Who do foreign clubs develop HS aged athletes better the American HS coaches

It’s true most American HS coaches are awful or don’t really care. the Club system will always be better for development and getting athletes ready for college. If the US has a club system you would see better development too

In America, sports belong to schools. You train with your school. If you're a gifted running stud in a podunk town and no one knows how to coach, the odds that you become a good runner are pretty slim.

It seems like everywhere else has a better approach to it. Sports operate on a much more club-like basis. If you're fast, you're fast. See Cam Meyers, he's 17 years old. Instead of being the fastest kid at a high school under subpar coaching, like many Americans are, he's training with the fastest people in his area and working with professionals.

i don't buy your basic thesis. i mean, norway may very well punch above their weight. or others. and their developmental programs could be dissected and good things taken away. however in direct overall comparison, country to country, we stomp them. we have everything covered 100-marathon. we will win several medals from several people. they will get what warholm and the distance brothers do. that they with so few people produce a lot of serviceable pros, and a handful of elite ones, is impressive. but, like, they are "better" at it than us? meh. perhaps pound for pound. not in absolute terms. are we inefficient? yeah. still better overall. we'll have people in almost every final all manner of event.

you can only start to equate it by fudging and comparing, say, "europe" to the US. "europe" can't agree on anything and is not one developmental system. and the fact we have to start expanding the comparison underlines at least in absolute terms we're better.

what i would give you is we handle track like football. i agree with the poster, it's largely a school sport. we might have field day or presidential fitness stuff, but until 7th grade where i grew up, most kids hadn't touched a track. the coaches we had, had to encourage us to try a variety of events from scratch. to test out who might be good at what.

in soccer, by that age you've been playing organized soccer most of a decade, including a few years in well-coached select programs. soccer often does not start as a school sport until HS. by that point any kid who wants to try out for soccer as a noob is doomed to either getting cut behind the select kids or making JV and playing little. because we are fit as a fiddle, worked on skills for a while, tested under pressure, and trained in tactics and how to play the game. you will even see some dude at an inner city school with raw talent and almost feel sorry for them as you note their naivete and lack of fitness next to raw quality. and you'll beat his team 6-0 and that's that.

i don't think american track is worse, i think it's better. but i think it could be even better. there should be a "club" system for track akin to select in soccer. and i mean year round, not just an tack-on in summer at the end of HS season. and i mean one with abundant teams in every area, of which everyone is well aware. i realize many are busy with XC in the fall but there should be a choice that i am running club track instead. i am a sprinter, hurdler, jumper, or i am distance but i want to concentrate on the mile.

way it works i am sure all concerned are content to let kids bake their brains out in summer track as it doesn't conflict with school sports. i think some of this is a lot of the track team is typically off the football team and they want the fall. i think you could do something different in the south and west in the winter, when football is over for most teams. i assume part of it is also there is little universal public infrastructure being used, you're borrowing the HS track, and the HS might have strings about when and how you ask. we don't have a lot of public park tracks. if i want to play select soccer only, we usually have the nicer field complexes and i don't need to go near a HS to play it.

i think that would get you more mondos. i am sure that kid lived vaulting for years, and if they don't go crazy, this is the outcome. that to me is the other complication, which is, you do this stuff year round, you better enjoy it. you will get sick of it otherwise. any number of U12 boy wonders quit soccer before HS varsity much less the business end. and the coaches often want to take over, dictate no HS sports, no moonlighting in other sports, some of which i think makes people happier and more diverse athletes. to me part of what makes US athletes good is the goalkeeper might have played football or basketball, played a field position in soccer too, and so are good with hands and feet. etc.

we also have this discussion about soccer, in particular about tapping into the inner cities, and i would think running would be an easy sport to set up and get participation in. i assume we do midnight hoops as a ball is cheap. but to get kids running off-season is the cost of, what, shoes? and basketball may be fun and a potential way out for some kids, but i don't see it as democratically so in the way of TF. in hoops you better be 6' and maybe even closer to 7'. that is a genetic lottery. a 5' 7" kid who can ball may not make their varsity much less beyond. track suits a wider variety of body types. a fast 5' 7" kid isn't getting cut from varsity because he would be backed down on by his 6' 2" guard opponent. it might help in some events to be tall, HJ, hurdles, for example, but you can do everything else.

i'd think this would be a good offseason use for college setups. get the city kids in. offer them something besides football to play. get some shoe companies and charities to fund the equipment the setup doesn't already provide. if you develop up some kids that could be a college recruitment resource. their HS benefits but you run it like soccer where they know they probably owe more to the club, when one kid gets recruited then others see the value at the end. and all else fails keep busy and get fit.

I think our high school, and leading up to it is mostly fine. There are plenty of opportunities for kids to compete or participate. Our problem in the US is post hs, college and post college age. Plenty of people bag it once they get to college if there just aren't going to cut it on they team and the "club" team members are often just there for fun. You are often 100% on your own if the school team is just out of reach and left to you own device. Partying and the ladies can quickly end any infatuation not being on the school team. I was no stud, but if there was a real club type team I could of been in during and after college I'm sure I could of improved my hs times. To often on these boards it's asked, what happened to x ?, and our system more easily lets diamonds in the rough fall through the cracks. Also like other aspects of our society there is way to much emphasis on short term success than long term success. Real clubs, not like in my town where the "club" exists to recruit volunteers for 5k's would be a benefit for all.

There is a very big club system. Two. USATF and AAU.

The problem is maybe that for many talented youth athletes, track is their #2 sport, and #2 priority.

As far as I can say theres two reasons:

1: They start too late and give it too little focus from the beginning. Jakob was able to start training profesionally and focused from the age of 10. This also applies to Kenyans for instance. If Rupp for instance had the same involvement as Jakob had from that early on he could’ve reached the same level if not better. Also, track in HS only has the kids for one semester a year. I guess you can say two if they also do XC, but training still differs, compared to Jakob(just using him as an example here for obvious reasons, as you could probably put in a great American talent in his place and he would do just as well) who can focus on his main goal all year round.

2: Too much hard stuff. The HS system has you compete all the time all year round and do A LOT of hard workouts. This has lead to a lot of injury riddled and burned out athletes. Again compared to Jakob who can infamously build up brick by brick and not put the same hard stress on his body. The double treshold is one thing, but the focus on a lot of volume and less intensity giving an incredible aeorobic base is key, which is really hard to achieve with the constant competitions.

in relation to what above poster said about the US being competitive in all other sports I agree; because even though they can also suffer from the same system(training too hard and getting injuries), nothing beats running when it comes to overworking leading to injuries.

It seems your system prioritises short term results over long term development of individual athletes.

Also, it seems like an American high school coach's interests are at odds with their athlete's. These coach are incentivised to make the best team "now" (while the athletes are theirs), as that will reflect favourably on them - and therefore increasing their job prospects.

This is contrasted with the system in Australia (for example), where a coach will likely be trying to set an athlete up for senior success, as we don't really have any junior competitions that mean anything. As a result, it tends to be a much more conservative approach, which leads to a steadier progression.

This is the answer I would give as well. There is an emphasis on the "now" instead of the "later" in the US.

This can be observed at every level, but the NCAA is especially guilty of it. Very few coaches are willing to shelve conference success which might mean keeping their job or getting a raise in favor of long term development of an athlete/athletes.

This is also an issue at the high school level. California is a good example of that. Sprinters have to run 8 rounds in California to get to state finals. What do you think is going to happen after a talented athlete does that for 3-4 years on top of major invitationals like Arcadia, Mt. Sac, ect.

This is the same argument that travel baseball and travel soccer and travel volleyball make, and it's valid. If your kid is good at one of those sports, the chance your HS just happens to have a quality coach in that sport is very very small. Schools will search for a football coach and basketball coach with credentials, but they will dump just about any of the other sports on whatever teacher wants the supplement.

Track certainly has a market for private coaching and we see the discussion on here about how to balance that regularly. All that being said, I still believe in the HS model because it's open to everyone. Even if you have a garbage coach, SOME kids are exposed to T&F that would never pay or seek out a club, many go on to great success.

American high school is an example of a developing country. Freedom means all besides a few population centers or top religious programs are just wastelands where no one gets the development they need.

Cause all the top talent actually gets coached by good coaches. America could dunk on all these countries with our massive talent pool, however most coaching is lacking at best so these people never get to maximize their potential.

The World: We take promising teen athletes and train them to represent our respective nations in elite competition by the time that they reach age 18. Our very best are groomed to become elite professionals no later than age 20-21 by some of the best coaching minds on the planet. Development is a full-time job and is adequately funded and supported via government and private sponsors.

USA: We assign promising teens to school sports where coaching is very hit-or-miss. So long as a kid doesn't want to race more than 3200 meters, then we have events for them. High school coaches deliberately undertrain most athletes because we don't want blowback from parents about injuries. We also want to "save them" for college even though less than 2% will compete at the next level. Our college system forces the athlete to attend classes plus suffer academic and social stresses while being a part-time athlete. Typically, we fail to provide adequate medical support because of limited budgets and lack proper nutritional support because of socio-legal complications. Coaching is hit-or-miss. If the athlete survives all of this with their desire to compete still intact, they take a pledge of poverty to spend a few years in the full-time process of becoming mediocre on the world stage by age 30.

America has over 300 million people. Norway has less than 2% of that. Pound-for-pound is the only meaningful comparison when the populations are that different.

China is pretty much the only country that competes with America on the level that you're describing.

The youth circuit and the two entities I mentioned are huge, nationwide, developmental with a huge ability/talent range, start very very young, and run year round between xc, indoor (if available), and outdoor (year round if climate permits). HS kids with lousy school options can and do compete here.

here's the deal. state where i grew up we might have dozens of teams per age group in multiple leagues advancing to state, x 2 levels of quality, x2 genders, x about 10 of those age groups -- for select alone. rec leagues down to U5 that are highly popular. distinct from every HS of any size has a team, including plenty of kids outside the select system. each select team is like 15-20 kids. and that's per age group and per gender. double that for girl's teams. multiply by 10 because every one-year age group from U10-U19 has teams. are you seriously suggesting AAU/etc. matches that? no way. not even close.
and the thing is, unlike soccer, where we might have a cattle call at a select tryout, and you have to impress someone, and there is some politics.....track is generally open at its start. you don't have to turn away the 4th or 5th 100m kid for team size. nor do they have to be one of the best already to make the team.
no, i'm sorry, you're arguing rubbish. if track was like soccer, based on the volume of kids participating through schools, you would have many dozens per event, representing tens of teams. what i am looking at they had about a dozen kids entered in the 100m per boy's age group, whether U8 or U19. that's supposed to be regionals and is about the size of a smaller junior high meet or HS quad -- one of many any weekend -- in the city where i grew up. it's a drop in the bucket.
and you'd have a ton of unjaded U5s-U10s running around, entered in every meet. not 12 kids in the 100. not when a big HS invite meet might have 10 heats and almost a 100 kids. and most of us wouldn't be taking up the sport age 12 hitting 7th grade when schools start track. by then soccer has been playing 7 years and is already making distinctions for who goes select and gets the training.
last, you mentioned rubbish HS track coaches, mine were generally good, but this issue is less a problem if i am running 8 months a year for someone else. it's a bigger problem if that's my only access to coaching all year, at whatever quality the school hired. if the club system existed like you say, you'd blow that off as a concern just like we'd put up with playing for a nitwit or football coach to represent our HS soccer team.
related point but if the club system was any built up there would be an alternative to offer kids who don't get along with their HS coach, they wouldn't be on here all the time asking for training plans, and we wouldn't be explaining stuff like what college opportunities exist and what recruitment is like.

i mean, in terms of what is really built up, when we talk where an athlete comes from, it's "newbury park" or "atascocita," not "blah blah soccer club," "x state ODP," and the "U17 youth national team." that says who is being leaned on most, even if they do compete regionally and nationally beyond the season, or even get in a pro or college meet.

it's an extremely rare bird where it's like "we all know the kid can run 4-flat, can we ignore he didn't run a HS meet and put him through to state." 99.9999% of kids that's not their season.

Ok. Theres a lot to digest here and I'm still not sure what your point is. Track isn't soccer.

Soccer is huge where I am, but it's a big business. A money mill. Tons of crappy leagues and kids with no talent, and it's all very expensive but they all think they are super important.

AAU and USATF teams are around for those that want that elevated, higher level committed experience. Some of it, especially in the younger age groups are amateur hour, but the cream rises to the top very quickly once you approach the 11-12 age brackets and beyond. You may have to shop around for a team that's next level and not playdate fun playtime, but it exists if you look for it.