Youth Soccer: Tactical Player Development

1. Youth Soccer: Tactical Player Development Brad Camp MTSU 12/4/13

2. Background: Youth Player Development • Recently, research has shown youth sport participation doesn’t guarantee positive outcomes for athletes (Fraser-Thomas, & Côté, 2006). • In light of such findings, researchers have worked to improve player development policies (Côté, Baker & Abernethy, 2003; Bayli, 2001). • The governing bodies of American youth soccer have been influenced by such research, and are currently implementing progressive strategies in player development (Snow, 2012; USSF, n.d.).

3. The Four Components of Soccer (Snow, 2012)

4. Project Problem • The United States Soccer Federation (USSF) has placed much emphasis on some components, i.e. technical development (USSF, 2012). • American youth soccer athletes lack tactical sophistication, creativity, and intelligence when compared to their international opponents (Tony DiCicco, World Cup Winner, 2010). • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZak9Kqrubw

5. Project Purpose • To investigate the effectiveness of “quizzes” developed by the National Soccer Coaches’ Association of America (NSCAA) aimed at developing players situational awareness and decision-making skills (NSCAA, 2013). • Specifically, Ihopedto understand what items were too easy or too difficult for participants, but also what items discriminated well between the upper and lower groups. • This project was meant to be a sort of pilot test for a future study. I aimed to ‘tryout’ items for future implementation.

6. Method • 38 youth soccer athletes were surveyed. • Entry level, small group decision making items were selected for inclusion in the survey. Such decision making abilities should be taught at these ages (Snow, 2013; USSF, n.d.). • There were 10 items total. • Item analysis was conducted on the data using ITEMAN.

7. Results

8. Results • Item 10displayed a.28 item difficulty level. • Item 5 had an unacceptable item discrimination at .00. • Item 3 displayed a borderline .20 item discrimination level.

9. Item 10 Problems: -Choices 1,2, & 3 are in more space than choice 4 -Choices 1,2, & 3 are all facing the goal -Playing forward is preferred, but the other choices have space to go forward once in possession

10. Item 5 Problems: -Similarity between choices 1 & 2. -Choice 3 allows teammate space. -To create an attempt on goal, there are three good choices.

11. Item 3 Problems: -Option 1 & 2 are very similar -Both options are goal attempts, and an argument could be made for a near or far post effort

12. Conclusions • For the most part, these entry items selected appear appropriate. • There were individuals who had more years of training, so the items’ ability to discriminate was sensible. • Problem items should be dropped or revised. • Problem items were contradictory at times. For example, soccer development literature stresses finding space to dribble, pass, or move into (Snow, 2012), but problem items often discouraged that in favor of choices that have more complex reasoning. • Thus more complex ideas may not be advisable for younger athletes, as they play on smaller fields with less players, and therefore have less complexity in decision making.

13. Future Work • Future studies should take all the acceptable items and survey U10-U12 players. This is the age where introducing small group decision making is advised (Snow, 2012). • Future studies should provide more complex questions in addition to acceptable items to more advanced players. • After conducting a study of worthy numbers, one might be able to make suggestions to American soccer player development. • Administer questions that also investigate defending decisions.

14. Limitations • Extremely small sample size • Geographic and personal aspects of participants • Different analysis may have produced more clear results