This article was originally provided to the Soccer-Coach-L list by Coach Perrone Ford.  It consists of Perrone's compilations of his and other coaches' submissions to the Soccer-Coach-L e-mail list about tryouts.  Over the past few years I have updated some of the responses with new links and information.  Ken Gamble

Table of Contents

Ken Gamble dsports@hiwaay.net
      Bruce Brownlee of the Tophat Gold Soccer Club was nice enough to allow me to re-post his article, "Try-out Season - Success and Failure". It has been one of the most requested articles. Bruce does a great job of covering the job of successfully running soccer try-outs.  Click on link below to go to Bruce's article.

"Tryout Season - Success and Failure" by Bruce Brownlee

Some suggestions from Richie:

• Dribble in one direction then have then reverse their field and dribble. See if they can do that effortlessly first in one direction then the other then back again.
• Two touch push pass with a partner and then one touch push pass with a partner. See if the receiver has to move left or right to get to the ball.
• Pair players one throws to foot, then to the shin control side of the foot, toss in the air thigh trap, then at the stomach, then at the chest, and at the head all of this ends with a ball passed one or two touches or headed back to the throwers feet, and then go back down the ladder. Then other teammate goes.
• A few minutes of individual, then group juggling.
• Monkey in the middle, (4-1) then (5-2)See who is hustling. Look at their decision making, is the pass away from pressure or is it a forced pass into pressure.
• Square pass drill 4 corners 3 attackers 1 defender so one corner is always open. Push them to play faster. Defender must win the ball to get out not just knock it away. Again look at their decision making, is the pass into space or at the receiver, and is the receiver moving before the pass is made.
• Make 2 goals 35 yards from each other. Use keepers 1 defender against 2 attackers going one way then reverse using defender as an attacker with another attacker and new defender going the other way. look at everything even your defender and the keeper
• Play 1 v1 same field same idea with two keeper in this as well. Then can make that steal the bacon. Play is not over until you say it is over 2 foot goals no keeper. Look for second and third efforts. No guarding the goals.
• Spread players around perimeter of the field spaced with one goal and keeper. Dribbler goes around the field wall passing to perimeter players then he shoots on keeper. Very tiring for the dribbler see what kind of shoot he puts on the keeper. As soon as first player makes the first pass send the next person from the perimeter. After the first player shoots he goes in the perimeter.
• Players 8 yards out on both sides of the dribbler angled. Make sure those player are not even with each other. Dribbler passes to left player and moves for return pass then passes to right side player, etc. then have a post up player with back to goal and use a keeper. Post up back lays ball off on the last pass back to the dribbler for a shot. Speed of play is what you are looking for, thought behind his passes and his finish.
• Then 3-3 with a 2 foot goals no keeper and no laying back and protecting the goal. Man mark only. See if they are disciplined enough to stay with their player, and see if attackers know how to move without the ball. You do not want players standing around always moving to create space for teammates. Then see if teammates recognize that space and fill it in.
• Then 5 v 5 with 2 goals and 2 keepers.
• If you have more players break team up and play
• Then when their really tired a "short" suicide drill 5 yard sprint and back, 10yard sprint and back, 20 yrd sprint and back etc to 50 yard then back down the ladder.
• Then stretching one last jog around the field and more stretching
• Don't choose players in just one practice.
• Bad vibe about a player trust it and let him go.

From: "Bachey, Tom" TBachey@CINERGY.COM

       I saw the note below and had to put my $0.02 in. I do not coach during a try out. The players are there to show off, not for me to work with them. I feel like if I coach them, then if I do not do the same coaching for every player, another player may feel slighted. What I do is talk to the players, joke with the players, pass back and forth with players, with a ball at my feet I ask them if they can do this move or that move, anything to get them to interact with me, not to gauge their skill but to gage their motivation, interpersonal skills, their ideas and reasons for wanting to play - the psychological and mental aspects of their game. I picked up a great player from a better team just because her impression of me was friendly and helpful. Her skills were great but if she will interact with me, she will interact well with our team. Would I have taken her if she was very quiet or withdrawn, or maybe loud and bossy during her try out? I have dropped shy players and I have dropped "loud" players, even with better skills, because I saw something that did not match with my team, at that time. Now, after digressing, I do not like to coach during a try out and I cringe when I watch other coaches do it. But that's just me.

        I might clarify that I am talking of U-12 and under. I do not coach during try outs for older players, either, like U-14. And maybe that is a separate question. How do other coaches look at the psychological and mental aspects of a player during try outs, rather than just the physical? Is "coachability" high on the criteria list, or "team player"? You can't put a team full of take-on artists on the field, or can you? The real question is, what is the purpose of the try out? These and many other questions need to answered before you step on the field.

From: David Graham dgraham@MUN.CA
 

At 10:54 am -0500 31/3/00, Bachey, Tom wrote:
>of a player during try outs, rather than just the physical? Is "coach-ability" high on the criteria list, or "team player"? You can't put a team full of take-on artists on the field, or can you? The real question is, what is the purpose of the try out? These and many other questions need to answered before you step on the field.

David Graham's response:

     Of the four dimensions normally assessed during tryouts, I would rate the ease of assessing each in this order, from easiest to assess to hardest to assess:

<--- easier --------- harder ------>

technical, physical, tactical, mental

      The mental dimension (including 'coach-ability' and 'team player' attributes) is the very devil to assess in a short tryout, in my experience. Like Richie, and unlike Tom, I will sometimes coach briefly during a tryout (both to stress 'key factors' for the group as a whole and to correct 'individual faults'). I do this for the following reasons: it helps to get all the players on the same page and gives the players a clearer idea of what I'm looking for, and it allows me to see how individual players respond to coaching. If I make a correction and then see a player attempting to implement what I've demonstrated, it tells me a lot about how well that player should do as a member of the team (at which point s/he will be subjected to a steady diet of coaching :-).

From: Gene Schwartzman <emagene@EROLS.COM>

Here's my true and tried method...

      First day... break them up into 3v3 or 4v4 groups. Have a set number of fields ranked 1-? (? = number you need to have all groups playing). #1 field will eventually end up with the best players. Have an evaluator at each field. Have the groups play for 5-7 minutes. At the end of the time interval, move the two weakest players down a field, move the two strongest players up 1 field. Do this at every field. At the top most field, move only the two weakest, at the bottom most field, move only the two strongest. Do this enough times to make sure everyone has had a fair chance to move up/down. You will need enough rotations so that everyone at the weakest field has had the chance to move to the strongest field (though not necessarily it will happen). You can always cut it short if it looks like things have stalled and there's no more determination that needs to be made. At the worst case scenario, you're looking at about 10-12 rotations @ 5 minutes each = 60 minutes. Water break after every 3 rotations and you add another 15 minutes... total less than 1.5 hours. At the end of the day you will have the best 12-16 players at the first 2 fields (as observed). This will give you an idea who is good in small sided situation - passing, positioning, etc...

      Second day.... 1v1 challenge ladder, enough goals to be able to have everyone play at the same time. Players play 1v1 for 2 minutes against 1 goal. The winner moves up a goal, the loser moves down... Self evaluating process that determines aggressiveness, quickness, stamina, individual ball skills, etc... What will usually happen is that you will have 80-90% of the same top players as from first day... The first 6-8 goals will have the best 12-16 players. Of those, 10-12 are now no-brainers and are set. The bottom 2-4 need further evaluation. The whole set shouldn't take more than 1-1.5 hours.

       Third day... full sided scrimmage as you will be playing in your league. Have the 2-4 from the prior days play half the scrimmage together and half the scrimmage separate to see if any of them stand out. About 1 hour...

       Using this method on 4 different tryouts, I have been right about 90% of the players every single time. Some players wind up being project players but for most part, I hit the right players dead on.

        I call this, a "Self-evaluating" tryout. I don't really do anything other than observe and the players play against each other and the ones who want it most and try the hardest will be the ones who win and will be the ones who are picked... it's as simple as that. If you need more detailed explanations, please let me know off line.

     I have had tryouts for U-12 and U-14 boys travel teams and have a couple (few) of insights.
     First, you want to have several people (2-3) help you for time constraints as well as to get different insights, perspectives, and to avoid parental complications from singularly attempting to make the selections. Basically do what ever you can to avoid the perception that you had some bias or preconceived notion of who you were going to select beforehand; believe me this saves a lot of headache. I like to have some timed, objective component to the tryouts, i.e.. timed distance runs, sprints, or cone-dribbling. I have also attempted to assess juggling and ball-trapping but find this to be of less value due to the difficulty to give consistent, fair serves to trap and I'm not sure that the player that can juggle the ball the most is going to be the most deserving soccer player.
      Secondly, set you rules/guidelines for the number of tryouts that a player must attend, the dates, the selection process and STICK TO THEM. Do not allow any exceptions even if you know the player from previous experience. I have gotten into more trouble trying to take into account family vacations, conflicts, etc. and have found that the players that want to be on the team and have the commitment to your team for the season will find a way to be there.
     Thirdly, I would give a majority of the tryout time to small sided or even 1v1 games. Assessing how players interact as teammate, as well as observing their skills in game-type situations is crucial. You can also pick-up on negative interpersonal relations which I find most important in a successful and enjoyable team. I have never tried this, but will next time, the suggestion by someone else here on setting up a progressive 4v4 situation where you continually move the 2 more talented players up to the next grid which eventually allows you to group the players of equal talent together and gets the hard picks together in the middle grids allowing you to better assess them. I'm sure others can describe this setup better than I have.
     Lastly, make your decisions in a timely manner and notify EVERYONE as to the outcome.

Have them dribble in a group and watch to see who avoids collisions, accelerates into open space (give general directions), or better do some 1 v1 stuff.

From: Shelborne Fung famfung.sr@WORLDNET.ATT.NET

     I am looking for a good shooting activity for U12 Boys tryouts.
    Our other activities will be 2-4 person activities which seek to demonstrate a player's receiving, passing, dribbling, and defending skills. There will also be 2v2, 3v3, and 4v4 small-sided games.
    When it comes to evaluating shooting skills, I don't feel comfortable in extrapolating shooting ability from small-sided games and grids to shooting on a real goal, so I'm looking for an efficient activity which uses a full-sized goal and focuses on a player's ability to shoot under pressure. The drawback that I see in a standard 4 v 4 or 5 v 5 using half a field is that while there are shots on goal under pressure, in a 15 minute game there might be only 15 shots on goal and not everyone will have taken a shot.
    The one activity that I think comes close is 1 GK, 1 defender starting in the goal area, 1 defender starting at the center line, and 1 attacker with the ball halfway between the top of the Penalty Area and the center line.
    Anyone have other tryout shooting activities they like that fit the bill?

From: Jflowder Jflowder@AOL.COM

     One idea is to hold a series of 2-3 hour clinics which include skill drills (during which you can observe and rate individual players) such as passing, trapping, and dribbling, and end up with an hour or two of continuous small sided play.

     The reason to hold long and arduous (but fun) practice-clinics is to get a jump on physical conditioning, get more than a one-day look at your potential players, and identify those players who really want to play. At the end of two hours, the real players will still be having a great time and want more. The attitude problems will want to quit and begin to weed themselves out.

     The idea of continuous small sided play is to divide all the players into teams of three to four players each, and set up enough fields so that at LEAST two of every three teams (if not four of every five teams) are playing at any moment. Play every game to a score of one and let the winning team stay on the field. The teams are small enough that you can observe (and rate) everything that goes on, see how the players transition back and forth from offense to defense, see how players with and without the ball use the green spaces and support their team mates both offensively and defejnsively, and see who can dribble, accelerate, tackle, etc.

 

     Have done tryouts for a couple of seasons using method picked up off this list last year and IT WORKS. You should be able to find it in archives but here is GENERAL overview (there are a few "but ifs" that need to be added)

    Play 3 v 3 on SMALL fields with 2 evaluators per field. random assign kids to fields to start and number fields 1 through however many you need. after each 5 min, two kids from each field except last one move DOWN and 2 kids from all except first move UP.

     Looking at 18 kids, you need 3 small fields (1/3 of gym will do) random assign, run for 5 min, move kids, run again, move kids, run again, move kids. By this time, you should have your best 6 on the top field, worst on the lowest, and questionables in the middle. Add more fields (or even "holding areas" as required and space and evaluators allow.

 

     The best advice that I got on running tryouts came from this list (of course!) and that was the concept of running multiple concurrent 4v4 (3v3, 5v5) games. We did three (call them field 1, 2 and 3). The coach posted originally recommended five (which required more coaches and players than I had).

     The concept is to play 3-4 minutes of soccer and then rotate players up or down according to their play. I minded field 2 so I sent one up and one down (to field 3). Field 1 can only send one down and field 3 can only send one up. You play this until every player can rotate fully through the fields. We used this as the rough cut for selection. Then we had specific skill based tests as well as a timed sprint to provide additional data. Basically when it was all said and done it was clear that everyone that landed on field 1 was a "player" and this was fairly clear as well on field 2. Players on field 3 required a careful look at their scores on skills. In a perfect world we probably would not have taken field 3 players unless they had exceptional scores on the more static skills tests.

 

Brian wrote:

" We finished tryouts about a month ago. U12 girls this year. I used pretty much the same drills the last several years. We have about 50 girls show up each year for two teams. The first day of tryouts we assign each player a numbered jersey. After doing a bit of warm up drills we break the players into six groups of eight and play 4v4 keep away. You have an evaluator at each grid and rotate the players every 10-15 minutes. That way each player evaluated by each evaluator. With the remaining time in the session I will usually do a 1v1 drill from the post to identify any players that know how to score and also who knows how to defend. After the first day of tryouts all the scores are input into a spreadsheet and a rank order is made. I then take the top 8-10 with the bottom 8-10 and put them in a couple of 8v8 games for the second day with an evaluator at each grid confirming our original assessment of these players. The middle group of players battle it out in two more 8v8 games where you will have multiple evaluators concentrating on making the key decisions.

Through these games we are able to identify the players that have the athletic ability and some technical skills."

From: "Timothy F. Garrity" tgarrity@CSRLINK.NET

Re: setting up a progressive 4v4

>situation where you continually move the 2 more talented players up to the
>next grid which eventually allows you to group the players of equal talent
>together and gets the hard picks together in the middle grids allowing you
>to better assess them. I'm sure others can describe this setup better than
>I have.

A variation on this is called Kings and Aces:

     Say you have 24 players. Take a deck of cards, dealing out the 4 aces, 4 kings, 4 queens, etc till you have the first 6 suits = 24 cards. Shuffle the deck and deal them out to the players. On three micro or 4x4 fields, the Aces play the Kings, the Queens play the Jacks, and the 10's play the 9's. Play series of 5 minute games. Using your roster, next to each player's name score 3 points for a win, 1 point for a tie, no points for a loss. If you have an odd man out, put a joker in the deck and give him 2 points as his score for the round he missed. Shuffle and deal again after each round. Play several rounds and the total scores will reveal the players who were most successful in small sided games.

     You could then modify your format to set up matches between players with similar abilities. As you say, you would probably focus your attention on players with middle-range scores.

     This format is fun and gives you an objective scoring basis for your selection decisions.

Many good suggestions have been posted. In addition to individual skill, I always like to get a long look at players when they do not have the ball. In other words, what is the player doing or not doing as the 2nd and 3rd defender or attacker. This will require something near a full-sided scrimmage.

There are many players that exhibit some good individual skill - this also is the easiest part of the game to teach. What a player is doing off the ball reveals their soccer intelligence and instincts - which is the most difficult part of the game to teach.

Give me a player that's making runs, creating and using space and supporting the other members of the team. Finally, pay attention to players that put it in the net even if they may not display some of the best skills. Find the players that have the skill to score - some of the most skilled players are cursed as finishers.

Scott Zettlemoyer
Los Alamitos, CA, USA

One additional suggestion for tryouts: always (if you are trying out players for an outdoor team ) include something that puts players in the same kind of space they will see when they are on the pitch.

After years of running tryouts for club, high school, odp and amateur state select teams, i can tell you that there are players that were born to play indoor. They shine in small spaces, but truly struggle to cover ground in the outdoor game. If you are looking for the best at a given moment, put small numbers in a large space and see who looks as good or better than they do in the small spaces.

My typical tryouts include:

1v1 to keepers 36 yd x 44 yd big goals

2v2 to small goals 15 yd x 25 yd (keepers play too!)

4v4 to large goals - no keepers 44 yd x 1/2 field

4v4/5v5 mark your own to large goals w/keepers 1/2 field

4v4/5v5 to large goals w/keepers 36 yd x 44 yd

8v8 plus keepers full field large goals no sweepers allowed

One player with a poor attitude can disrupt practices, games, and basically can have a negative influence on a whole team. I'm sure we've all had these players on our teams. I think I'm going to look for any signs of poor attitude, poor listening skills, and poor direction following, etc. during tryouts. We'll be doing them on 2 different days so if a player has one bad day, we can take that into account. I know it will be easier to weed out the problem player than it will be to deal with him later. Been there, done that. :)

Nothing is as important as letting ALL those who tried out know the results of their efforts within a reasonable period of time - possibly not to exceed 1 week after the final tryouts.

 

From Ken Gamble:

       I was in the process of updating the excellent work that Perrone Ford did in compiling the many submissions on player selections - tryouts - when I noticed that there was little information in the submissions about evaluating the important components of Speed, Agility and Quickness.

      I thought I would note what I do and then see what you guys have to offer. I'm sure that everyone does this a little differently.

     I rely on a combination of several tests at tryouts to evaluate speed. Most of these also measure desire, competitiveness and brains.

1. Several times during tryouts I'll have the candidates run around an object a good distance away (200 yards or more) and come back to the starting point. I don't time them with a stopwatch, but rather rate them compared to the other players, i.e., Top 3, Top 10, Middle of the pack, Dragging up the rear. I make sure to do this when they're tired as well as when they're fresh.

2. I'll run knock-out races. In the knock-out races, we have a set of cones set at 30 yards from the starting line. There are two less cones than players. On "GO" the players race to get a cone and come back.  Those who don't get a cone are "knocked-out".   Two more cones are removed, the cones are reset and the players race again.  This goes on until only two remain and then they race for the one remaining cone.  Players are rated 1 if they are knocked out in the first round, 2 if knocked out in the second round, etc..  Higher numbers relate to faster, fitter players.  I also occasionally skew the cones to one end of the line or the other on some races to watch positioning and see which players move around to get to the easiest (least competitive) cones. 

3. Reverse knock-out races - Players sprint a certain distance (usually 20 - 30 yards) and touch a line (or cone) and race back to the starting line. The fastest two racers drop out. The race is repeated until there are only the two slowest players left.  I don't do another round so as not to embarrass and label one player as the slowest.  Again I rank them.  The winners of the first race get 10 points.  The winners of the second race get 9 points, et. al.    Higher numbers relate to faster players. 

These races don't related to speed with the ball.  I'll run a lot of cone relays to assess the ability to make quick runs and sharp cuts.  But a lot of the time in a game a player doesn't possess the ball and pure speed becomes important.

Update from Perrone (5/20/2003)

I have moved my tryout process (again) to almost totally objective testing. I must admit that I have become somewhat enamored of the standards based measurements employed by UNC and the WNT. To that end, I use several nationally and internationally recognized tests now for assessing speed, quickness, and agility.

These include:

1. 40 Yard Dash (pure test of speed)
2. Standing broad jump (test of lower body explosiveness)
3. 120 yard dash and return(anerobic speed and recovery)
4. 300 yard shuttles (aerobic and anaerobic work capacity
5. Illinois Agility test (measured agility in a repeatable way)
6. Cooper Run (pure aerobic fitness test)

Each of these test tell me a little more about the puzzle of player
physicality and potential for performance. However, the greatest benefit to them is that they are absolutely repeatable and measurable. For tryouts this is paramount. When mom wants to know why her kid didn't make the squad, I can hold up a chart of all players, show her where her kid fell in the index of tested performance and erase all doubts. These physical performances are charted year round and are included on player assessments so that the parents and players can see their progress. For those who are interested in pursuing ODP or college play, these standards can then be held up against the national team standards or those at UNC.

I cannot even BEGIN to explain the powerful motivating power it has when you measure performance and tell a kid, you just ran a faster 120 than Cindy Parlow did as a Freshman, or you just did a longer standing broad jump than Mia Hamm did at UNC. Even though I closed my team a week ago for the season, I've got players doing UNC's summer workout packet on their own at Gold's Gym!

For those so interested in these standards, I'd suggest picking up a copy of Anson's latest book, "The Vision of a Champion", and Lauren Gregg's book, "Champion Within". Gregg's book is particularly helpful because it contains some historical performance standards from the WNT and it contains some U19 national standards. For those of you coaching boys who think this doesn't apply, I suggest you taking out your boys team for a cooper run or doing
7-10 120s and charting the times. Tell them, lets see if you can beat
girl's times and see if that gets them motivated!

Ken, good timing on this as many of us are gearing up for assessments again. This will be the first time I've used primarily objective scoring methods to choose my team, or at least to eliminate players. They will be scored on physical speed, strength, technical skill (scored), and tactical awareness (subjective). Being able to do tryouts with three objective criteria and only one subjective one, takes out guesswork, and removes the calls of bias from zealot parents.

-Perrone

From: Carl Root rootfamily@EROLS.COM

Let's say we're trying out U-10s.

1) Timed sprints and shuttle runs. (Have you ever noticed the high correlation between speed and motivation?)

2) Kicking for accuracy and distance. Moving ball and free kick. Test both feet!

3) Dribbling around cones or flags. Varying the size, distance and direction helps them look ahead.

4) 4 v 4 games. Put the top eight together, the next eight in the next game, etc. Promote and demote players unobtrusively.

With 40 players competing for 16 slots, make a first cut. This process should take several sessions. Also, give them a decision date and stick to it.

Play a full-sided scrimmage (no larger than 8 v 8, I hope). Try 'already-made-it' versus 'on-the bubble'. See who steps up. Lop-sided games could also reveal attitude problems.

You want coachable kids, so teach them something, say the push pass. How well do they pick up on fast footwork, plant foot placement, willingness to use weak foot, etc.. You are also selling yourself if they are considering other teams.

Another idea for any age group is a 2 v 2 tournament. Teams are randomly formed for each 5-minute game. You need team data from lots of games to be fair.

One of the reasons for the timed events and scored games is to justify your selections to players and parents. Hard numbers help to soften hurt feelings. Mishandling this issue can cause you more pain than any other as a coach. Without those hard numbers, you may be inclined to make selection compromises that you could later regret.

Some very good players and their families will not have anticipated your expected level of commitment. Define it before you make your selections.

From: Gary Rue Gary.Rue@MAIL.STATE.KY.US

The criteria I would look for in a young GK would be:

* how well do they catch a ball; does that inherent ability exist sans proper GK technique

* how quick are they and how do they respond to change of direction; i.e., athleticism and balance

* do you detect an air of fearlessness or the willingness to meet a direct physical challenge

* size; not the major factor, but certainly a tie breaking consideration

I like to run a modified GK training session where I do a LITTLE teaching as well as evaluation. I want to see how well the player can adapt to technical changes in catching and movement.

An example session would be:

* pass and catch in pairs; warm-up the arms and shoulders with over hand throws (both wings), then move to volley and half volley kicks. Intersperse lateral movement across the field or some other marked area with pass and catch (vary the tosses at each turn; i.e., toss to the chest, toss above the head, ground balls)

* with one partner moving backwards rolling the ball to alternating sides, the partner runs through ground ball pick ups; change to knee-high, chest-high and above head tosses to the sides in this same format

* in pairs, volley kick a high ball to your partner

* with U12's, the diving technique may be far from developed; some fundamental training may be required to move the players to a stage in which you can review them; this fundamental training could include diving from a squat, semi-squat and standing position

* in pairs, toss the ball gently to one side of the GK for a collapse save, then to other side, with the server slowly walking backwards exhorting the GK to dive forward

* in pairs, toss the ball to the same side (3-5 reps) as the GK makes the save, gets up and makes the save again; reverse direction for the same number of reps

* with the GK in the goal mouth (real or imaginary), have servers on each side; the GK must move to one post for a toss or shot save, move to the opposite post for a shot save, repeat series for at least 2 reps; add a server in the middle and have the GK move from post to middle (3 yards in front of the goalline) to the opposite post, making a save each time; lastly, the three servers can shoot or pass the ball to one another, causing the GK move across the goalmouth

* finish with a shooting exercise on a real goal where the GK must deal with many shots

Note, this is a fairly comprehensive session and not too much time can be spent in any phase. After watching the initial warm-ups, I would have some idea of what areas I needed to focus on for evaluation. In some cases, a one on one with a server delivering different balls to a GK may be enough to assess the GK's ability to catch and move.

War story: One fall, we had U19 tryouts for the spring season. We had several GKs from neighboring counties. In our fairly strenuous exercises, one these GKs showed aggressiveness, fearlessness and good catching ability. That next spring, when I started training this particular GK, I couldn't get him to dive, even at the most fundamental of training stages. He would take 5 adjustment steps when we worked on footwork in different situations. His main saving technique in games was a foot first, cleats up dive into the ball (and attacker). This was the most frustrating time I have ever experienced as a coach. None of the evaluators from that fall tryout can figure out what happened between the tryout and the next spring and how we made such a big mistake with this kid.

 

From: "Hood, Peter" HOODP@TC.GC.CA

I have to evaluate about 8-10 GKs for an U13 Girls competitive team. Many of the candidates have probably played only recreational soccer and only periodically in goal. I propose to test/evaluate each through the following drills:

1. Shot stopping: 10 balls distributed about 12 yds away from the goal on a line from one edge of the penalty area to the other 10 balls distributed along the 18 yd line

* shooter shoots as soon as GK makes save

* focus is on technique (hands, feet, body position, etc.)

* quickness

* ability to play the angle

2. Low - High: 2 pylons about 12 ft apart with a player stationed about 6 yds in front of each pylon with 5 balls. GK stands between pylons

* 1st player plays a ball on ground towards pylon, GK must attempt to stop, as soon as ball is touched the GK gets to feet ready to save waist high toss towards 2nd pylon from player facing that pylon.

* focus on GK reaction, quickness and agility

3. 1 v 1: player dribbles toward goal (no shot) - GK must attempt to take ball away.

4. Musical Soccer: have GKs shuffle or side step around centre circle. There's one less ball than GKs. At whistle they each attempt to get a ball. 1 GK eliminate - take away a ball and repeat. Continue until only one GK.

* focus - aggressiveness, quickness, hands - also a bit of fun

5. Kicking: - 5 goal kicks

- 5 punts

- 5 long throws

Is this too much to expect from U13 Girls? Are there any better drills to test their skills? I would rather get a good athletically inclined player with the courage and basic catching ability ( tall too, if possible) who can be taught rather than a more skilled but athletically limited player.
 

From: Dennis Mueller dmueller@PPPL.GOV

If these are really inexperienced keepers, you will need to teach whichever ones you take a lot about keeping, especially, collapsing to the side, diving, distribution, dealing with crosses and stopping breakaways. I would concentrate on finding the following:

Make sure whoever you select can make easy saves.

Make sure whoever you accept does not like letting a goal in, but doesn't break out in tears either.

Look for players with courage.

Look for players who will attempt athletic saves.

Look for players with good hands, BB players often have an edge here.

Look for players who can judge a flighted ball, softball players are often good here.

Of these things, I think courage, good hands and athleticism are most important in that order. Courage is an inherent trait, but can be improved by desensitization. Good soft hands can be learned, but not by all, so pick the best you have . All else being equal. the most athletic will get to the ball quickest.

The "tests" you list will test these things, but you need to look for the raw talent the prospects exhibit, not just which is the "best" keeper today. For instance, in test 1; look for the girl who catches hard shots, not the girl who is well-positioned and can deflect shots, but never catches them. In test 3, look for the girl who will challenge the dribbler, not the one who waits for the dribbler to make an unforced error. Test 4 could be good to test courage and atheleticism. Test 2 is probably pretty tough on the keepers and except for demonstrating who is the most athletic, will probably not add much to the tryout (but it could be a good training exercise).

Test 5 will point out if you have a girl who can distribute the ball a great distance, but it will not tell you about their decisions or accuracy, both of which are at least equally important. I would at least try to add accuracy as part of this.

 

From: Shelborne Fung famfung.sr@WORLDNET.ATT.NET

Don Friedel Jr. wrote:

>I will, every time, pick a player with lesser skills and better work ethic
>and attitude -- As they get older, either the 'gifted' athlete adjusts to
>having to work hard also, or they get passed by all those 'lesser' players
>they made fun of. The real joy is getting a 'gifted' athlete who works
>harder than anyone else!

Don,

In the context of tryouts, how do you go about identifying work ethic and attitude? As has been discussed on this list before, identifying the bottom third group of players in a tryout is not difficult. Discussion usually centers around ranking the middle third. But as I read your post, your point is even more appropriate for the upper third - players with clearly superior technical skills (hard to fake that even in tryouts) but possibly wanting in work ethic and attitude (easy to fake in tryouts).

 

From: "Donald A. Friedel Jr." dfriedel@INETPORT.COM

I think sometimes you can see it in tryouts, depending on the drills/scrimmages etc. you set up. We tried to put the players into situations where they would succeed and where they would fail, in an attempt to see how they handled both. I think one good way is to notice their effort during a drill, particularly one which is not directly competitive, and their effort during a scrimmage or direct competitive drill. Those that look good in the scrimmage, but seem to barely manage in other, less competitive drills, are probably lacking in some work ethic. (The will to win is important, but the will to prepare is vital)

In addition, many of them were already known to us since they were coming from the same rec program we had been coaching in. You notice the better technical players, and you also notice how they interact with their teammates, opponents, coaches and officials. We also ran several sprints during tryouts, partially to determine the faster players (both at the start and end of a practice, to get a handle on their endurance), and how the players react to yet another sprint can be telling. We actually had one player (this is U11 tryouts at the end of the rec season, so players are 9 and 10) swear (an eye-opening one) about having to do one the drills we had planned - definitely a ticky mark on his tryout form!

In summary, I'd guess (from my limited experience) that getting a group of unknown kids at a tryout, you're probably going to be somewhat limited in how much you can tell about work ethic and attitude, it's much better if you've been able to observe many of them elsewhere. However, you can get some feel for these traits.

Don Friedel Jr. "E" license/USSF 8 Referee
U11B Competitive/Women's Recreational Coach
Round Rock, TX

From: David Graham dgraham@MORGAN.UCS.MUN.CA

      Last night at our regional training program we were discussing characteristics of players, and the master coach made some interesting remarks about selection of players once you have decided on your basic 'starting 11', who after all tend to be fairly obvious. (Anyone who's done player selection knows that usually the problem is not the starters, but the last few players you select).

     He said basically this: "When I'm selecting my bench players, I have certain definite criteria in mind. I want a utility player, someone who can play any one of at least 3 or 4 different positions. I want a 100% hard-as-nails high-work-rate defender who can man-mark anyone out of the game. I want a pure striker who can come on with 10 minutes to go and score a goal."

      I had never thought of selection of the 'final group' of players in quite these terms.
 

From Don Vogel:

      IMHO the most important player characteristic of a bench player (or the last couple of picks on a younger team) is attitude. Players who are willing to work towards that starting 11 as opposed to those who expect to be there. Nothing worse for a team then players complaining about playing time, starting or not playing the "right" position.

      I for one will take a player of lesser talent if it will help team chemistry. Just ask Joe Torre. His Yankees did OK with no true "Superstars". What he was able to accomplish was to make everyone on that team feel that their contribution was important.

 

From: rsefczek rsefczek@XRAY.HMC.PSGHS.EDU

      I had the opportunity to talk to the coach of a very high level club (kids go to tourneys in Europe, South America, etc.) and asked how he selected his team. He told me he tried to get the best 11 kids he could find and the remaining 5 were made up of players of definitely lesser quality but with excellent attitude and work ethic. His rationale was that if they knew they weren't as good, there would be less carping about playing time but their attitude and push during practices would improve the whole team. He anticipates that 2 or 3 of these second tier players will leave each year to seek more playing time on other clubs’ teams. He said his "quality" playing time was an investment for the future and made then recited the well worn soccer cliche "that you don't learn much by watching, you learn by playing". You know what? He was right!

 

From: Ivan Mann ivan_mann@HOTMAIL.COM

<<Please suggest your most efficient game or activity to assess U13Gs at a 2-4 hour session for club travel. post to list or send to my address. Thanks in advance. Marty Ott >>

First of all, think of what things are important, and then use that list to evaluate.

We just did U-10 selection, looking for a team to represent the club on travel, etc., and here is what we did:

1) Criteria: we want kids who can play very well against skilled opponents. We also wanted kids who could come to practice on time, be ready to practice (i.e., shoes on, water available, ball ready, etc.), and then contribute to practice. The last sentence may not seem important, but that basically ruined last year.

2) Held the standard rating days, spread out over two days, and watched carefully for the better players.

3) We selected 21 players who looked like they had potential. Then we called them all and had them come to the field at 5:30 Tuesday, which would be one of the practice times.

4) We observed who came on time. Those who were late were pretty much dropped from consideration.

5) The session itself had all the elements of a normal practice. First of all, some individual work (juggling) to see who could and would do the work without stopping to talk.

6) Some small group work involving dribbling and dropping the ball to another, to see who could work in small groups and who could maintain possession.

7) Larger group work which was 1v1 dribble/defending followed by 2v2.

8) Scrimmaging.

The scrimmage was two 8v8 teams, with set positions. We swapped players in freely, but kept an eye on who was playing aggressively and who was making decent attempts to defend.

All along the way, each step we pretty much eliminated one after another and finally wound up with 11, which was our goal.

From: "Helsdon, John H." jhelsdon@MSMAILGW.SDSMT.EDU

Having just gone through the process of having to pick an "A" and a "B" from a pool of ~36 players, I thought I'd share my attempt at an objective analysis criterion and the results. We were hoping to be able to do this all outdoors, but weather forced us indoors for the first set of sessions and we got to finish the process outside. This was actually good because it showed me that this can be done both indoors and outdoors.

Background: Our club formed a U19 division for both boys and girls this year comprising players in the U15-U19 age categories (we are having trouble maintaining numbers in the upper age groups). I am the head coach of the girls division [no child involved, and, yes, divorce may be imminent ;-)] with 3 assistant coaches who all have kids playing (one U15, one U16,and one U17). After fall registration we had 36 players to deal with meaning that 2 teams would ultimately be chosen. In the boys division they had enough players for 3 or 4 teams. We created a pool and had the players practice together throughout the winter (indoors). In the fall there was no club activity and all the players were told to play high school soccer (not a real program, yet, but may eventually be state sanctioned). This (the girls division) is a very political group - enough said! From the outset, I enlisted the Club Director of Coaching to be involved in the selection process to which he agreed. I also knew that he would not be readily available for all the evaluation period and that I better have some means of justifying selections. Here is what I came up with.

I sought a means to evaluate players on their general defending (1st and 2nd) ability and their general attacking (also 1st and 2nd) ability. I decided to use a variant of the 3v3-"move 'em up, move 'em down" technique since I only had 1 "field" to use indoor and a limited number of coaches to watch games.

The setup:

Indoors - one 3v3 game at a time, basketball sized court, no walls, minimum 3 coaches evaluating (the more the better). You can use cone goals, a cone goal and 1 keeper, or 2 keepers. This just works out when you are trying to form teams of 3 each. With the keeper options you can always get teams of 3.

Outdoors - two 3v3 games run simultaneously on adjacent 25x35 fields, with a minimum of 5 evaluators, 2 on one field and 3 on the other. Again more evaluators is better. You can do the same thing as above with keepers to get teams of 3.

Mechanics: For the indoor sessions, we randomly assigned teams of 3 and had them play a 7.5 minute game. Since we only had 3 teams at the first session, one team stayed on and the idle team came on to play the next game, and so on. After all teams had played each other, I scrambled the teams and went around again. I'm not sure that the scrambling is necessary as we didn't do it outdoors and the results seemed not to matter. If you have the time, you could scramble. On the 2nd day of indoor evaluations, we had 5 teams (different players than the first day) so we played 5 minute games to start and used up the end of the session playing 7.5 minute games. The length of the games is not terribly important other than consistency and the desire to have the kids play in at least 6 games at a session. I normalized the results by using a multiplying factor to convert the scores for the 5 minute games to an equivalent of the 7.5 minute game (multiply by 1.5).

Outdoors we played two 3v3 games at a time on the adjacent fields of 5 minutes each. Then the same two sets of teams switched fields and played against each other again for another 5 minute game in front of the other evaluators. So in 10 minutes of play, each player was evaluated by 5 coaches against the same opposition. Continue in this manner so that every player has played 5 rounds or more of 2 games at a time. Have the resting players keep a supply of balls available at each goal both indoor or out.

The rating system: I tried to come up with categories that indicated skill primarily in the technical area, but some tactical indications as well and that could be judged quickly by an evaluator and a notation made without due loss of focus on the game. The categories that I used were:

Defending:

1) 1st D position (did they quickly get into a decent position to pressure the ball - I didn't worry about if they were perfect in sideways on or showing in the best direction, just did they get appropriate pressure to influence the 1st A),

2) Tackle and win the ball (2),

3) Tackle to disrupt play (but not win the ball),

4) Intercept a pass to gain possession (2) [indication of good tactical sense of 2nd D],

5) Deflect a pass, and

6) Dives In (-1).

The numbers in parenthesis are weights I assigned to the categories (weight of 1 assumed if not noted). So tackling and disrupting play was good (weight of 1), while tackling to win the ball was better (weight of 2). The "Dives In" category was the only negative category I used, but is such a problem that I wanted to

account for it. The -1 weight means a deduction from the score.

Attacking:

1) Makes a pass that maintains possession (did not depend on

the receivers ability to receive correctly, but would this pass have

maintained possession if the receiver were adept?),

2) Wins a 1v1 (3),

3a) Shoots and does not score (judgement required of what was a decent shot even though no score occurred),

3b) Shoots and scores (2),

4) Receives a pass regardless of body position,

5) Receives a pass open to the field (2),

6) Shields the ball.

So we have 6 categories of defending and attacking skills with minor differentiation concerning skill level - such as receiving vs receiving open with vision, etc., except that you can see that I put the highest weight on winning a 1v1 situation (weight of 3).

Now the fun began. I made up forms upon which the categories were listed along the top. The players' names would be listed along the left side with boxes below each category for each player. The evaluators were stationed around the field so that each had a different vantage point. The names of the players participating in a given game were filled in and I kept the time of the game on my countdown timer. The side-by-side games were started simultaneously. Each evaluator would watch the game and each time he saw a particular player do one of the indicated skills, he would put a mark in the appropriate box by the player's name. Each form had the game number on it and the field (A or B) for the simultaneous games. At the end of a game, the new teams came onto the field, names and game info were recorded and the whole process was repeated. The coaches did not confer during the process at all. I took care to make sure that teams competed against different teams at each turn. As I noted above during the first indoor session we evaluated 11 players on defending (arrivals and departures plus use of keepers kept the teams at 3 each). When not playing in goal, the keepers were evaluated along with the other field players. At the second indoor session, 19 players were evaluated. For those sessions the minimum number of games was 4 that anyone who got evaluated played. The number of evaluators ranged between 3 and 4 as one coach came late each day. Outdoor, we evaluated 27 players over 2 sessions, with some being evaluated at both sessions. The minimum number of games (in pairs) here was 5. I DID NOT TELL THE PLAYERS WHAT THEY WERE BEING EVALUATED ON. They just knew that they were being evaluated in some way. A player got a score for every game they played in.

This process required strict concentration on the part of the coaches. The defending was easier to evaluate than the attacking because in the attacking mode we had to try to account for a whole string of passes and recognizing both the passer and how the receiver received the ball. I got so I tried to watch a complete pattern and record it after the possession changed, a shot was taken, or the ball went out of play. It sounds daunting, but for the most part we were up to the task. You do need to be familiar with the players or have some readily identifiable characteristic that allows you to make quick notations without losing attention to the game. This is also why I said, the more evaluators the better.

From: "Mark A. Morin" mmorin@EARTHLINK.NET

Here is a second article sent me by Dr. Turner.

 

How to assess soccer players: without skill tests!

Presented by Tom Turner

Director of Coaching, Ohio Youth Soccer Association-North at the United States Youth Soccer Association Workshop, Chicago. Il. February 1999

Evaluating soccer players can be a challenging process, particularly when the criteria used for evaluation are not based on the demands of the game. Soccer is a very fluid game when it is played well; to play at speed, players must have skill and vision and tactical insight. However, with novice and experienced coaches alike, there is a tendency to look at soccer as a series of discrete skills or actions, separate from the game as a whole. This can lead to the development of evaluation criteria that are based more on scores than performance. While a deep knowledge of the discrete variables which comprise the game is important, and, in fact, serves as one marker which separates the more experienced coach from the novice, there is an inherent danger in thinking about the game in discrete terms when evaluating players. This is particularly true in try-out situations when tests are seen as more objective and can, perhaps, serve to protect inexperienced coaches from unpopular decisions. Let's take a look at passing as an example.

The goal of passing the ball is to score goals, to take opponents out of the game, or to keep possession. There are six surfaces of the foot (inside, outside, laces, heel, sole, toe) which can be used to pass the ball. If we separate the tactical aspect of play (why do I pass there?) from the technical aspect (what surface do I use?), the basis elements of the game are decoupled and we are left with activities which involve technical repetition without the tactical context. In addition, when we chose to test passing skills with a particular surface, it is at the expense of the others. This can send the message to the players that the other surfaces are either less important, not recommended, or not to be considered. Think about coaches who discourage, and certainly would never test for, passing ability with the toe, and then consider all the ways the toe can be used as a viable option in problem solving! To take this one step further, if we decide to be fair and test all 6 surfaces, how long will the process take, and what time will be left for assessing all the other technical and tactical aspects which make up the game?

Looking from a different perspective, think of practicing passing with one surface as similar to learning to strike just one key on a keyboard: We may be good at finding G, but it doesn't make us think about how we find G in the context of a whole sentence, or in relation to the other keys on the keyboard. Ironically, practicing only one technique is actually reinforcing for coaches because players do get better at performing that particular technique! However, the down side to predictable technical repetition is that players who learn the game in less predictable ways are more likely to develop a deeper understanding of how to adapt their techniques to solve tactical problems. In short, they become more skillful! While street soccer may be a thing of the past, think no further than the upbringing of the average NBA player to get an appreciation of its value: creative, skillful, players develop in response to an environment where techniques and tactical awareness develop in unpredictable ways together through hours of free play.

So how does all this relate to try-outs? My premise is that quantitative (numerical) measures of ability do not work very well in evaluating soccer players. Timed sprints, kicks against a wall, kicking length, number of Coervers in a minute, and various competitions, such 1v1 combat are all examples of activities which have been used to assess whether players can play soccer or not. However, knowing that Suzie can sprint 50 yards in 8 seconds, juggle 5 times with her right foot, kick 25.5 yards with her left foot, and run a line of cones in 12 seconds tells me very little about Suzie's ability as a problem-solver under pressure. For that we need to watch her play the game and evaluate how her technique impacts her decision-making.

Whil