YOUTH SOCCER: TACTICAL
PLAYER DEVELOPMENT
Brad Camp
MTSU 12/4/13
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.).
THE FOUR COMPONENTS OF SOCCER
(SNOW, 2012)
Technique
Fitness
Player
Performance
Tactics
Psychology
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/watc
h?v=bZak9Kqrubw

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, I hoped to 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.

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.

RESULTS
Item
Item Difficulty
Item
Discrimination
1
.77
.40
2
.59
.53
3
.67
.20
4
.49
.47
5
.38
.00
6
.62
.53
7
.64
.40
8
.74
.53
9
.72
.33
10
.28
.47
RESULTS
Item 10 displayed a .28 item difficulty level.
 Item 5 had an unacceptable item discrimination
at .00.
 Item 3 displayed a borderline .20 item
discrimination level.

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
ITEM 5
Problems:
-Similarity between
choices 1 & 2.
-Choice 3 allows
teammate space.
-To create an attempt
on goal, there are three
good choices.
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
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.
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.

LIMITATIONS
Extremely small sample size
 Geographic and personal aspects of participants
 Different analysis may have produced more clear
results
