lindsey Tarpley and Natasha Kai at the 2007 World Cup. The team eventually lost in the semifinal to Brazil.

All things being considered, McNicol is happy to be back with youth soccer. "Don't get me wrong, I'm happy about my experiences but there's an enthusiasm and an honesty you get working with kids that you don't get higher up the tree," McNicol said. "Being a dad myself, I know that you really get four to six years where it's really fun to take your kid and go places in this sport. Those memories are so special and will never go away." McNicol is also excited to be back in Montana. "Who doesn't like it here?" McNicol asked. "I've been coming here almost every year since the mid-70's. It reminds me a lot of Scotland."

But what about the kids? Are they humbled in the presence of a man with the vast experience of McNicol? "I don't think it's really set in with them," Johnson said. "He's not a guy they'll put on a pedestal because they feel so comfortable around him."

As technical director of the Avalanche, McNicol will come to the Bozeman area to run camps, assess players, and educate the club's coaches. He'll show up every four to six weeks to check on the program's progress and make adjustments

The hope is that McNicol will help soccer grow in Montana. He's already assured the club a spot in the invite-only Dallas Cup, which Johnson called the "single largest recruitment tournament in the country."  "I believe there are good players here," McNicol said. "If you don't promote them, if you don't take them outside the borders here no one will ever know they're any good. Growing up in a small town myself and making it to the big leagues, I want to see kids from small towns go as far as they can."

McNicol believes some day these kids, as well as soccer in America, may go farther than anyone ever imagined. "I live 17 minutes from the Galaxy's Home Depot Center and it's one of the finest stadiums in the world," McNicol said. "If you would have told me in 1976 that by this time we'd have several owners building stadiums like that I would have laughed. (At this point, soccer's not leaving America. It's just where we choose to take it."

Will Holden is at wholden@dailychronicle.com and 582-2690.

A Montana Soccer organization based in Bozeman, Montana, the Montana Avalanche Soccer Club is a non-profit organization established to provide an unparalleled personal growth experience through the game of soccer and to promote life-long participation in the sport. Formed in 2004, the Avalanche club will service the over 3500 youth players in the Gallatin Valley on an annual basis. As a member of the United States Youth Soccer Association (USYSA) and the Montana Youth Soccer Association (MYSA), the club offers developmental and competitive programs for players of all ages and abilities.  Avalanche is the first club in Montana to offer youth soccer on a year-around basis.  Our programs are offered in all four seasons.

We believe the most important thing is having well-trained people who communicate their knowledge in a way that inspires and motivates young players to want to improve. We address the technical, tactical, physical and psychological requirements of the game at each age level. But more importantly, we focus on the athelete as an individual and not just as a player on a team.

• Right to participate at a level that is commensurate with each player's developmental level.
• Right to have qualified coaches.
• Right to participate in safe and healthy environments.
• Right of each child to share in the leadership and decision-making of their soccer participation.
• Right to play as a child and not as an adult.
• Right to proper preparation for participation in soccer.
• Right to an equal opportunity to strive for success.
• Right to be treated with dignity and respect by all involved.
• Right to have FUN through soccer!

For other Bozeman / Gallatin area soccer in the valley please check out these organizations or youth clubs.

• Bozman Hawks
• Belgrade Panthers
• Bozeman Blitzz
• Belgrade Rage
• Gallatin Valley Youth Soccer (GVYSA)
• Gallatin AYSO

Soccer is often called the simplest game. It requires only a ball and two goals and over the years thousands of items have been used for both a ball and goals. Soccer played at the highest levels is one of the most demanding undertakings in sports. The game is dynamic and players are required to make split-second decisions while challenging their physical capabilities to their highest levels. Pressure from the fans and media can be tremendous and only a player with supreme self-confidence, maturity and physical attributes can be successful.

For young children, the challenge is the same, but the game is very different. Physically, mentally and emotionally, these children are much different than the professional players. It used to be that everyone played the same game, each team had 11 players on the field including a goalkeeper. The field was 70 X 100 yards and the goals were 8 feet high. Anyone who watches a group of 5 year-olds trying to imitate their adult cousins will understand that the game is not very satisfying for the players when they play with 21 other players and only one ball.

In recent years, the United States Youth Soccer Association (USYSA) has recommended that players play on smaller fields with less players. They recommend that 4,5 year-olds play on a 30 x 20 yard field with small goals and no goalkeepers. 6 and 7 year-olds play 4 v 4 on a slightly larger field. 8 and 9 year olds play 7 v 7 on a field about 2/3 the size of a normal field. No goalkeepers are introduced until the 7 v7 game. This reduces the game to a comprehensible size for the children and with fewer players trying to play, it increases the chances that a player will get to touch the ball.

Is a training program offered for coaches?

The two major soccer organizations, United States Soccer Federation (USSF) American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO) offer training programs for coaches of all levels of experience and expertise. First time coaches go through a one-day training session where they learn the basics about the game and how to coach. Many leagues require their coaches to attend these courses, but there are also many leagues where the coaches receive no training whatsoever. The best club for you to be associated with is the one that offers the most training for its coaches.

Typically, these clubs also will evaluate their coaches at some point during the season. This extra step helps to ensure that your child has the best possible experience. Sometimes this evaluation process can be formal, a club director of coaches can observe the practices and game day behaviors of the coach. This is the best evaluation process to have because it allows the league to see how the coach manages all the aspects of a team, not just games. Other times the evaluation may be informal, such as a survey of parents as to the experience they had that season. This method is less effective because it is second-person and sometimes may not be reliable.

Retention of players from year to year

Surveys are a good way to assess the overall quality of the program. One of the best indicators of the success of a league is the percent of children who return to play the following year. Every league has players that do not return because the family moves or other extenuating circumstances. You should be concerned with the drop-out rate of players who did not want to return. This is an indication that the league is not serving its children very well. A return rate of 90% or higher indicates that the club is doing a good job of keeping its core players. This is more important in the older age groups, but can also be critical if a 4 year old doesn't want to return to play as a 5 year old.

Before registering with a league get the answers to the following questions:

1. Do you play small-sided games (i.e. 3 v 3 in the U6 age group)?
2. Are all coaches required to attend a licensing program each year?
3. Are coaches evaluated during the season?
4. What is the percent of children who return to play in your league?

THE 10 YEAR RULE:

Youth Soccer Coach Wanted: Only Those with Patience and Perseverance Need Apply
By Gary R. Allen
Virginia Youth Soccer Association Director of Coaching Education

Following are excerpts from an article in The Scientific American by Phillip E. Ross, dated July 24, 2006, entitled The Expert Mind. The article focused upon studies of the mental processes of chess grandmasters and clues to how people become experts in other fields as well. These excerpts can help us address some important points concerning the development of young soccer players in America.

"Simon coined a psychological law of his own, the 10-year rule, which states that it takes approximately a decade of heavy labor to master any field."
The 10-year rule, or 10,000 hours rule, can be applied as easily to soccer as to chess. Each soccer game involves myriad of decisions, technical and physical challenges in an ever-changing environment, among and against other players of varying abilities, and in different stages of physical exhaustion. More than any other team sport, the game takes on the characteristics of those playing it, and requires development in all of the areas above: mental, physical, technical and social.
Kids develop at different rates in all of these areas. Both the game and the players themselves are complex. To help them fully develop their potential as players, we must allow them to unlock in numerous stages the many aspects of the game. As philosophers and numerous experts studying human development throughout many generations have discovered, experiencing, doing, is necessary for perceptual change to occur (Jean Jacques Rousseauú1712-1778), and learning and growth and development owe their efficiency to slow and inefficient experiencing that has gone on before (Dr. John Lawther).

It is the "slow and inefficient experiencing" that is captured by the 10-year rule concept. When one combines this truth with the complexity (continual decisions in a constantly changing environment) of a soccer game, it becomes apparent that we must allow and provide players time and opportunity to experiment over a long period of time, rather than seeking to accelerate their play by focusing primarily on the outcome of their games.

"Teachers in sports, music and other fields tend to believe that talent matters and that they know it when they see it. In fact, they appear to be confusing ability with precocity."
Sports history is rife with stories of the experts overlooking players who later, by sheer dint of their own will, became great athletes. In basketball, Michael Jordan was dropped from his high school basketball team as a sophomore. In soccer, Johan Cruyff did not draw attention until after his teen years. In fact, across the board, those trying to predict who will be the future stars have a dismal record. For example, studies in England have shown that less than eight percent of the players picked by the experts to play professional soccer, even at age 18, ever made the grade as day-to-day professional players. With this kind of record, it is important that we recognize that we must pour our time, resources and efforts into a much larger pool of players, and not restrict our focus to those we think have "talent" at the early ages.

The various stages of technical, mental, physical and social development do not necessarily coincide within one individual, let alone in a team of individuals. Thus, while certain physically precocious 12 or 13 year olds might be able to outrun others and win games because of their speed, it would be a mistake to attempt to predict future success in the sport based upon this one aspect and stage of development. Worse, it would be foolish to try to define what successful soccer players look like, or try to select "elite" players, based upon their ability to win games because of their precocious development in one or a few areas.

Yet, this is precisely what we do in the United States. Instead of allowing more players to play in environments that require more varied ways than just speed or size to solve game-like problems, we tend to select out those players we deem to be "elite" at too young an age, and then reinforce the use of the precocious attributes they may possess, by putting them on teams with other players who also may have one or a few precocious attributes.

What the 10-year rule should teach us is that more, rather than selected fewer, young players should be exposed to training and playing together. They should be encouraged through smaller field sizes and smaller numbers per side to develop more varied ways to solve the problems the game presents, as well as to develop better technical ability by touching the ball more in game-like situations.

"Ericsson argues that what matters is not experience per se but "effortful study," which entails continually tackling challenges that lie just beyond one's competence. It is interesting to note that time spent playing chess, even in tournaments, appears to contribute less than such study to a player's progress; the main training value of such games is to point up weaknesses for future study."

This confirms the point that it is primarily through training that players learn, not in match or tournament play. Yet, how many youth coaches, as a "training tool" across the country, load up their schedules with pre-season and mid-season tournaments and multiple scrimmages.
Players must be given plenty of opportunities to experiment and fail; to creatively solve problems in ways that are uniquely suited to their temperaments and abilities. They can only do this to a very limited extent in games. The consequences of a failed experiment in a game cause most players to do only what they think will succeed. If they do experiment and fail, there is a great likelihood that they will be sitting on the bench and not playing. As coaches and parents, we must allow time and opportunity for this experimentation to take place. We cannot be guided by wins and losses that really only provide a snapshot at a particular moment, and do not constitute purposeful training. Games, thus, are not the ends in themselves for younger players, they mainly show the weaknesses at that moment, and provide a guide as to what is needed in training. It is the training environment that should constitute most of exposure players have to the game: training and free play, without the specter of winning or losing affecting a season-long record. Consequently, a much larger percentage of our time should be spent in the training environment, rather than loading up the season with extra tournaments and scrimmages.

In today's youth soccer, there is virtually no nonadult organized free play. Kids don't play pick-up soccer the way many of us played various pickup sports in the neighborhood growing up. We may not realize it, but these types of games provide an integral ingredient to the development of top-class athletes. One of the things most of us forget about the neighborhood games we played growing up is that they were, indeed, competitive. Competing to win each day was extremely important, but once today was over, tomorrow was another day, with a new chance to compete, but without the accumulation of a record and standings in a division. This is predominantly what the 10-year environment must be. Opportunities to experiment, to succeed, to fail, to play and to compete.

Another key aspect to the freedom to experiment present in the neighborhood pickup games that we lack in organized youth soccer today is the challenge of playing with and against many different levels and types of players. As kids, when we picked up teams we did not just take the best five and play against the worst five. It wouldn't have been any fun. Instead, we always tried to create even teams, and if one team was winning handily, we would have mid-game drafts to create more even teams. This gave each of us the opportunity to play with and against different players all the time, and we had to adjust, both individually and collectively, as to how we solved the problems of the game depending on who was on our team and against whom we were playing.

This ability to adjust and change the rhythm of play is something we lack in soccer played in the US. This development is all but lost in youth soccer today because the adults controlling youth soccer currently do exactly the opposite from kids playing pickup games. We try to put all the "best" players on one team so that we can win the division, etc. It is the result, not the development, that is paramount.

One of the key aspects to effective training is to continually provide players with different types of challenges that are just beyond their grasp. Because of the varied and free-flowing nature of the game of soccer, doing so in an efficient way requires constant innovation, but also a huge amount of time on the ball in game-like situations for the players. It is mainly through inefficient experimentation that players learn intrinsically and efficiently, and develop the instincts for the game that are activated once they are engaged in full play.

"They had to work things out for themselves, as did Bach, Mozart and Beethoven, and if they fall below today's masters in technique, they tower above them in creative power. The same comparison can be made between Newton and the typical newly minted Ph.D. in physics."
Of major interest for all soccer fans, and really fans of any sport, is to watch an incredibly talented player solve problems in ways no one else has tried before. Highlight reels are loaded with heretofore-unseen feats.

It is interesting to note that some of the greatest players of all time: Pele, Maradona, Cruyff, Platini, Bobby Charlton, etc. were not especially tall players, but each of them was electrifying to watch. Yet, because we tend to focus on the results of games, and selecting future stars out so early, our attention most often turns not to the player with a spark of something unique, but to the physical attributes of the precocious "early bloomers." While this may seem to reinforce collective efficiency at a given time, because of the nature of development, it ends up placing a premium on being bigger, faster and stronger, and eschewing the creative methods that less physically precocious athletes use to solve the problems of the game. In addition to bypassing many future potential stars, this focus also causes the "selected" players, in these very crucial years of their development, to learn to be successful by using a very rudimentary, direct style of play.

Soccer is a game played on a relatively large field. Arguments for years have centered on trying to make the field and the numbers per side smaller. Unfortunately, even though strides have been made in these areas, fields generally tend to be too large for younger players. This often results in footraces to balls driven into spaces that are mostly won by the bigger, stronger and faster players. Thus, in the formative years when they could be put in smaller environments that require them to solve problems by developing many different tools, these players are rewarded for relying almost exclusively on their precocious attributes. Thus, they learn to be efficient, direct players, but don't develop the creativity to work out different problems of the game for themselves.

"Motivation appears to be a more important factor than innate ability in the development of expertise."
This statement is immensely important, because it affects both the type of players we develop, as well as whom we develop. First, as to the type of players we develop, by placing such importance on the physically precocious player, we motivate those players to perpetuate the physical and direct style and method of play. The premium placed on winning games and having successful seasons actually diminishes any motivation for players to experiment, or try to solve a problem through guile or indirect and crafty play, because of the penalty for failure.

Two crucial aspects of the game at the higher levels are patience and concentration. Because success based upon physical prowess often results in promoting direct play, players up through the mid-teen years often have never developed the patience or the concentration to hold possession of the ball beyond three or four passes, and certainly do not have the foresight to use the ball to draw opponents into certain parts of the field so that they can exploit the spaces they create. This sort of patience, concentration, guile, and using the ball as the ultimate decoy are not even considerations for most teenaged players. Most of it is due directly to what has been the reason they have been "selected" and the continual motivation throughout their earlier years: success through physical, direct and efficient play.

The second issue of motivation is "who" is motivated to continue to play. It is well-known that in youth sports generally, approximately 70% of all athletes at age 12 stop playing sports altogether by age 13. Why? Most of it comes back to intrinsic motivation. Players entering their teen years are like all teenagers, they are beginning to search for their identities, and they also start to realize that they do have choices about how to spend their time. Why is there such a rise in "extreme" sports in this country? Could it be that these sports provide teens with a way to express themselves and solve problems in unique ways, without the constant prodding from adults to do things in certain, prescribed ways?

Another fact, of which many are unaware is that almost 75% of physically precocious athletes only develop into mediocre athletes. By focusing all of our "special" attention at ages 9-14 primarily on these players, we are missing many players, who, though they are not precocious, could ultimately be the great athletes when they mature. Yet, currently, we provide them with very little motivation to continue, focusing most off our attention on those we deem to be "serious" players.

A 13 year old searching for affirmation as he or she begins to go through tremendous changes physically, mentally and emotionally, is generally not going to be motivated to continue in an area where he or she may not be successful because he or she has not grown enough yet, or may have grown too much too quickly and is temporarily awkward. Yet, instead of focusing on providing intrinsic motivation for more and more young teens to play, we adults do just the opposite, seek to select out those we perceive to be "elite" for success.

"A 1999 study of professional soccer players from several countries showed that they were much more likely than the general population to have been born at a time of year that would have dictated their enrollment in youth soccer leagues at ages older than the average. In their early years, these children would have enjoyed a substantial advantage in size and strength when playing soccer with their teammates."

The study referenced above showed that the vast majority of successful players were born in the first half of the year. Since we place such a premium on physical prowess between the ages of 9 and 14, this makes sense. It is at these ages that there is the greatest diversity in development. For a 14 year old, six months can make a huge difference in physical development. Every parent can relate to the fact that at these ages they have to constantly buy larger clothes and shoes. Most kids born in the second half of the calendar year, therefore, are at a distinct disadvantage having to compete with players born in the first half of the year.

Our current push to select Olympic Development Program players at younger ages exacerbates this problem. While we are legitimately searching for ways to increase our ultimate level of play, our efforts in this instance, hurt us more than helps us. We have decided that the solution lies in finding and identifying players at younger and younger ages. There is a Under-14 National Team, for which players must be chosen from Under-12 Regional teams. Thus, at the very ages when we should be expanding the pool of players for development, we are shrinking it, based upon the faulty premise that we can identify the future stars at 13 years old.

The issues for youth soccer development in this country are huge, but not insurmountable. To be sure, the solutions will require nothing less than a paradigm shift. All of the modern organization and viewpoints notwithstanding, the nature of how kids learn has not changed. If we truly want to develop players who can play on a world level, and a society that enjoys the game as much as the rest of the world, we have to recognize, embrace and utilize these truths. Otherwise, we will perpetually be pushing the rock up the same hill, only to have it roll back down again.