Jason de Vos named CSA Director of Development

[Zem]

"Our system of player development is broken."

Jason de Vos's keynote speech at the Ontario Soccer Summit this past weekend.

 

[yomurphy1]

1 hour ago, Zem said:

"Our system of player development is broken."

Jason de Vos's keynote speech at the Ontario Soccer Summit this past weekend.

 

He's a good speaker. I found the part about Herdman being the best women's coach in the world to be interesting. De Vos doesn't seem the type to be overly complementary so I wonder if others see Herdman that way.

[The Ref]

The Good Lie.

[Macksam]

2 hours ago, Zem said:

"Our system of player development is broken."

I'm sure they can hear him all the way back in 90s. Tell us something we don't know.

[The Ref]

2 hours ago, Zem said:

"Our system of player development is broken."

 

We had a system?

[Soccerpro]

17 minutes ago, Macksam said:

I'm sure they can hear him all the way back in 90s. Tell us something we don't know.

I'm waiting for the ideas of how to fix it.

[-Hammer-]

13% of starts made by players on Canadian MLS teams were made by Canadian players. THAT is the statistic I feel is the fundamental issue with our professional teams.

[Soccerpro]

10 minutes ago, -Hammer- said:

13% of starts made by players on Canadian MLS teams were made by Canadian players. THAT is the statistic I feel is the fundamental issue with our professional teams.

I don't want to be seen defending MLS. They haven't done enough for Canada.

However, when I look at Alphonso Davies regularly starting and 17 year old Ballou Tabla appearing in both Montreal Impact games this MLS season. I'm optimistic.

When I look at the new domestic rules for Canadians and generation adidas Canada program that got Adonijah Reid scoring against Argentine clubs in pre season with FC Dallas, I'm optimistic.

Dynamic, offensively skilled players are beginning to sprout up in MLS for Canada for the first time ever. We're starting to see some promise.

Is it enough? Not even close. Can more be done? Absolutely. Do I feel better now than if we had forced 3 Kyle Bekkers on the field for our MLS clubs? Yes.

 

[-Hammer-]

Just now, Soccerpro said:

I don't want to be seen defending MLS. They haven't done enough for Canada.

However, when I look at Alphonso Davies regularly starting and 17 year old Ballou Tabla appearing in both Montreal Impact games this MLS season. I'm optimistic.

When I look at the new domestic rules for Canadians and generation adidas Canada program that got Adonijah Reid scoring against Argentine clubs in pre season with FC Dallas, I'm optimistic.

Dynamic, offensively skilled players are beginning to sprout up in MLS for Canada for the first time ever. We're starting to see some promise.

Is it enough? Not even close. Can more be done? Absolutely. Do I feel better now than if we had forced 3 Kyle Bekkers on the field for our MLS clubs? Yes.

 

I should probably further qualify my post. I was in the middle of editing it. I'll repost shortly.

[Macksam]

1 hour ago, Soccerpro said:

I'm waiting for the ideas of how to fix it.

I haven't watched it yet. You're telling me there was no implementation plan in that 43 minute video on how they're going to fix it?

[-Hammer-]

For the most part, I felt that was an excellent video by Mr. de Vos and by far in my eyes, the good vastly outweighed the bad or omitted. This is just my take on it.

The Good

His comments in athletics about critical feedback and being honest is completely true. It's far too often lost, both on coaches and players at a young age. Highschool Football (gridiron) was the first time I actually experienced this with my coaches growing up. Every other coach before that in any other sport I played (soccer included) was pretty much "You're on the bench, or seeing limited time, or you're cut because...well because" Never, what you are doing right and what you are doing wrong and often because, I'll admit, I wasn't that atheltic a kid back then.

Anyways, his comments about how 30% of technical directors are admitting that skill is how they select players for their programs, at the under 8 level, and high levels (65% for 11 and 12 year olds) are a breath of fresh air.

The implication is pretty staggering for two reasons. The first is it shows technical directors are (for whatever reason) selecting players because they can win games at the age as low as 7. I can't beleive for a second that a 7 year old has sufficient inherent skill at the game, so I'm more inclined to think "skill" in this case is athletic ability, as we all know at the lower levels of the game, athletic ability is more often the equalizer.

Second, it shows a mentality to already exclude players, well before there is a realistic indication if they will be able to become pro or not. That players are being left behind, which isn't only making the player poor more shallow, but discourages the development of soccer from a grassroots cultural standpoint.

I also think he's completely bang on the head about scores, standing and the recess analogy, and I'm glad he cleared the air on that one. It's espcially a problem in hockey where spots and ice time are always being called into question. His quote about never wanting to be the last coach a kid has, and "as many as possible, for as long as possible, in the best environment as possible."

I also salute him for calling out the woman's program as well. That age gap is absurd and needs to be rectified, and he's completely right, we're only on top because we're one of the first to the gate. What's going to happen when the sleeping giants that are Spain, Italy, Brazil and Mexico wake up. Heck, the way he speaks of Iceland, it wouldn't shock me if they also become a power in the near future in the women's game.

Also the weekly courses, he's bang on. That kind of learning seldom works or is retained, and is very hard to acquire when you are working a job. His plans on better intergrating with the Canadian program, much similar licensing and making them modular is a great idea. I'm not quite sold on his ideas of no fail, just needs improvement approach to coaching, but a new approach I suppose couldn't hurt. While I feel there are people who simply shouldn't be allowed to coach, that determination isn't really something development testing can weed out.

The Bad

13% of starts made by players on Canadian MLS teams were made by Canadian players. THAT is the statistic I feel is the fundamental issue with our professional teams and not enough stress has been put on. I disagree with him that he doesn't feel pro teams and a pro league are going to have a meaningful impact. He cites MLS and it's failure to produce meaningful development. This, in my eyes is an issue from both ends of the spectrum. First MLS has certainly produced more development then what we had in the 90s and early 2000s, if only because it's raised the profile of the game. That said, on the other end, he doesn't address why MLS's development hasn't been meaningful or large enough.

He fails to cite is that MLS is NOT required to start, even a single Canadian as it stands now. Three Canadians on the bench is all the lip service they need to give. Canadian teams, that are Canadian only by location are of course not going to benefit our national team.  Now I will agree, these teams do contribute to development, as they do offer grassroots initiatives and they do give a team to aspire too, however it's not the leaps and bounds we need to be remotely competative at the international level. If Garber is saying "It's moot because you don't have talent" the response is "If you truly care about Canadian soccer like you claim, then why aren't you developing local talent Mr. Garber? Espcially when you can sell their contracts overseas?"

Have the Blue Jays, who don't need or field a single Canadian player, improve our National Baseball team? Sure, in the sense that they'ved created interest in the game, and that the Jays do make Grassroots investments in Baseball, but for the most part, we're still getting creamed by the US, Japan, Cuba and the Dominican who, unsurprisingly have thier own, attended pro leagues.

When professional teams are forced to field domestic players, they are forced to develop domestic players. It forces them to spend private sector money and taking a finacial burden off of the association. They are forced to give Canadians jobs which in turn leads to Canadian players going back into coaching instead of ending their careers at highschool or college. He is living evidence that having professional oppourtunity leads to contributing to the game post career.

The Ugly (or rather the omitted)

I didn't see a lot of digging into the finances of development, or the acknowledgement of the pressure it may have in Canada. That ugly peice of data would likely be the most uncomfortable and needed critcal feedback for our sport. He speaks of Iceland, where no one is left behind and they pay for players at a young age. I know that doesn't exsist in Canada, where you often have to pay to play. What's going to make that money to drop into development?

I really wish he had gone into details as to the "pathways" of Canadian pro soccer development and it's current fundamental flaws and benefits, although this is probably more wanting clairification on what the pathway is? What it's supposed to be, and where the dead ends are (as I know there are dead ends in our system). Perhaps that fault is more mind on that one, but this graphic, doesn't exactly inspire confidence in my eyes.

http://www.canadasoccer.com/canada-soccer-pathway-ltpd--s16879

He mentions how great we are at organizing recreational soccer, and does mention quite a bit as to using skill to determine player selection at a young age is flawed, but when does skill start to matter? To use his elementary school analogy, at which point do you say "You've got great grades in highschool, you get a scholarship for University. You have poor grades, you need to take extra courses on your dime if you want to get into here" When does the tipping point happen where you have to say "This player shows not only skills but commitment, he's in even if he can't afford it." and what is being done to drive that and identify players? Conversely, what is being done on the private end of development for players who have financial resources to get into an academy, even if their skills might not be as impressive as others, and their transistion into the game. I didn't really see a lot of that being clairfied. From my understanding, this is where a lot of the dead ends happen in our development pathway, but once again, not enough explained on it. 

This leads to my last glaring omission, he doesn't speak a lot about the late end development at all seemingly. After you are done the youth programs, what's being added to expand and assist the transistion between amateur and pro? What's the late game in development in our country? It's never touched upon.

[One American]

The problem is that when Chapman has a nice spell for TFC last year, his reward is that TFC signs Armando Cooper, not exactly a great player, to take his place. And this year they sign another guy and the same thing happens to Osorio. And the CSA doesn't do anything about it except whine. 

[One American]

I mean, is there any other nation in the world that requires less of its pro teams with regard to domestic talent? 

[Soccerpro]

8 hours ago, Macksam said:

I haven't watched it yet. You're telling me there was no implementation plan in that 43 minute video on how they're going to fix it?

New coaching licenses. I'm not sure what new motivation people will have to obtain them, or what they'll accomplish.

[Alex D]

There are new coaching licenses that will be more relevant and more accessible.

The motivation to obtain them will come from the clubs. There will be new club licenses, so if one club wants to proclaim its superiority over another it will no longer be based on u12 tournament wins, but in coaching standards. 

 

[Kent]

12 hours ago, -Hammer- said:

The Bad

13% of starts made by players on Canadian MLS teams were made by Canadian players. THAT is the statistic I feel is the fundamental issue with our professional teams and not enough stress has been put on. I disagree with him that he doesn't feel pro teams and a pro league are going to have a meaningful impact. He cites MLS and it's failure to produce meaningful development. This, in my eyes is an issue from both ends of the spectrum. First MLS has certainly produced more development then what we had in the 90s and early 2000s, if only because it's raised the profile of the game. That said, on the other end, he doesn't address why MLS's development hasn't been meaningful or large enough.

He fails to cite is that MLS is NOT required to start, even a single Canadian as it stands now. Three Canadians on the bench is all the lip service they need to give. Canadian teams, that are Canadian only by location are of course not going to benefit our national team.  Now I will agree, these teams do contribute to development, as they do offer grassroots initiatives and they do give a team to aspire too, however it's not the leaps and bounds we need to be remotely competative at the international level. If Garber is saying "It's moot because you don't have talent" the response is "If you truly care about Canadian soccer like you claim, then why aren't you developing local talent Mr. Garber? Espcially when you can sell their contracts overseas?"

Keep in mind this lecture was to people involved in Ontario Soccer, I imagine mostly coaches and technical directors of club teams. It isn't helpful to talk about how the pro teams/leagues could do more to support player development in this context. If anything that would lean towards the defensive talk that he mentioned at the beginning. By putting focus on what those other guys (pro clubs) could be doing better, it absolves the amateur clubs of responsibility for doing what they can.

 

12 hours ago, -Hammer- said:

The Ugly (or rather the omitted)

I didn't see a lot of digging into the finances of development, or the acknowledgement of the pressure it may have in Canada. That ugly peice of data would likely be the most uncomfortable and needed critcal feedback for our sport. He speaks of Iceland, where no one is left behind and they pay for players at a young age. I know that doesn't exsist in Canada, where you often have to pay to play. What's going to make that money to drop into development?

Again, I think this is another piece that is out of scope in this discussion. The costs are up to the clubs to determine I believe, although their hands may be forced a bit depending on the league they play in. It would have been nice of him to mention if there would be any charge for taking the online courses, or getting evaluated, and what those charges would be.

 

12 hours ago, -Hammer- said:

He mentions how great we are at organizing recreational soccer, and does mention quite a bit as to using skill to determine player selection at a young age is flawed, but when does skill start to matter?

This is a good question. I would have liked him to talk about this more. With his recess analogy was he implying that clubs should not just have a single team in a league, and rather put in as many teams as they can? Like Woodbridge Strikers Blue, Red, and Green all play at the same level (I used colours instead of letters or numbers, to avoid ranking them). And further to that, would he suggest that player movement happen between those teams from week to week to keep them balanced? Does this continue until you get to L1O? Or maybe just to the "Training to Compete" part of the pathway that you linked to (which is 15 years old for girls, and 16 years old for boys).

The thing that I felt he omitted was any mention of SAAC clubs. Again, there may very well not have been any SAAC clubs in attendance there (I don't know one way or the other), but at least a quick mention that they need to be included in high performance leagues if they want to be, and they meet the requirements.

That being said, I thought it was a good lecture. That being said, I'm an outsider. I played youth soccer in Ontario in the 80's and 90's, but I haven't been on the coaching side of things, or the parent side of things yet. All I know really is based on the information I get from sites like this.

[Kent]

54 minutes ago, Alex D said:

There are new coaching licenses that will be more relevant and more accessible.

The motivation to obtain them will come from the clubs. There will be new club licenses, so if one club wants to proclaim its superiority over another it will no longer be based on u12 tournament wins, but in coaching standards. 

 

To elaborate a little bit more on this, JDV mentioned one of the new licenses will be fore coaching kids aged 5 to 12 (I believe), and another one for coaching kids aged 13 to 18. They will consist of online modules that you can go through at your leisure, and also some kind of practical, in person (on the field) modules. For the on the field modules, the OSA will train someone within each OPDL club (a technical director or staff coach) to be a... I forget the term he used, something like Learning Facilitator. That Learning Facilitator would then work with other people in the club (or presumably nearby non-OPDL clubs) to teach them those portions of the license. When the person thinks they are ready, they let the OSA know and someone will come by and assess them to say whether they are deserving of the license yet. If not, the assessor let's the Learning Facilitator know what areas are good, and what areas need more improvement.

I don't know how this compares with what is currently out there, but it sounds like a good way to do things to me. I think (could be wrong) currently the coach who wants a new license has to sign up for and travel to a course, take the course and then take a test at the end. What JDV is talking about sounds a lot more flexible and convenient, which hopefully removes some barriers for people to get the coaching education they desire.

[-Hammer-]

3 hours ago, Kent said:

Keep in mind this lecture was to people involved in Ontario Soccer, I imagine mostly coaches and technical directors of club teams. It isn't helpful to talk about how the pro teams/leagues could do more to support player development in this context. If anything that would lean towards the defensive talk that he mentioned at the beginning. By putting focus on what those other guys (pro clubs) could be doing better, it absolves the amateur clubs of responsibility for doing what they can.

 

Again, I think this is another piece that is out of scope in this discussion. The costs are up to the clubs to determine I believe, although their hands may be forced a bit depending on the league they play in. It would have been nice of him to mention if there would be any charge for taking the online courses, or getting evaluated, and what those charges would be.

 

This is a good question. I would have liked him to talk about this more. With his recess analogy was he implying that clubs should not just have a single team in a league, and rather put in as many teams as they can? Like Woodbridge Strikers Blue, Red, and Green all play at the same level (I used colours instead of letters or numbers, to avoid ranking them). And further to that, would he suggest that player movement happen between those teams from week to week to keep them balanced? Does this continue until you get to L1O? Or maybe just to the "Training to Compete" part of the pathway that you linked to (which is 15 years old for girls, and 16 years old for boys).

The thing that I felt he omitted was any mention of SAAC clubs. Again, there may very well not have been any SAAC clubs in attendance there (I don't know one way or the other), but at least a quick mention that they need to be included in high performance leagues if they want to be, and they meet the requirements.

That being said, I thought it was a good lecture. That being said, I'm an outsider. I played youth soccer in Ontario in the 80's and 90's, but I haven't been on the coaching side of things, or the parent side of things yet. All I know really is based on the information I get from sites like this.

To the first point, it's fine if you don't want to put blame on the pro teams lack of development because you are trying to focus on what the people in the room can do, but don't pretend more professional teams aren't a valid part of the solution and boon to the country. Say, currently pro teams haven't contributed meaningfully as they do across the world, because they don't currently have an incentive to do so, and we're doing everything we can within reason to change that. However, right now 13% of starters on our MLS teams...yada yada.

To the second, I'm not so sure. Sure clubs have budgets to meet, but no details of offering financial support, grants or incentives for clubs that meet his vision. More players not getting excluded means more resources to meaningfully develop them.

To the third, I'm glad we are agreed on that point.

To the fourth, this lines into my talk about private vs public and dead ends in our development system.

and to the last. I agree, I feel for the most part the positives greatly outweighed the negatives.

[davey_twelve]

7 hours ago, Kent said:

To elaborate a little bit more on this, JDV mentioned one of the new licenses will be fore coaching kids aged 5 to 12 (I believe), and another one for coaching kids aged 13 to 18. They will consist of online modules that you can go through at your leisure, and also some kind of practical, in person (on the field) modules. For the on the field modules, the OSA will train someone within each OPDL club (a technical director or staff coach) to be a... I forget the term he used, something like Learning Facilitator. That Learning Facilitator would then work with other people in the club (or presumably nearby non-OPDL clubs) to teach them those portions of the license. When the person thinks they are ready, they let the OSA know and someone will come by and assess them to say whether they are deserving of the license yet. If not, the assessor let's the Learning Facilitator know what areas are good, and what areas need more improvement.

I don't know how this compares with what is currently out there, but it sounds like a good way to do things to me. I think (could be wrong) currently the coach who wants a new license has to sign up for and travel to a course, take the course and then take a test at the end. What JDV is talking about sounds a lot more flexible and convenient, which hopefully removes some barriers for people to get the coaching education they desire.

I like this set-up as well, it'd be good to see the club's LF have an ongoing relationship with training coaches to ensure they continue to grow.

Changes are already happening but over the past two years I've gone through the qualifications of the community stream and your description is fairly accurate. One thing that is wrong unfortunately is that there is no test at the end. Depending on the LF, training coaches could potentially be a wallflower during the courses and not actually be that involved and still get qualified (sure they could be an excellent coach but you see the problem). Conversely, when I did my level 1 in England each coach was individually assessed.

Overall, I was impressed with the lecture and it gives me reason to be optimistic.

 

 

[Kent]

45 minutes ago, davey_twelve said:

Overall, I was impressed with the lecture and it gives me reason to be optimistic.

Glad to hear this from an actual coach in the system. Thanks for the input!

Just out of curiosity, were you at the lecture or did you just watch the video? I'm curious how the rest of the summit went, or if other people there were optimistic about JDV's lecture.

[davey_twelve]

I just watched the video. Would like to attend something like that though.

[BearcatSA]

On ‎9‎/‎9‎/‎2016 at 3:43 PM, BearcatSA said:

So what is Tony Fonseca's exact job description now? 

You could see the writing on the wall from September that there was redundancy with the DeVos hiring, and now Fonseca is gone.

[The Ref]

It seems DeVos words went by with neither pain nor glory.