TinMan87

I agree that there are many coaches who cannot teach a tight possession game. but than again there are a lot of coaches who can, but cannot with the level of play they have. Tight possession is very difficult because one mistake from a key player at a key moment creates a counter attack situation. I think you would see Seymour getting scored on quite a bit against a top tier opponent by counter attacks. I disagree, I think that technical ability is a HUGE factor. Bad touches in tight possession lead to turn-overs. A direct style does not always mean kick and run. I would say Holland play a direct style in the last World Cup finals. That game was truly a difference in style where both were very very effective. Holland lost, but had many good opportunities to score. Direct can mean, play the ball to a mid, play it back, play it to a big man striker (even in the air), play it back and than hit a midfielder making an overlap run. 4 passes. The first two take you 30 yards up the field, the next two take you another 30 yards up the field. its controlled, its effective, its safe. Or, play the ball to a midfielder, he plays it back to the center D, who plays a long switch high to the winger, who finds a midfielder, who finds the opposite winger on a diagonal. Once again, going distances fast, but doing it controlled. To be honest, I think that possession style teams have to be able to play direct sometimes for two reasons: 1) it can create a surprise attack with a high rate of success 2) once the above happens the other team will have to drop of a tad (opening the middle for possession) I think for technical ability to be adapted (in a short season) there has to be a level of ability already in place. This can happen by two ways (IMO) 1) You have good technical players and can use them as like a goal for others 2) you train your freshman for 2-3 years and than the above level is in place and now your sophomores are already there and your freshman are able to get there quicker, and your 8th graders are seeing the level and trying harder, so they are a tad bit ready when it comes to their freshman year. If you have a lack of speed you are in trouble either way you look at it. Barcelona does not have a lack of speed.

I agree, to an extent. The largest factors contributing to a teams success are the players and the coach. However, many other things contribute. Even facility contributes. My original point is that weak districts sets the district up for failure. How many times has a District 3 team made it to the finals? I remember Oak Ridge did once (the next year they faired poorly) and Hardin Valley did (now they have moved). I wonder how District 3 will perform now. There are always exceptions to rules. It is rare to see a team that has been historically bad be good consistently. They might have a year full of seniors and juniors where they do well, but quickly drop off again. I think that if you mix the teams in a district it creates inherit competition that can only bring teams up. The great teams and programs will not really fall because they can use those tactics you mentioned about scheduling because people want to play them. It is harder for weak teams to schedule games against great teams than it is for great teams to schedule games against great teams.

I think there is a philosophy that direct styles of soccer are not good soccer. I played against Lindsey Wilson many times. They are NAIA's powerhouse team and have 9 nat'l championships. If they can play direct, they play. I just think that its the coaches job to find what is best for his/her team and than truly form them to that style. It would be difficult to turn a possession team into a direct style, just like it would be hard to turn a team with only wingers and strikers into a possession oriented team. I agree that coaches have been getting better at determining styles of play, I just dont want to see everyone thinking that direct style does not have its place. Bearden high school has a very set style. Some years the players do not match the style and the team does not do well. I think it was year '04.

I would say that the best "test" for a team is a competitive district game. If two teams in a district are competitive, but are competitive at a lower level it can only allow them to grow so much. I think Maryville is a product of a mixture of the growth of club soccer and being in a highly competitive district. I believe that because of the district, club soccer has grown. Oak Ridge club soccer is far and in between and really is not growing. My point being that winning district might be enough. I know for teams like Powell and Karns winning District will most likely be there biggest goal (especially with HV out of the way). Playing teams that are good does not make for hard schedule if you are playing all the weaker teams in your district. I remember in college, our conference had two of the top 5 teams in the nation (yearly). Other than us and those two teams our conference was weak. Our coach did everything in his power to schedule ranked teams to ensure we had a top notch schedule. We traveled all over eastern U.S. to play. I do not really see that as an option when top level tournaments do not accept/want "lower tier" teams

Are District 13 and 14 in the same region? with one district in the region dominant?

Karns High School is looking for a preseason game. If anyone know anyone looking for a preseason game please post. Thanks

District 3 (Oak Ridge, Powell, Karns, etc.) seem to all be good teams but never really top tier. District 4 (Hardin Valley, Farragut, Bearden, Maryville, West, etc.) It seems that the quality of District 4 and the pressure of the teams being such a high level keeps them at the top in the area. Do you think, since the schools are relatively close, that it would benefit a team like Oak Ridge to join District 4? Or possibly "even out" the Districts to make region more competitive? What do you all think? Any other examples in other parts of TN?

Can someone list the high school tournaments, their home school, and the dates