For those who continually bring up college soccer for men. One common complaint for men's college soccer is all of the foreign players taking the scholarships. One thing to note is most of these foreigners taking the college scholarships are those who couldn't make it in the academies in Europe so they decided to come over here for a free education. Yet, you are arguing that college soccer is where the development will happen. You are way too late in the developmental process these days if you think college is where kids will develop. Most Americans are getting beat out by European Academy dropouts for those spots currently. I don't see those foreign players going back and playing for their home country. For our USWNT, I think you will see the makeup of 3-4 year college players dramatically fall over the next five years. More and more girls are going pro at earlier ages for the development. It will be interesting to see how many U20 USWNT players are college players vs pros this fall. That is assuming the pros get released.
USMNT and Youth Soccer In America
4,978 Views |
71 Replies |
Last: 3 mo ago by vwbug
You are right, by College age, technical ability, team understanding etc. must all be there. College Soccer could be a stepping stone for those who may need to "grow" more physically / in confidence (in higher level English professional teams for example, often players would be sent on loan to a club in a lower division for this type of development).
But in respect of the typical skills development cycle of a soccer player, College is way too late as you say. Per my earlier post -- first at elementary age there has to be fun playing the game in a environment largely free of commercial and institutional demands. Those who possess the ability will emerge naturally. Junior High level should be a major growth period where those naturally able players start to see how they can apply those skills for the benefit of the team around them, and introduce to the set up of a full size 11 player team. By high school age technique should be at a level where more advanced tactics and formations can be applied e.g. when the team has the ball, when it does not have the ball. At the typical High School graduation age, the best players should be able to perform at some level of the professional sport.
But in respect of the typical skills development cycle of a soccer player, College is way too late as you say. Per my earlier post -- first at elementary age there has to be fun playing the game in a environment largely free of commercial and institutional demands. Those who possess the ability will emerge naturally. Junior High level should be a major growth period where those naturally able players start to see how they can apply those skills for the benefit of the team around them, and introduce to the set up of a full size 11 player team. By high school age technique should be at a level where more advanced tactics and formations can be applied e.g. when the team has the ball, when it does not have the ball. At the typical High School graduation age, the best players should be able to perform at some level of the professional sport.
Wanted to also make a further comment for those who might be scratching their heads a bit when considering how the women's game evolved here versus the men's and the importance of College Soccer for women. The same cycle as I described above generally also applies in the women's game. They did not suddenly develop basic skills at College.
In the 1990s the two leading countries in women's international soccer by far were USA and China. The role of US College Soccer was to essentially sponsor players through scholarship the ability to play at an almost full time basis (not withstanding keeping up academics of course) and so their athletic and fitness capabilities greatly benefited as well as continuing to grow their understanding of team dynamics etc. China, through a different mechanism (government financing) had similar opportunity. In almost every other country, women's soccer was part time at best and I remember watching those World Cup games in the 1990s, other then USA and China the players were generally gassed out after 70 minutes!
Fast forward to today and look what you have. With Europe especially and also South America moving beyond earlier cultural inhibitions and fully embracing the game as a serious professional sport, the US team has lost its historical position of dominance and China cannot compete. Watching England's women muscle the China team aside in the last World Cup meeting proved the point.
Now on a positive front USA team now has Emma Hayes in charge who is a brilliant coach, and she has been less concerned about win-win-win every international game and more concerned with giving a broad cross section of talented young women opportunity to gain experience playing for their country as she builds from that a team that can compete to regain the top spot in the next World Cup.
In the 1990s the two leading countries in women's international soccer by far were USA and China. The role of US College Soccer was to essentially sponsor players through scholarship the ability to play at an almost full time basis (not withstanding keeping up academics of course) and so their athletic and fitness capabilities greatly benefited as well as continuing to grow their understanding of team dynamics etc. China, through a different mechanism (government financing) had similar opportunity. In almost every other country, women's soccer was part time at best and I remember watching those World Cup games in the 1990s, other then USA and China the players were generally gassed out after 70 minutes!
Fast forward to today and look what you have. With Europe especially and also South America moving beyond earlier cultural inhibitions and fully embracing the game as a serious professional sport, the US team has lost its historical position of dominance and China cannot compete. Watching England's women muscle the China team aside in the last World Cup meeting proved the point.
Now on a positive front USA team now has Emma Hayes in charge who is a brilliant coach, and she has been less concerned about win-win-win every international game and more concerned with giving a broad cross section of talented young women opportunity to gain experience playing for their country as she builds from that a team that can compete to regain the top spot in the next World Cup.
I'm not sure I'd agree on China being one of the best teams of the 90s. I don't think they've won a world cup and may have reached the finals only once (vs the 99ers which is why everyone thinks they were beasts) but Germany and Norway were more of threats back then.
The USA went through a similar cycle as they are today after the 99ers all retired. The USA had to find ways to reload. The issue with the women's game in the USA today is an entire generation of female soccer players were basically forced out of the game and we are having to backfill now. The financial situation was such that if you were part of the USWNT, you were well rewarded but if you weren't, you had a hard time making minimum wage playing professional soccer. The women who were on the Full Team held on with a tight grip and the powers that be couldn't broaden the pool of players because of the way the finances were set up. So, there is a major void in the 25-35 age range right now for American Women. Finances are finally to the point where women can make a viable living wage in professional soccer which should help future USWNT tremendously.
The USA went through a similar cycle as they are today after the 99ers all retired. The USA had to find ways to reload. The issue with the women's game in the USA today is an entire generation of female soccer players were basically forced out of the game and we are having to backfill now. The financial situation was such that if you were part of the USWNT, you were well rewarded but if you weren't, you had a hard time making minimum wage playing professional soccer. The women who were on the Full Team held on with a tight grip and the powers that be couldn't broaden the pool of players because of the way the finances were set up. So, there is a major void in the 25-35 age range right now for American Women. Finances are finally to the point where women can make a viable living wage in professional soccer which should help future USWNT tremendously.
The one thing a more robust mens college soccer system could accomplish is getting more players to stay invested in soccer at younger ages, and help convince parents as well.
Right now a very very small percent of players go pro, and that will always be the case in the us.
But in football, basketball, baseball there are a LOT if D1 programs that you could have a real chance at continuing to play at.
In soccer, especially in the south, there is a much smaller # of d1 programs.
So I agree that for most players college is not where you go to develop, but it might help increase the size of the player pool at young ages.
I would have loved to play in college, but I had no desire to go to a D2 or D3 school for it versus A&M
Right now a very very small percent of players go pro, and that will always be the case in the us.
But in football, basketball, baseball there are a LOT if D1 programs that you could have a real chance at continuing to play at.
In soccer, especially in the south, there is a much smaller # of d1 programs.
So I agree that for most players college is not where you go to develop, but it might help increase the size of the player pool at young ages.
I would have loved to play in college, but I had no desire to go to a D2 or D3 school for it versus A&M
My two cents on the subject:
This is obviously a complex issue and our consistent failure on the world stage is not just down to one singular issue. It's a collection of structural issues that have existed for decades, and they show up when we play the elites.
First, the pay-to-play model is fundamentally flawed imo. Families spending $5k$25k / year for club soccer is absurd. It prices out countless talented kids before they ever get a chance. In most major soccer nations, the best young players are identified and brought into professional academies at little to no cost. Here, your family's financial situation often determines your access to high-level development. That's a terrible way to identify elite talent.
Second, our youth development system has historically rewarded the wrong things. From youth soccer through college (and to a certain extent even into USL and MLS) we've often prioritized size, power, and speed. The biggest, fastest, strongest kids because they help win games today. Winning youth tournaments sells club memberships, attracts the next wave of families, and puts trophies in the cabinet. But producing professionals isn't the same as winning U11 tournaments. As a result, smaller, more technical players often get overlooked or have to fight much harder for opportunities until they physically mature. Compare that to countries like Spain, Portugal, Croatia, or Japan, where technical ability, first touch, decision-making, and spatial awareness are emphasized from a young age. Those countries aren't ignoring athleticism, they're simply building it on top of technical excellence rather than using it as a substitute.
A major reason for this is coaching. In many of the world's top soccer nations, some of the best coaches work with the youngest players because they understand that's where habits are formed. The quality of coaching here is wildly inconsistent and often expensive to access. The only real qualifications some club coaches have is failing at a third division pro or semi-pro club and having an accent. How many of our kids are ocached by volunteers and parent-coaches?
Thirdly, I think American soccer tends to punish mistakes at young ages. Too often, a defender who tries to play out of the back and loses the ball gets yelled at by coaches or parents. So what do kids learn? Boot it long. Don't take risks. Don't lose the ball. Compare that to elite academies, where mistakes are viewed as part of learning. Coaches would rather a player attempt the right decision and fail than make the safe decision every time. You cannot develop creative, technically elite players if they're afraid to make mistakes. Historically, college soccer reinforced some of these habits. Have you ever watched a D1 soccer game? It's just one big, fast game of kickball. Crunching tackles flying everywhere, ball booted up to a centre forward, and prayers that a ball bounces the right way. Very little technical nuance. The college game's style generally does not reward the same level of composure, ball retention, or tactical sophistication seen in the world's best development environments. If we want to make strides as a country, funneling resources into the college game is not the route to go.
Another issue I see is the sheer number of games. Too many of our clubs prioritize tournaments, showcases, and league matches over quality training. Development happens on the training ground, not by playing four games over the weekend. Elite European academies often spend far more time training than competing because they understand repetition builds elite habits.
One thing that I think is often overlooked is that the United States simply arrived late to the business of developing players. For decades, there wasn't much financial incentive for American clubs to invest heavily in youth development. FIFA's solidarity mechanism sets aside 5% of an international transfer fee for the clubs that trained a player between the ages of 12 and 23. European and South American clubs have benefited from this system for years, creating another reason to invest in academies. MLS notoriously did not participate in these solidarity payments bc it supposedly interfered with labor laws or some bull like that. This all changed in 2019 when USSF reversed their stance. MLS clubs finally had a pathway to be rewarded financially for producing elite talent. Around that same time, MLS NEXT accelerated investment in professional youth development. Conversely, European clubs have been refining academy systems for 50 - 100 years. MLS has only been truly committed to league-wide academies for less than two decades, and only in the last decade has player development become a central part of the business model. We're essentially watching the second generation of MLS academy graduates emerge.
There is obviously no singular solution to what is evidently a complex systemic issue.
This is obviously a complex issue and our consistent failure on the world stage is not just down to one singular issue. It's a collection of structural issues that have existed for decades, and they show up when we play the elites.
First, the pay-to-play model is fundamentally flawed imo. Families spending $5k$25k / year for club soccer is absurd. It prices out countless talented kids before they ever get a chance. In most major soccer nations, the best young players are identified and brought into professional academies at little to no cost. Here, your family's financial situation often determines your access to high-level development. That's a terrible way to identify elite talent.
Second, our youth development system has historically rewarded the wrong things. From youth soccer through college (and to a certain extent even into USL and MLS) we've often prioritized size, power, and speed. The biggest, fastest, strongest kids because they help win games today. Winning youth tournaments sells club memberships, attracts the next wave of families, and puts trophies in the cabinet. But producing professionals isn't the same as winning U11 tournaments. As a result, smaller, more technical players often get overlooked or have to fight much harder for opportunities until they physically mature. Compare that to countries like Spain, Portugal, Croatia, or Japan, where technical ability, first touch, decision-making, and spatial awareness are emphasized from a young age. Those countries aren't ignoring athleticism, they're simply building it on top of technical excellence rather than using it as a substitute.
A major reason for this is coaching. In many of the world's top soccer nations, some of the best coaches work with the youngest players because they understand that's where habits are formed. The quality of coaching here is wildly inconsistent and often expensive to access. The only real qualifications some club coaches have is failing at a third division pro or semi-pro club and having an accent. How many of our kids are ocached by volunteers and parent-coaches?
Thirdly, I think American soccer tends to punish mistakes at young ages. Too often, a defender who tries to play out of the back and loses the ball gets yelled at by coaches or parents. So what do kids learn? Boot it long. Don't take risks. Don't lose the ball. Compare that to elite academies, where mistakes are viewed as part of learning. Coaches would rather a player attempt the right decision and fail than make the safe decision every time. You cannot develop creative, technically elite players if they're afraid to make mistakes. Historically, college soccer reinforced some of these habits. Have you ever watched a D1 soccer game? It's just one big, fast game of kickball. Crunching tackles flying everywhere, ball booted up to a centre forward, and prayers that a ball bounces the right way. Very little technical nuance. The college game's style generally does not reward the same level of composure, ball retention, or tactical sophistication seen in the world's best development environments. If we want to make strides as a country, funneling resources into the college game is not the route to go.
Another issue I see is the sheer number of games. Too many of our clubs prioritize tournaments, showcases, and league matches over quality training. Development happens on the training ground, not by playing four games over the weekend. Elite European academies often spend far more time training than competing because they understand repetition builds elite habits.
One thing that I think is often overlooked is that the United States simply arrived late to the business of developing players. For decades, there wasn't much financial incentive for American clubs to invest heavily in youth development. FIFA's solidarity mechanism sets aside 5% of an international transfer fee for the clubs that trained a player between the ages of 12 and 23. European and South American clubs have benefited from this system for years, creating another reason to invest in academies. MLS notoriously did not participate in these solidarity payments bc it supposedly interfered with labor laws or some bull like that. This all changed in 2019 when USSF reversed their stance. MLS clubs finally had a pathway to be rewarded financially for producing elite talent. Around that same time, MLS NEXT accelerated investment in professional youth development. Conversely, European clubs have been refining academy systems for 50 - 100 years. MLS has only been truly committed to league-wide academies for less than two decades, and only in the last decade has player development become a central part of the business model. We're essentially watching the second generation of MLS academy graduates emerge.
There is obviously no singular solution to what is evidently a complex systemic issue.
-FTA c/o 2013
YNWA.2013 said:
My two cents on the subject:
This is obviously a complex issue and our consistent failure on the world stage is not just down to one singular issue. It's a collection of structural issues that have existed for decades, and they show up when we play the elites.
First, the pay-to-play model is fundamentally flawed imo. Families spending $5k$25k / year for club soccer is absurd. It prices out countless talented kids before they ever get a chance. In most major soccer nations, the best young players are identified and brought into professional academies at little to no cost. Here, your family's financial situation often determines your access to high-level development. That's a terrible way to identify elite talent.
Second, our youth development system has historically rewarded the wrong things. From youth soccer through college (and to a certain extent even into USL and MLS) we've often prioritized size, power, and speed. The biggest, fastest, strongest kids because they help win games today. Winning youth tournaments sells club memberships, attracts the next wave of families, and puts trophies in the cabinet. But producing professionals isn't the same as winning U11 tournaments. As a result, smaller, more technical players often get overlooked or have to fight much harder for opportunities until they physically mature. Compare that to countries like Spain, Portugal, Croatia, or Japan, where technical ability, first touch, decision-making, and spatial awareness are emphasized from a young age. Those countries aren't ignoring athleticism, they're simply building it on top of technical excellence rather than using it as a substitute.
A major reason for this is coaching. In many of the world's top soccer nations, some of the best coaches work with the youngest players because they understand that's where habits are formed. The quality of coaching here is wildly inconsistent and often expensive to access. The only real qualifications some club coaches have is failing at a third division pro or semi-pro club and having an accent. How many of our kids are ocached by volunteers and parent-coaches?
I don't follow soccer closely but I've enjoyed reading the threads and learning more this WC. I find the flaws in the youth sports model intriguing as I believe we are starting to see the same issues with players in baseball and basketball. Euro players are showing far more skill and development these days while American basketball players depend almost entirely on athleticism. Baseball is almost all swing speed and launch angle. Analytics obviously has a large part in this but I think you can say the pay for play youth sports system is a big part as well.
Ultimately though I don't see a great solution without changing the mindset of the parents. It's easy to blame coaches, but when parents are paying you hundreds of dollars an hour, its probably tough to convince them their kid needs to focus on doing the little things rather than whatever brings the most success on the field at that time.
YNWA.2013 said:
.....Second, our youth development system has historically rewarded the wrong things. From youth soccer through college (and to a certain extent even into USL and MLS) we've often prioritized size, power, and speed. The biggest, fastest, strongest kids because they help win games today. Winning youth tournaments sells club memberships, attracts the next wave of families, and puts trophies in the cabinet. But producing professionals isn't the same as winning U11 tournaments. As a result, smaller, more technical players often get overlooked or have to fight much harder for opportunities until they physically mature. Compare that to countries like Spain, Portugal, Croatia, or Japan, where technical ability, first touch, decision-making, and spatial awareness are emphasized from a young age. Those countries aren't ignoring athleticism, they're simply building it on top of technical excellence rather than using it as a substitute.
A major reason for this is coaching. In many of the world's top soccer nations, some of the best coaches work with the youngest players because they understand that's where habits are formed. The quality of coaching here is wildly inconsistent and often expensive to access. The only real qualifications some club coaches have is failing at a third division pro or semi-pro club and having an accent. How many of our kids are ocached by volunteers and parent-coaches?
Thirdly, I think American soccer tends to punish mistakes at young ages. Too often, a defender who tries to play out of the back and loses the ball gets yelled at by coaches or parents. So what do kids learn? Boot it long. Don't take risks. Don't lose the ball. Compare that to elite academies, where mistakes are viewed as part of learning. Coaches would rather a player attempt the right decision and fail than make the safe decision every time. You cannot develop creative, technically elite players if they're afraid to make mistakes.....
Spot on. These two items are the issue based on my experience as a soccer parent, and exactly what I would have typed as a response. Albiet, not as succinctly as you have.
UKAgg said:
Most folks know that until at least middle school, and typically high school, we don't really know who will grow into stand out players at the next level, and that applies to most sports. Consequently, prior to the age of 12 encouragement of playing should be much more focused on small sided pick-up games and in local communities city and suburb, and for sure augmented by skills development camps and for example a season ending competition. But where the focus is on having fun and developing the skills, not the treadmill of travel and incessant desire to win manufactured tournaments for over zealous parents, coaches, and Club prestige at a young age.
I completely agree with this, but modern parents don't make their kids go outside and play. Part of the rise of club teams for elementary school-aged kids is some sort of fear of letting kids out. Another big consequence is kids not learning to navigate relationships without a grownup present.
Anyway, I would like to see a few regional academies for soccer, with MLS or other professional teams helping cover the bill. Hell, isn't Man City sponsoring an academy in Dallas? Maybe look for more of that. That might pressure MLS to invest more, as well.
https://www.mancity.com/football-programs/usa/dallas/
It seems like your point about the US being late to the development party might explain a lot of this. I have a hard time believing that the Euros haven't had to adjust and fine tune their own development models over the years, and were much further behind the curve than they are. We all want the success now (we are Americans after all) but success might simply involve maturing as a soccer nation, which would entail changes to youth development. It's only one data point, but my son's experience playing these past several years has been really great. He has developed into a much better technical player due to the coaching he's gotten, and the teams he's played on emphasize things like possession, progressing the ball up the field and not simply muscling their way to a win. Anyway, maybe there are small shoots emerging and some signs for guarded optimism. I hope it takes off because the vibes and unity around the USMNT prior to Belgium were exactly the type of cultural glue we haven't had here in decades.
54 of the approximately 1200 players at the World Cup are from the suburbs of Paris. That's 1 out of 20 from a single location. There is no fancy academy or brilliant coaching there. It's kids with an opportunity to play on the mean, concrete streets totally unsupervised. It's there with your peers and neighborhood bullies and heroes day in and day out that will develop the skills and more importantly, the character/hunger that you need to survive. Travel teams and tournaments can't imbed that kind of fight in a young player. That's the missing sauce. Is that not where we see many of the top NBA players have their seeds planted? Is that not where fancy private schools go to recruit? (i.e. Hoop Dreams, a wonderful movie/documentary from 1994-shoot it).
When you start seeing kids playing pick-up soccer on empty streets and in city parks and clubs/academies start scouting those locations offering skilled players free spots, that is when we are finally a generation away from the change in US soccer.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
We have started building more of these small goal, small field soccer spots around the country (a lot of which are started by current national team players after they see it over in Europe).
Can easily set them up on tennis courts and basketball courts as well, they just wont have nice turf.
But this is also part of the problem in the states. Where a lot of these small fields woudl normally go, we already have basketball courts built.
Can easily set them up on tennis courts and basketball courts as well, they just wont have nice turf.
But this is also part of the problem in the states. Where a lot of these small fields woudl normally go, we already have basketball courts built.
I don't know about making them go outside but I see kids at our local high schools playing soccer and football all the time. So much so that we have to clear the field to have our own practices. I know it's anecdotal but this is a fairly affluent area and kids are outside all the time.
PatAg said:
We have started building more of these small goal, small field soccer spots around the country (a lot of which are started by current national team players after they see it over in Europe).
Can easily set them up on tennis courts and basketball courts as well, they just wont have nice turf.
But this is also part of the problem in the states. Where a lot of these small fields woudl normally go, we already have basketball courts built.
This is what I am working on for our local community. I want to see us basically build futsal or small turf field (my preference) set ups in our park. We currently have 6 soccer fields in our park of different sizes, I think it would be awesome in our small town.
also, my brother and I both would just use the side of our house as a goal/practicing passing and trapping the rebounds and practicing our first touch.
Want to say I've seen many stars say the same thing, like Bergkamp for example.
Want to say I've seen many stars say the same thing, like Bergkamp for example.
PatAg said:
We have started building more of these small goal, small field soccer spots around the country (a lot of which are started by current national team players after they see it over in Europe).
Can easily set them up on tennis courts and basketball courts as well, they just wont have nice turf.
But this is also part of the problem in the states. Where a lot of these small fields woudl normally go, we already have basketball courts built.
Small-sided soccer fields should be an easy conversion when this stupid af pickleball craze is over
PatAg said:
also, my brother and I both would just use the side of our house as a goal/practicing passing and trapping the rebounds and practicing our first touch.
Want to say I've seen many stars say the same thing, like Bergkamp for example.
The technefootball training app uses walls a lot.
Kids that love the game will just go out and play. It's the parents and coaches that suck the fun out of the whole thing.
FIDO95 said:
54 of the approximately 1200 players at the World Cup are from the suburbs of Paris. That's 1 out of 20 from a single location.
I've never been to Paris, let alone the suburbs, but I know a little about the history and how the city was built and designed.
For those who are more knowledgeable, would you say the suburbs of Paris are more like our inner cities or small towns here in the US, in terms of socioeconomic conditions? Paris the city is one of the most expensive places to live in the world. The wealthy flock to these places. And so the working class and middle classes are figuring it out in the suburbs.
In the US, the suburbs and upscale downtown neighborhoods are often where the wealthy move, while the poorer and working classes are pushed to small towns or stuck in inner cities. Similar to NYC versus Long Island or NJ, as Thierry mentions. NYC isn't developing players; it's the (relatively poorer) Jersey burbs where all the action is.
Or maybe it's about population density + access to space to have quality fields + neighborhoods that moderately paid coaches can live in?
(I'm not trying to have a political discussion here; more of a cultural and societal discussion.)
Fantastic post.
Not sure if y'all saw this… it's getting attention for the Lalas takedown, but I found his comments about "gatekeeping" really interesting and I wish he would've been able to explain more before they shifted the conversation away from soccer.
Not sure if y'all saw this… it's getting attention for the Lalas takedown, but I found his comments about "gatekeeping" really interesting and I wish he would've been able to explain more before they shifted the conversation away from soccer.
I'm a geographer - I'm here to help.
Suburbs in old European cities are kinda opposite from the US. Suburbs are the poor… far from work… far from city services. Immigrants who were pushed (literally) to the margins.
But yes, urban renewal is a major theme of the last 20 years in the US. So you're correct to think like the NYC model. I could go on, but basically the explosion of the automobile (and cheap gas), cheap land, and federally backed mortgages made our cities grow differently than Europe in the 20th century - making the suburbs attractive and turning inner cities to slums. We're reversing that trend now, but Europe largely never had it that way.
Suburbs in old European cities are kinda opposite from the US. Suburbs are the poor… far from work… far from city services. Immigrants who were pushed (literally) to the margins.
But yes, urban renewal is a major theme of the last 20 years in the US. So you're correct to think like the NYC model. I could go on, but basically the explosion of the automobile (and cheap gas), cheap land, and federally backed mortgages made our cities grow differently than Europe in the 20th century - making the suburbs attractive and turning inner cities to slums. We're reversing that trend now, but Europe largely never had it that way.
Quote:
Or maybe it's about population density + access to space to have quality fields + neighborhoods that moderately paid coaches can live in?
I would suggest that the sprawl of American cities, especially in the southern half of the country, is not conducive to the kind of organic pick up games and matches that you see around Europe (and South America, although I'm less familiar with that area).
So, for example, if you went to Saint Denis, the famous Paris suburb you might know as the home of the Stade de France, the literal home of French football, it has something like 25,000 residents per square mile. Thats almost as dense at New York City. It's produced "beaucoup" elite players. It's dense, the kids are out and about and you can poke around and find them gathering to play in little spaces all over the place.
It just doesn't, it almost can't, happen in most American locations. Maybe that's a little hyperbole, but I hope you understand what I'm saying.
Yeah you're correct. Paris suburb = housing projects, not single family homes.
Soccer there is like pickup basketball in the hood in the US.
Soccer there is like pickup basketball in the hood in the US.
Some of the articles I re-read today had sections about how youth teams will travel hours for show case events, only to play a team from the same town oftentimes.
I think the actual takeaway from this is something a lot of us on the board have said for a while. Not only do we need to invest in more quality coaches at youth levels (like ages 6-10)...we GREATLY need to increase our scouting network.
Teams shouldnt be having to travel hours for a chance for a scout to see them play.
I think the actual takeaway from this is something a lot of us on the board have said for a while. Not only do we need to invest in more quality coaches at youth levels (like ages 6-10)...we GREATLY need to increase our scouting network.
Teams shouldnt be having to travel hours for a chance for a scout to see them play.
Why can't the US lean in to this unique circumstance and play a Buckyball style game?
Don't try to be overly technical, we are big, fast, and strong. Create chaos and make it work for us.
Not "kick and hope," but organized chaos:
It can be a uniquely American style: defend compactly, press relentlessly, attack vertically, and make every moment uncomfortable.
"How many dangerous events can we create?" That's a philosophy I think could fit both American athletes and American sports culture
Don't try to be overly technical, we are big, fast, and strong. Create chaos and make it work for us.
Not "kick and hope," but organized chaos:
- Strong defensive structure
- Relentless pressing - attack immediately
- More shots, crosses, corners, and box entries
- Final-third recoveries
- Shots
- Box touches
- Corners won
It can be a uniquely American style: defend compactly, press relentlessly, attack vertically, and make every moment uncomfortable.
"How many dangerous events can we create?" That's a philosophy I think could fit both American athletes and American sports culture
That's not uniquely American. What you're describing is basically Gegenpress.
And the big problem generally is that style has to be drilled hard. Players coming in for international duty will be hard-pressed to adapt if they're playing at a club with a different style. And for the US specifically this year, playing a high line with an ancient CB like Ream is a recipe for disaster.
And the big problem generally is that style has to be drilled hard. Players coming in for international duty will be hard-pressed to adapt if they're playing at a club with a different style. And for the US specifically this year, playing a high line with an ancient CB like Ream is a recipe for disaster.
Great insight - hadn't considered what it looks like from a professional perspective...
PatAg said:
also, my brother and I both would just use the side of our house as a goal/practicing passing and trapping the rebounds and practicing our first touch.
Want to say I've seen many stars say the same thing, like Bergkamp for example.
That kind of ad hoc and spontaneous training that kids do as fun is unmeasurably important in building out their technical skill level through repetition. Only way to learn how to have a soft first touch like Messi is to have been doing it essentially from birth to the point where it becomes second nature.
Our system in the US on the travel circuit prioritizes playing games. A 6 year old in Argentina likely plays way fewer official games but he practices his first touch a million times.
AggieEP said:PatAg said:
also, my brother and I both would just use the side of our house as a goal/practicing passing and trapping the rebounds and practicing our first touch.
Want to say I've seen many stars say the same thing, like Bergkamp for example.
That kind of ad hoc and spontaneous training that kids do as fun is unmeasurably important in building out their technical skill level through repetition. Only way to learn how to have a soft first touch like Messi is to have been doing it essentially from birth to the point where it becomes second nature.
Our system in the US on the travel circuit prioritizes playing games. A 6 year old in Argentina likely plays way fewer official games but he practices his first touch a million times.
About midway through my daughter's second year of select ball, most of the girls were on a slight hill in the grassy area, waiting for the previous game to end. That's when I noticed the best 2-3 players on the team had taken their balls and were just kicking around by themselves - juggling, doing tricks, goofing off. Almost all of the other girls were lounging in the shade of a tree, zoning off, or chatting about school (my daughter included, to be fair).
That's when I was reminded: the best players often just like playing. Time and place don't really matter. We used to just kick around because we just loved it even if we weren't all that great. I immediately knew my daughter wasn't going to move up the ladder; she didn't have the love for the game the way I did.
The best chefs love to cook. The best singers love to sing. The best engineers love to design and solve problems. The best runners and crossfitters love to train.
The process is the fun part.
US badly needs a Richard Williams or Earl Woods-type of figure to steer their lads towards global football over American gridiron or bball.
Yes and for the many other posts advocating more pick up, less institutional framework for very young players there is more or less consensus here, along with the whole travel burnout circus being far from ideal.
I think most on here also no longer buy the "we are a new soccer nation" narrative as a knee-jerk response. Soccer in Africa, for example, has grown as a serious contender in the past 2-3 decades. Roughly the same time frame as MLS. That is one yardstick by which US can measure its progress against.
But, at the Commercial level the progress (perhaps not surprising) has been big -- check the latest Forbes list for the World's most "valuable" Clubs (see below). So the argument about competing with the traditional US sports, while having some merit, also seems to be hiding a bit from the truth of early player development and a credible path through Jr High / High School age to the junior professional level...USSF/MLS seems a bit too content.
I think most on here also no longer buy the "we are a new soccer nation" narrative as a knee-jerk response. Soccer in Africa, for example, has grown as a serious contender in the past 2-3 decades. Roughly the same time frame as MLS. That is one yardstick by which US can measure its progress against.
But, at the Commercial level the progress (perhaps not surprising) has been big -- check the latest Forbes list for the World's most "valuable" Clubs (see below). So the argument about competing with the traditional US sports, while having some merit, also seems to be hiding a bit from the truth of early player development and a credible path through Jr High / High School age to the junior professional level...USSF/MLS seems a bit too content.
This may have been discussed earlier but I think teams are worried about playing too many games. This is an issue not just affecting youth soccer. Clubs focus is to play as many games as possible and practice less. Honestly, I wonder how much of that is so trainers can make more money in private technical lessons that they completely ignore in club practice.
HummingbirdSaltalamacchia
Joined:
Jan 10, 2006
Posts:
11,215
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Some really great comments here and I agree with a lot of it. That being said, I think we we can talk about all the development, coaching, small sided games, etc all we want, but until the culture within the US changes, I'm not sure we see a massive moving of the needle. Too many kids just don't grow up with the sport "accessible". Kids aren't growing up with older siblings or parents saying "let's go kick it around outside". Shooting Hoops? Yes. Toss the football or baseball around? Absolutely. But not soccer, at least not prevalently here. Soccer is just the one sport that development needs to happen at the younger ages, as compared to the other sports where size/speed are paramount so you can wait until they hit puberty before any real development happens. Hell in some, you can teach the big/tall/fast kid the skills needed to find success. There are countless pro baseball/football/basketball players who all came into the sport later in life. You never hear that with a soccer player . Maybe they went from good to great, or got noticed late, but not a single one never touched a soccer ball until they were 16, and became a top flight player.
Also, I have a different opinion about the lack of men's college soccer. While I agree that having a plethora of men's programs isn't going to do anything about development in and of itself, I do wonder if having that "pathway" for thousands of young males would build a better pipeline within the youth system. How many boys give up on soccer to focus on one of the other big sports bc at least they offer a pathway to college/college education/professional prospects . In some areas, urban/low income/etc, sports are perceived as "only way out", but soccer ain't one of them. I don't know how to fix that, but the game needs to be more prevalent in those areas of our society.
Just my $.02
Also, I have a different opinion about the lack of men's college soccer. While I agree that having a plethora of men's programs isn't going to do anything about development in and of itself, I do wonder if having that "pathway" for thousands of young males would build a better pipeline within the youth system. How many boys give up on soccer to focus on one of the other big sports bc at least they offer a pathway to college/college education/professional prospects . In some areas, urban/low income/etc, sports are perceived as "only way out", but soccer ain't one of them. I don't know how to fix that, but the game needs to be more prevalent in those areas of our society.
Just my $.02
Part of what coaches do, at every level, of every sport, is find and recruit players. More college soccer equals better career opportunities for coaches, more ex players moving into the career, more players recruited to play in those teams at all levels
Definitely good points in respect of the college dilemma. The evidence to date has been that structuring in the same way as the main sports has met with limited success. Collegiate development feeding into a professional draft system is paramount in Football, and also mostly for basketball and baseball.
For Soccer, professional club sponsoring of a much bigger and broader academy network could be the alternative answer -- if it keeps a broader base of boys playing the game through Jr High and High School years. Even if a way is found to significantly expand the number of college soccer programs, a bigger academy network would be absolutely key, else where will they find enough home grown players to fill the rosters (we know what the answer would be right?! ).
For Soccer, professional club sponsoring of a much bigger and broader academy network could be the alternative answer -- if it keeps a broader base of boys playing the game through Jr High and High School years. Even if a way is found to significantly expand the number of college soccer programs, a bigger academy network would be absolutely key, else where will they find enough home grown players to fill the rosters (we know what the answer would be right?! ).
I had no idea USSF was investing in this. This what several posters have said what it needed. Can't wait for the next generation of home grown talent. Hats off to US soccer. They take a lot of criticism. They deserve credit for this project.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Featured Stories
See All
5:41
9h ago
5.3k
Stepping stone or placebo effect? Ags blank The Citadel, 41-0
by Olin Buchanan
Learned, Loved, Loathed: Texas A&M 41, The Citadel 0
by Olin Buchanan
6:11
12h ago
1.5k
Game Highlights: Texas A&M 41, The Citadel 0
by Andrew Wu
12 Key Statistics: Texas A&M 41, The Citadel 0
by Luke Evangelist