I've read many arguments about why US soccer lags behind the rest of the world.

Is it we don't develop or players or our best athletes aren't playing soccer?

I can agree with some aspects of development, but then, our women are as good as anyone else in the world. Are our women developed better than the men? Or do we have better women athletes playing soccer?

I don't have a good answer to this.

I believe that the more world class athletes we have playing soccer the better our results will be.

I also believe our development with the DA with the MLS teams is better at developing and identifying players than ever before.

The U20 team for the first time in US history only has professionals playing. The u23 Olympic team will be our best ever.

So let me hear your thoughts.

Athletes, development, or both?

I believe it to be both. I recently took my son to watch United play Chelsea and had the opportunity to chat with former Arsenal and United great Frank Stapleton about youth development. In the U.S. we have so many kids playing under Dad coaches (I was one). It's great that they volunteer, but many don't have a soccer background leading the kids to getting less development than kids their age around the world. Frank made the point that it was that way years ago in England and it will build over time as more people coaching will be ex-soccer players in the future. Additionally, as domestic teams bring managers, trainers and coaches over to take more prominent roles here than they had overseas, we will see continued growth.

To the other side. If we were playing fewer sports professionally in the U.S., the likelihood that our elite athletes choose to do something other than soccer would be less. However, the current pay for athletes in MLS lags considerably behind our other major sports domestically. If we ever get to the point where MLS is paying competitive salaries to the big 4 in the U.S. then we will see a further push in athletes choosing soccer. That's probably decades though.

The last thing I would add is I was recently watching a story on Marcus Rashford and he talked about training 5-6 days a week with his youth club. That's simply something that we don't do here.

Better coaches, more touches, higher pay domestically. They all play a part in the development of our top athletes.

Both.

Rudyjax said:

---

I can agree with some aspects of development, but then, our women are as good as anyone else in the world. Are our women developed better than the men? Or do we have better women athletes playing soccer?

---

The infrastructure for women's soccer outside of the US just wasn't there until recently. College soccer was leaps and bounds ahead of whatever any other other country had for women's soccer.

But that's changing and changing quickly. European clubs are investing a lot more in women's soccer (Manchester United didn't even have a women's team until this year). And you're beginning to see the effects. 20 years ago it was the US, China, Norway...and that's about it. Now the US is one of several elite teams any of which has a great chance at winning the World Cup. Personally, I think it's just a matter of time before we get passed up. If the big European clubs put even 5% of their revenue and effort into their women's clubs, it will greatly surpass anything that NWSL or college soccer can offer.

Long story short, I believe it to be both. But if we improved the way we developed players, we wouldn't need our best athletes to play soccer to be a dominant team on either the men's or women's side.

We have the athletes, just look at Deandre Yedlin. He's probably one of the faster players in the world. He doesnt do too much else(and im the board's resident sounders homer), but dang he's fast.


Coaching, academies, and overall infrastructure are still decades behind the world's super powers. We're catching up, but it's gonna take time.

Let me ask you this.....

If Mbappe were raised in the US, do you think he'd be at Bama right now catching TDS?

I do.

Quote:

---

The last thing I would add is I was recently watching a story on Marcus Rashford and he talked about training 5-6 days a week with his youth club. That's simply something that we don't do here

---

Maybe not in the past, but the son of a friend is on the FC Dallas U15 & U14 DA and has been to two national camps. Those DA kids practice every day.

Rudyjax said:

---

Quote:

---

The last thing I would add is I was recently watching a story on Marcus Rashford and he talked about training 5-6 days a week with his youth club. That's simply something that we don't do here

---

Maybe not in the past, but the son of a friend is on the FC Dallas U15 & U14 DA and has been to two national camps. Those DA kids practice every day.

---

I'll have to go back and find it, but I think he was talking about that training at age 9 or so. Rode the bus for an hour each way to do so.

The shortest answer I can give:

Pay to play vs. Paid to play

eiggA2002 said:

---

The shortest answer I can give:

Pay to play vs. Paid to play

---

True dat.

I'll add a third factor that might not be popular here:

The US provides very little funding for education after high school, whereas countries in Europe offer quite a bit more (albeit tied to passing tests).

Many parents see athletics as the only way they'd be able to afford college, so they put their kids in popular college sports (and men's soccer is not one of those).

Furthermore, in Europe, being in a "skilled trade" isn't looked down on as much as it is in the US. The mentality amongst middle-class and wealthy parents in the US is that getting their kids into college is a must, and kids feel like failures if they don't get in. So again, kids and parents are drawn to sports that might help them get into college.

It's certainly both. After listening to America Fiasco about the 98 world cup. What struck out to me was when the team had success down in Uruguay, it was the confidence of the players. They believed they were good enough and competed well against world class teams.

Contrast that with Paxton Pomykal who has played really well with FCD this year as a 19 year old. He stated that confidence was the reason why he improved as a player. And not just his own confidence, but confidence from the coach. That is key. My son plays in college and there were three freshman who started in the NCAA games. One from the UK, one from DA and one incredibly athletic. All three were fully confident in practice and in games and did very well. The coach trusted them and did not platoon or pull them.

I've heard that American players are plenty athletic and good enough technically, but very naive tactically. How does that improve? Better coaching at younger ages? More games? I believe the DA system has improved the quality of play, but it is slow going.

It's six in one hand, half a dozen in the other. I think our population is large enough to support a variety of professional sports simultaneously - I don't buy the argument that the reason our soccer program lags behind other nations is due to the NBA or the NFL. Would it help to have all those athletes grow up playing soccer? Sure, but I don't think that's why we fail to compete with the Spains and Uruguays and Ghanas of the world. I think it's mostly a talent identification problem coupled with a developmental and financial problem. Youth sports culture (at least for soccer) in the US is just not set up to get your most promising athletes into the pros. It's too costly and there's not enough motivation there for the clubs to really do a ton of scouting and developing.

If I was in charge of US Soccer and given budgetary control I'd immediately make all of their coaching education courses (except maybe the national diploma) free of cost. (Same with referee training.) Get a glut of well-trained coaches into the youth ranks (including your public and private schools) quickly. I'd also encourage MLS clubs to invest in partnerships with local schools and "rec leagues" to help with creating teams and identifying talented players that may have slipped by our for-profit soccer clubs. I'd also offer increased financial pressures to grow the DA program to include more and more free-to-play teams and ensure that FTP extends towards travel and other costs currently covered by families of the players. Personally, I'd love it if we could get to a point in our country where the club season could adjust their schedule to allow the local high school season to flourish under quality coaches as well - there's still something special about representing your neighborhood school and community and playing for competitions with your childhood friends. (I know there's all sorts of issues with all of these suggestions.)

I do find it fascinating that the one aspect of American sports culture that has helped the USWNT achieve such great heights (collegiate athletics) has been pointed to as a hindrance for the men's development.

Title 9.

jeffk said:

---

I do find it fascinating that the one aspect of American sports culture that has helped the USWNT achieve such great heights (collegiate athletics) has been pointed to as a hindrance for the men's development.

---

Two words: Title Nine

In the US over the past 40 years, going to college has grown from something that only smart kids tried do, to something that all kids try to do. Couple that with soaring tuition and it's a situation where the sports of choice are those that will help you get into and pay for college. Men's soccer is not attractive if that's your metric. Women's soccer is.

Of course, it's also a big chicken/egg argument. The bottom line is that soccer has always lagged in popularity to the sports that began in the US... and that has resulted in a long history of no funding for development and no interest from elite athletes. If it had been the most popular sport, then men's soccer would have all the scholarships and other sports would've seen cuts when title 9 got introduced.

I can't help but look at nearly every RB/WR/DB in football and PG in basketball and see someone who would have been a good soccer player if they had grown up kicking balls instead of catching them or dribbling them. It's unfathomable to think about how much more talent and money would be available if soccer could somehow break into the "Big 3" in terms of popularity.

Lol. Yes, I'm familiar with Title IX.

So no matter what the issue is, our youth development is getting better and better. Take the u20 team.

100% professional athletes.

First time ever.

Rudyjax said:

---

So no matter what the issue is, our youth development is getting better and better. Take the u20 team.

100% professional athletes.

First time ever.

---

No question it's improving... and hopefully that'll bring more interest (and money).

I think someone posted an article about how Belgium has made huge strides with their youth development. Basically they don't even play 11 on 11 until like age 15. They start out playing 1 v 1. I've always been intrigued by that.

salloh_tamu said:

---

I think someone posted an article about how Belgium has made huge strides with their youth development. Basically they don't even play 11 on 11 until like age 15. They start out playing 1 v 1. I've always been intrigued by that.

---

US soccer just implemented going longer 4v4, 7v7, and 9v9. 11v11 starts at U13 now instead of U11.

It's a step in the right direction.

Additionally went to birth year classification rather than school year like the rest of the world. It was implemented poorly though.

My daughter won't havd a club team her senior year.

We don't lack athletes, but it is possible that some of the "best" athletes in other sports would also increase our depth if they had been in soccer development from the beginning. It's not pure athleticism, some people just process the game faster than others, or have better spatial sense.

The more we have dedicated resources to soccer development at a younger age, goin back about 20 years, we keep churning out more and more quality players which increases our depth.

captainsubtext said:

---

It's certainly both. After listening to America Fiasco about the 98 world cup. What struck out to me was when the team had success down in Uruguay, it was the confidence of the players. They believed they were good enough and competed well against world class teams.

Contrast that with Paxton Pomykal who has played really well with FCD this year as a 19 year old. He stated that confidence was the reason why he improved as a player. And not just his own confidence, but confidence from the coach. That is key. My son plays in college and there were three freshman who started in the NCAA games. One from the UK, one from DA and one incredibly athletic. All three were fully confident in practice and in games and did very well. The coach trusted them and did not platoon or pull them.

I've heard that American players are plenty athletic and good enough technically, but very naive tactically. How does that improve? Better coaching at younger ages? More games? I believe the DA system has improved the quality of play, but it is slow going.

---

The tactics part is definitely improving on the whole, and that does start from a young age. To encourage and teach players to think about the game, and not worry solely about just running faster than everyone else because you can. If anything, less games is the way to go which is reflected over the past decade

This isn't the exact article as it is not as in depth but it does highlight their main goal.

https://www.icoachkids.eu/dribbling-football-how-a-children-centred-approach-led-belgian-youth-football-from-11v-1-into-2v2.html

I know when I played it was very similar here in Texas but I think we started at 4 or 5 v 5. Even that seems too complicated for young kids.

Rudyjax said:

---

Quote:

---

The last thing I would add is I was recently watching a story on Marcus Rashford and he talked about training 5-6 days a week with his youth club. That's simply something that we don't do here

---

Maybe not in the past, but the son of a friend is on the FC Dallas U15 & U14 DA and has been to two national camps. Those DA kids practice every day.

---

Check out his U14 team in the Man City Cup. You can watch their match against Monterrey on Watch Espn. It was this morning. Quick watch. 25 min halves.

Messi is hardly a work class athlete. So there's that...

rfvgy12 said:

---

Messi is hardly a work class athlete. So there's that...

---

Meh. He is. To say otherwise is insulting.

I Am Mine said:

---

rfvgy12 said:

---

Messi is hardly a work class athlete. So there's that...

---

Meh. He is. To say otherwise is insulting.

---

He is extremely gifted technically that comes from dedication and hard work. Technical skills over pure athleticism is my point.

The US team has always lacked players gifted enough with confidence to take on defenders and expose the spaces behind. Early 90's teams played over the top and current teams attempted ticky tack Spanish style.

We need to develop the capacity for direct South American style dribbling to break a sound defense.

Messi's ability to move is not learned thru training. It's inate ability that cannot be taught.

rfvgy12 said:

---

I Am Mine said:

---

rfvgy12 said:

---

Messi is hardly a work class athlete. So there's that...

---

Meh. He is. To say otherwise is insulting.

---

He is extremely gifted technically that comes from dedication and hard work. Technical skills over pure athleticism is my point.

The US team has always lacked players gifted enough with confidence to take on defenders and expose the spaces behind. Early 90's teams played over the top and current teams attempted ticky tack Spanish style.

We need to develop the capacity for direct South American style dribbling to break a sound defense.

---

just develop it, its that simple!

"Messi isn't athletic" is certainly something.

"Talent" doesn't simply mean pure athleticism. Innate mental/psychological characteristics play a major role.

We've all known those guys who could learn a new sport and be above-average just by showing up. Church group is going bowling, the dude hasn't bowled in 4 years, and he shows up and kicks everyone's butt... that kind of guy.

Training and development can only take you so far... but on the flip-side, talent only takes you so far too. That same friend I mentioned above never made it in any sport because he couldn't handle criticism and had no drive to improve himself. He was happy being able to show up and out-talent people. We've all had friends and/or Heisman trophy winners that fit that mold and flame out once they can't out-talent the competition. And you could argue that being "uncoachable" is a negative innate quality, so again, having the right mental characteristics is a critical component to a player's talent level.

Watching Man City Cup, Man City u14 v Atl United.

I'm thinking this is Man Cities U12 or 13 team. Atl United look much more older. They're bigger, stronger, faster.

jeffk said:

---

"Messi isn't athletic" is certainly something.

---

Not what I said

"Messi is hardly a work class athlete."

That's what you said and I figured work=world.

You don't think he's a world-class athlete or am I interpreting your comments incorrectly?

with a soccer ball world class


Outside of soccer he would not be my first pick for a pickup game of any major sport.