rfvgy12 said:

---

with a soccer ball world class


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

---

What??

I Am Mine said:

---

rfvgy12 said:

---

with a soccer ball world class


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

---

What??

---

He's not 6'2" 220,

PatAg said:

---

I Am Mine said:

---

rfvgy12 said:

---

with a soccer ball world class


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

---

What??

---

He's not 6'2" 220,

---

So we're book/covering who is world class?

That's just such a weird way to evaluate athleticism. They're really one of the best in the world in one context, but not in this other random one, so they're not world-class. I can't imagine thinking Michael Phelps isn't a world-class athlete because he's "only" good in the water.

Now if you want to differentiate between natural ability and developed skill, that's a discussion with some good research to talk about.

I am curious if the prevalence of Futsal in other countries, and the lack of it here in the states, plays a role in the general development of American soccer players. I'd be willing to bet, most of your world class soccer players, played/continue to play, Futsal regularly. The call control, vision, quick passing and decision making is just at another level with players from other countries comparatively to US players

I Am Mine said:

---

PatAg said:

---

I Am Mine said:

---

rfvgy12 said:

---

with a soccer ball world class


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

---

What??

---

He's not 6'2" 220,

---

So we're book/covering who is world class?

---

If Mbappe was 5'8" he would not be at Bama. Your example.

rfvgy12 said:

---

I Am Mine said:

---

PatAg said:

---

I Am Mine said:

---

rfvgy12 said:

---

with a soccer ball world class


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

---

What??

---

He's not 6'2" 220,

---

So we're book/covering who is world class?

---

If Mbappe was 5'8" he would not be at Bama. Your example.

---

Straw man.

What does Mbapp have to do with Messi?

So you're saying Messi doesn't look like a football player? I'll gvie you that.

But Messi probably could've played in the NFL if he had trained to play in the nfl. Think Barry Sanders.

The liberal substitution rules in different levels of US Soccer favor athletes over skills. Speed and quickness advantages can fade over 90 minutes, less so if you can rest for a bit.

The answer is easy: development is the most important factor in producing world-class footballers. Period.

Yes, it helps if the player pool is full of superior athletes but you have to develop what you have, regardless of athleticism. Plenty of examples of world-class soccer players who don't have the "measurables". The U.S. suffers for a couple of basic reasons. First, a lack of capable coaches at the youth level. The barrier to entry (cost) to earning licenses is a problem. If we want to develop more top class players, we need them to receive good coaching. The U.S. licensing system is the most expensive in the world. Second, the U.S. mindset is such that measurables receive priority, which keeps ALL participants from receiving a similar level of coaching as the superior athletes remain favored over development projects. We fall in love with the big, fast, strong player at the expense of players who may have the aptitude to develop but don't meet the eye test.

I think U.S. Soccer is trying to address this, bio-banding being one example where kids are pooled according to their physical development with other kids of similar stature. Making licenses easier to acquire, that is, not so cost prohibitive, would be another big step forward in developing our soccer pool to its fullest potential.

My personal take, is there was always too much emphasis on just winning the game as opposed to getting better. From articles I have read, that has been mostly addressed and we are more in line with other countries now.

HummingbirdSaltalamacchia said:

---

I am curious if the prevalence of Futsal in other countries, and the lack of it here in the states, plays a role in the general development of American soccer players. I'd be willing to bet, most of your world class soccer players, played/continue to play, Futsal regularly. The call control, vision, quick passing and decision making is just at another level with players from other countries comparatively to US players

---

I think you're into something, not exactly futsal specific but overall culture.

In Europe or South America, when kids go out to play they go play football. Their tactical ability is constantly enhanced by pickup games and improvisation, while here in the states those same kids are probably playing basketball if they're outside at all.

I think futsal teaches a lot of useful technical skills but it's not always super prevalent in some countries that are pretty good at soccer.

But, going off the previous post, there are pretty large groups of kids and young athletes in the United States that don't ever play soccer.

And yeah yeah yeah, it's the most popular organized youth sport or whatever. Still a lot of kids that never play, organized or in the back yard, and thus, we never know if they're any good.

If we want to know if some of our top athletes could be great soccer players, they need to play at least a little bit.

So, I don't think we only have a problem with entry to serious soccer development programs, we have an entry problem before that.

Not as serious a problem as in golf or hockey, maybe closer to baseball on the spectrum.

Which gets back to my point... Nearly every RB/WR/DB/PG/Outfieldier in the Big 3 would probably have made a good soccer player if they had given a rip about the sport.

And at the same time, development is lacking for financial reasons (which are tied to lack of popularity).

Soccer is The Unequivocal Number One Sport in every country that we're constrasting ourselves with. That makes a huge difference in terms of culture, talent pool, development... everything. The only thing we have going for us in the US is that we value sports in general more than other countries so there's a chance that if soccer could solidify itself as a number 4 behind the Big 3 that things would fall into place.

Bill Simmons had a guy named David Epstein on his podcast last week (Episode 524) where they discussed this. It starts at the 1:09:00 mark. He was promoting a book about the benefits of delaying specialization in youth sports, but they talk about soccer development specifically quite a bit. I don't know anything about the development system we have in the US (or anywhere else), so I found it interesting.

I apologize in advance for keeping this going, but I ask this as a dumb noob to the sport in an effort to learn something...

When women's national teams play friendlies against men's teams that are much younger - and get beaten... is it because the men are better athletes, or are they better developed? I have a hard time thinking that the FC Dallas U-15's were better developed or had better tactical knowledge than the USWNT, but I admit I have no clue how any of this works.

deadbq03 said:

---

I apologize in advance for keeping this going, but I ask this as a dumb noob to the sport in an effort to learn something...

When women's national teams play friendlies against men's teams that are much younger - and get beaten... is it because the men are better athletes, or are they better developed? I have a hard time thinking that the FC Dallas U-15's were better developed or had better tactical knowledge than the USWNT, but I admit I have no clue how any of this works.

---

Are you asking elite women are about the same as elite 15 year old boys?

Cuz that's about the equivalency. In all sports.

Seven Costanza said:

---

Bill Simmons had a guy named David Epstein on his podcast last week (Episode 524) where they discussed this. It starts at the 1:09:00 mark. He was promoting a book about the benefits of delaying specialization in youth sports, but they talk about soccer development specifically quite a bit. I don't know anything about the development system we have in the US (or anywhere else), so I found it interesting.

---

I was going to bring this up too. Epstein really singles out soccer. His book makes the argument against specialization, and he acknowledges that soccer fans are the most "yeah but soccer is a different animal". Makes me really want to check out his book, since apparently he cited multiple studies and examples to the contrary.

No I'm not confused about that.

My point is that folks are arguing that development/tactics is more important than athletes... and my thought is that IF, and I say that as a big if because I truly don't know, women's soccer and men's soccer are tactically and technically the same sport, that it indicates to me that raw athleticism trumps great development because I would think that the women would've been hands-down better trained/developed.

When skill levels are relatively equal, better athleticism prevails?

jeffk said:

---

When skill levels are relatively equal, better athleticism prevails?

---

Clearly that ought to be a true statement... and the converse ought to be true as well.

Maybe I'm way off track, but my thinking is that a women's national team ought to be tactically superior, and perhaps even technically superior (completing passes, properly timed challenges, etc) but when the rubber meets the road, men who are even much younger are going to be stronger, faster, more agile... and that prevails over better development/training.

You could use aging players as the same case study. The average 33 year old player is tactically superior to the average 19 year old, and may be technically superior in most aspects of the game, but if they can't keep up anymore or can't play a full 90, then athleticism trumps development.

Good thread and good discussion.

On the question of WNTs playing against U15 DA boys teams, its really an apples to oranges comparison. The fact is men are superior physically to women, can't be argued even though that might irritate the PC crowd. Its just the way nature operates. In my experience, the technical development of boys at the highest level of play (DA in the US) are on par with most women's national team players' development at the younger ages, and not even comparable when you reach the U17 ages and above. Saw it first-hand in the Fall when a team of U15s played against Jamaica's WNT in their WC qualifier warm-ups. Overall technical abilities probably favored the boys, even.

Here's something to consider: If you watched the U20 WC match between Nigeria and USA yesterday, you could make a solid argument that Nigeria had the superior athletes. USA won 2-0 and was the better team most of the match. Why? They had better technical abilities, i.e., better development. If the superior athlete argument is correct, then Nigeria should have won on athleticism, but didn't.

At a certain point, sheer athleticism is overtaken by technical development. That is why you see countries like Argentina, Spain, Croatia, Germany, etc. excel at the highest level - because they are better at developing their players. France has done a good job of bringing along players that have great athleticism and providing excellent development. They may be the outlier at this point in pairing high-level athleticism with world-class development but technical development will always be the most important part of producing world-class footballers. In my opinion. Respectfully.

carl spacklers hat said:

---

Good thread and good discussion.

On the question of WNTs playing against U15 DA boys teams, its really an apples to oranges comparison. The fact is men are superior physically to women, can't be argued even though that might irritate the PC crowd. Its just the way nature operates. In my experience, the technical development of boys at the highest level of play (DA in the US) are on par with most women's national team players' development at the younger ages, and not even comparable when you reach the U17 ages and above. Saw it first-hand in the Fall when a team of U15s played against Jamaica's WNT in their WC qualifier warm-ups. Overall technical abilities probably favored the boys, even.

Here's something to consider: If you watched the U20 WC match between Nigeria and USA yesterday, you could make a solid argument that Nigeria had the superior athletes. USA won 2-0 and was the better team most of the match. Why? They had better technical abilities, i.e., better development. If the superior athlete argument is correct, then Nigeria should have won on athleticism, but didn't.

At a certain point, sheer athleticism is overtaken by technical development. That is why you see countries like Argentina, Spain, Croatia, Germany, etc. excel at the highest level - because they are better at developing their players. France has done a good job of bringing along players that have great athleticism and providing excellent development. They may be the outlier at this point in pairing high-level athleticism with world-class development but technical development will always be the most important part of producing world-class footballers. In my opinion. Respectfully.

---

One equivalent athletic improvement step is not the same value as one equivalent-step in skill improvement.

Of course you want to improve and develop both but there is bigger ROI with improved skill. As someone mentioned above the new substitute rules will shift this further toward skills.

"One equivalent athletic improvement step is not the same value as one equivalent-step in skill improvement.

Of course you want to improve and develop both but there is bigger ROI with improved skill."

Thanks for summarizing my essay.

In my opinion, athleticism starts to have diminishing returns in team based athletics once you reach the elite professional level. All players in Champions League level European teams must have a base level of athleticism just to be on that team. So long as they are at or above the base, their overall ability will be determined by a combination of additional athleticism and skill. A more skillful player will be better at certain roles than a person with more athleticism but less skill. I would be willing to bet that every single player in an MLS starting 11 possesses the necessary base athleticism to play for a top 6 EPL side, but they don't possess the right combination of athleticism and skill required above and beyond the base level.

The important point though is that there is a base level of athleticism. Many of the top U15 boys in world football already possess that base level, where as there are zero women in the world that do. Without the base level, you simply cannot compete or make up for the lack of it in a game like soccer where athleticism plays such a major role.

Example: I have an attorney that works for me that ran track at Incarnate Word before they became D1. He made the DII national track meet in the 200m and 400m and failed to place in both races. He still ran substantially faster than the women's world record times in both events.

The advantage you get from increased athleticism, tactics, technical skills, etc all do tend to level off at some point. Where exactly those diminishing return points are is a tougher thing to determine. I think an increase in one facet can make up for a shortcoming in one of the others to some extent, but if a big enough gulf exists between two teams in any one of those areas, you'll see a noticeable difference.

It's not the NFL or NBA that have limited the USNT's success. It is high school football coaches. It's the incessant call to develop athletes over everything else.

American Football has been one of the least skilled sports in the last 40 years. There is technique in football, but the application of skills in time and space is much less than other sports (soccer, basketball, baseball). In basketball and baseball we have seen a large uptick in the number of non-Americans finding great success at the professional level.

There is a level in every sport where skill becomes a larger element in determining success than pure athleticism. Both are needed (as well as mental acumen, perseverance, tactical awareness) but when skill is minimal, athleticism plays a large role in success and as skill and tactical awareness grow, athleticism becomes are much smaller element when determining success. In the US, this tended to happen when athletes were recruited to college and began to specialize. If you look at the development of each sport over the last 40 years and the amount of skill applied at younger and younger ages, America's development approach has remained the high school football coach mentality. All kids should play all sport and focus on becoming better athletes. This mindset limits all other sports. You can't play soccer or basketball or baseball three months out of the year and become a skilled tactician.

Our system of youth development needs to evolve as the different sports do and we must embrace skill development at a much younger age than we ever have before. The tactical aspects cannot develop until the skill aspects develop. You can't start connecting passes, making diagonal runs, overlaps, etc. unless you can first pass and receive the ball.

The interesting aspect is football coaches are finally realizing the change in football where skill is becoming a larger part of the game thanks to the reliance on passing attacks. With that realization, spring football, 7-0n-7, and year-round individual skill training are now commonplace. They no longer are as willing to "share" athletes as they once forced all other coaches to do.

Instead of having the mindset of "when I was in school 20 years ago, we played everything," parents and coaches must realize the games have evolved (just take a look at a world cup game from 30 years ago - or superbowl - or NBA championship) and you will see how much the games have evolved. They are all much more skilled and athletic. Unfortunately, America has solely focused on athleticism so we have players who can win the ball only to turn it over as soon as they win it.

Our USWNT has had a very large advantage due to Title IX over other countries, but we are now seeing the gap greatly diminishing because our development system is so far behind in terms of understanding the importance of skill development at young ages.

Your post reminded me of My daughters skills coach. He says that the skills and drills he does with my 11 year old are the same drills he learned as a professional. He played in the MLS, USL, and several other leagues around the world.

He didn't get the training she is getting at a young age and he got by with athleticism.

https://www.gftskills.com/

Oops on the emoji.

so our baseball development is very similar to what they have in Europe for soccer.

The main difference is with Americans they don't go professional until 18.

It does seem we're getting there with "minor" league teams associated with the main club.

If you look at where we are today versus 20 years ago in terms of infrastructure, it's amazing.

It then, the Champions league final pre game show was basketball oriented so who knows.

I know France lost, today in the U20 WC, but they're a great example of developed athletes.

We should be at their level if not higher.

bump to add tweet about German youth soccer changes

I don't understand that tweet not mentioning the age range for this. Are they only going to play this style? Not really any information or input provided beyond "Germany is doing this thing"
In the DFW area we always had 3v3 tournaments in "off-season". They can be a great tool in conjunction with practice that incorporates full team/field play.

https://amp.dw.com/en/the-future-of-youth-football-in-germany/a-49231568?__twitter_impression=true