To play or not to play school ball....

This is almost like to be or not to be. And yes, that is the question. Yet, the answer is not that difficult and not at all philosophical. Many have accused me of not being a friend of School Ball, which I must admit that I am not.
For many years I have waited for improvements and watched as unqualified school coaches destroyed the players under their tutelage and tried to reduce them to running machines and track stars. I also watched the all knowing parent sitting on the sidelines gleaming with pride as their son or daughter was part of the team, varsity or other, and not for one second realizing that their children are physically, biologically and mentally being destroyed by the man or woman calling himself or herself a coach. In reality the parents validate the regression of their children with the process of having his/her name appear in the newspaper after a goal scored so that the whole neighborhood could see it. There is very little regard for mental, physical, tactical and technical development of the pupil, as everything is measured in winning and loosing.
But, before I further immerse myself in this kind of criticism, I would like to state that not all school coaches are of this ilk. There are a handful, that actually know the game, and are able to transfer their knowledge of the game to the players. Unfortunately, the school system makes it virtually impossible to have qualified coaches coach school teams as they are in constant competition with anyone in the district that "wants" to coach. I wonder if we would apply the same philosophy to the music class, and the math teacher would teach piano lessons how would parents react. Perhaps the same way, perhaps they would realize that the math teacher has never played the piano and has no qualifications as a pianist to teach future prospects on the workings of this instrument.
I believe that the fundamental skill of a coach is to know whether a player can play or not and, if he can, in which position. Also, the coach should have the ability to identify weaknesses and know how these can be corrected. Tactically they should know how to select the best team, see how the game develops and change things when necessary during a match, (substitute players, swap positions, change the game-plan, etc.) I disagree with the notion that the most important consideration for a coach is to be a good teacher. Having the knowledge in the first place is the vital thing. If you are an expert in something, even if you are poor at getting your ideas across, there will always be something that will hold the attention of the trainees. This is a very rare phenomenon in school soccer at least in the Hudson Valley.

On the other hand, if you have very little knowledge, but you are a good teacher, what are you going to teach? (Sounds familiar) on this point I will refer to Dr. Lev Matveiev, a professor of Theory of Physical Education and Sport in Moscow; he said, "The qualities needed to be an athlete or a coach are very different. You can only be a good coach if you got the aptitude and at the same time a willingness to spend all your life trying to perfect and learn, which is just what a great athlete has to do, as coaching is a very difficult and demanding job. These qualities will allow you to appreciate just how difficult it is working in sports. That said, you will only be able to achieve a certain level of awareness, if you do not have the gift of "gut feeling" or "instinct". I would say this is virtually impossible to achieve unless you have taken an active part in sports as a youngster.

Having said all this, I still believe that a soccer coach needs to have been a soccer player. This does not imply a professional level, but at least at a good collegiate level. Many will disagree and point to the NSCA and try to persuade people that there are many coaches who have never played but by attaining a diploma and a license are now qualified to coach. Some, a few could be right. Having been a player doesn't automatically mean you will be a good coach. You also need a certain aptitude and other qualities that come with experience and study. However; those who have never played soccer and those from individual sports, judged by time or distance, will never fully be able to appreciate the anticipation, tricks, cunning, imagination and the synchronization of movement that characterize team sports.

As far as soccer is concerned, such "coaches" won't have an intimate and profound knowledge of the game (the skills, judging situations, positioning and moving, anticipation and above all the creativity), which is the fundamental requirement needed in order to be able to teach others. They will be unable to share any knowledge with others, if they themselves have not experienced it. It is my conviction that progressiveness was invented to hide all the bad coaches and teachers! With the motto of just make them run and make them strong, they will find the answers themselves. This is a grave error and it must be avoided at all cost.

Coming to the end of my essay, I strongly urge all of you, my readers, to hold up the above described criteria to the person claiming the title of "coach" and it they posses the qualities needed by all means encourage your sons and daughters to play for this coach and team. On the other hand, if the coach fits the negative criteria delineated save your child from this novice and don't fall into the trap of "school representation at any cost", as this will regress your child and very possible cost them a scholarship in this sport down the line.