So many talking points in the article, “We Are Woefully Lacking in Qualified Coaches” Rich Jablonski shares his ideas where to begin.
The quality and content of coaching education are not what they should be.
We Should deploy our proven, experienced coaches with younger age groups as one means of developing and retaining kids.
We SHOULD identify and gently remove dinosaurs from the sport — or at least limit their time with younger kids.
We have way too many closed-minded dinosaurs in our national hierarchy. They protect their turf, not our kids.
In my opinion, many great coaches aren’t licensed, while many poor coaches ARE. This calls into question the quality of the current curriculum AND those who teach it.
I’d like to see a sunset date on the pay-to-play concept, with clubs encouraged to find alternative sources of funding.
I think some homage should be paid to successful programs, whether here or abroad, beginning with a constructive observation process.
I might examine clubs with long-term reputations for developing young players. Is that a club like Southampton in England? I’m not sure. There are obvious choices — Barcelona for example. Some might say the Dutch model is noteworthy. More importantly, are there any domestic clubs and academies that consistently produce high-level players? How do they do this? ￼
I have my own ideas. For one, I think we identify and anoint kids at way too young an age, writing off late-bloomers. Even worse, we identify the wrong kids. I have been around the club, academy and ODP scene for years. I’VE seen kids selected for elite sides and tours who any idiot could see were not going to be athletic enough later on. Conversely, I’d see kids written off who blossomed into elite-level athletes in other sports.