Comments on: Coerver Coaching and the Minnesota Connection

By: Soccer Coach

Soccer Coach — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 19:35:48 +0000

I’m a select / travel soccer coach and I use the Coerver method in my sessions. However, I don’t rely on Coerver predominantly. We train twice a week and one session is Coerver based and one session is either a small-sided game or a typical session (transition from offense to defense, crossing from wide areas etc.).

Since my primary aim is to improve the fundamental technical skills of all my players, I can customize and tweak the Coerver sessions based on the talent level of the kids. I normally split the players into two groups based on talent level so they’re playing against kids who have a similar level of ability.

I’ve found dedicating one of my weekly sessions to Coerver and the other to a small-sided games / regular training session gives me a nice balance.

By: Neal aka Lightning Striker

Neal aka Lightning Striker — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 01:31:59 +0000

OT: jw7 … why you such a spoiler … I was just sitting down to watch the game … haven’t you learned? after last seasons lessons regarding posting results on line? I’m very disappointed in you, you’re buying me a beer at the pub, OK?

By: Jeff Wolter

Jeff Wolter — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 00:38:19 +0000

Inter won.
Chelsea go home

By: HandoHenry

HandoHenry — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 18:08:08 +0000

SCOTT- good questions. From what I know/understand Coerver is a world wide training program. Coerver MN is directed by Simon Whitehead as part of the Coerver USA franchise. I’d imagine there is a percentage deal worked out with NSC Minnesota as the contract is 3 years and the number of camp attendees/camps offered will certainly vary over the length of contract. NSC Minnesota could set up a camp, however, by contracting Coerver they draw campers from an established market (this may end up limiting their market as Coerver is not everyone’s prefered method of training and can be expensive).

Coerver has an accrediation process for coaches, so theoretically coaches should be effective and well trained in the Coerver Method. Surely, there is a range of coaches, which was astutely pointed out ZLATAN

MIAC FAN I believe you are right to a certain degree. Many club do have a good technical training whether it be of the Coerver Method or alternative method and development does come down to the willingness of the player. However, all players develop best in different conditions. Whether technical training is done in a structure v. unstructured setting, the skill level and focus of other players, the use of the socratic method, command style, or the open-play coaching/communication methods. In light of this I would argue that Coerver training could provide a better training atmosphere for the development of certain players. This is not to say that Coerver Coaches are necessarily consistent in their individual training methods nor are their ways superior (or even different for that matter) than those of different club coaches, just saying Coerver can be superior while recognizing club training certainly has the potential to be equal to or superior in individual cases.

COME ON INTER!

By: MIAC Fan

MIAC Fan — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 11:54:42 +0000

Many clubs have coaches who have worked with Coerver and know the Coerver training techniques.
If you’re fortunate enough to have this type of training on your team or in your club don’t go to the additional expense of Coerver. These aren’t 1 on 1 training sessions.
Ask your coach and club DOC about what you can get within your own club vs Coerver.
It all comes down to the player who’s willing to put in time on his own to perfect the ball skills taught during the training sessions…whether it’s the team training or through a Coerver session.

By: HandoHenry

HandoHenry — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 06:37:59 +0000

Trappatoni,

Not currently, may become involved in the future. I suspect you saw an earlier post when I inquired about coerver being named the offical trainer. Just interested in the development of youth players. I have seen many out of state teams and recognize that we are behind.

I like Coerver primarly because of my experiences as a youth player. However, that is not to say that Greg Thompson, Alan Merrick, or other local community camps didn’t also offer quality training experiences. They most certainly did.

For me any proper technical training is good for the development of a player. Recently, the club I coach for hosted a number of non-coerver based technical camps and I have seen vast improvement of individual ability in live game and short sided game situations.

By: AngryTrapattoni

AngryTrapattoni — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 03:48:30 +0000

Full disclosure, Hando… are you a Coerver coach?

Good point though about being way behind in technical training. Minnesota clubs seem to lack quality technical skills training at it’s youngest ages.

By: Kurt Naumann

Kurt Naumann — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:49:51 +0000

The Coerver method has been an excellent way for my son to increase his technical and tactical skills. Coerver programs for U13 players involve utilizing the technical skills in tactical situations. You can’t teach tactics if the technical skills are lacking. There are plenty of Coerver coaches that are not English as well (Latcho Kastadinov for example). Outside of individual club coaching, I haven’t found anything to compare.

By: Zlatan

Zlatan — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:27:07 +0000

Another alternative is David Lawson from Kellix. Although he is getting on in years. I had many players train with him over many years and would say the results he produced were better than Coerver. I think the Coerver method is good, but many of their trainers lack the ability to run an effective training session. It also tends to be quite a bit more expensive than alternatives. It is interesting that many of the Coerver coaches listed are English (not bad, just interesting.) The strength of the English game is certainly not technical skills/foot skills. But more tactics, set pieces and game speed. Certainly foot skills are very important and are easier to teach than tactics and game philosophy as you can work with a single player and single skill at a time. Coerver offers a very good method, depending on the instructor. I am in full agreement that “command of the ball” is the basis for all other training (but I also put passing and receiving on the same level.)

By: Scott Kerssen

Scott Kerssen — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 21:16:28 +0000

I’d be interested in the economics behind this.

Why is this a better system than setting up a camp system under the NSC MInnesota Stars name?

Who actually owns the camp?

Is it a franchise model?

What are the rough percentages of the income split between athe parties involved? Or is there just a flat fee paid to Coerver Central?

Enquiring minds want to know.