Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Former USMNT player Eddie Johnson thoughts on ECNL College Showcase

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
    A lot of times people don't know, especially if they aren't currently at a club or haven't been there long. There was a thread on the CT board about Beachside claiming a player who was in the MLS draft. He had been at Red Bulls but wasn't playing much there so moved to BS, for one year. Did BS "develop" him? Of course not. But there isn't much good talent and there are too many clubs battling over players. They need the talent to win games, which brings in more talent. Non MLS clubs also need parents writing checks. So, claiming a MLS draft players is just too tempting to use for social media, websites and email blasts.
    Taking credit for "producing" a player that you did not produce is a fraud regardless if it is tempting to do it or not. My kid might be tempted to plagerize school work she did not produce but that is fraud.

    Comment


      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
      I’d like to see all sports removed from public schools or have them become pay to play. Why should our tax be used as a college and pro farm system??
      Regarding college sports - yes. It is immoral for coaches (and their employers) to be paid millions of dollars per year on the backs of kids who get expelled if they accept so much as lunch from somebody. It is immoral for billionaire-owned NFL/NBA franchises to cost-shift their farm system onto the (often taxpayer-funded public) colleges. (Not to mention cost-shifting their palatial stadiums onto taxpayers.) It is (if not immoral) wrong to displace "real" scholars with "student-athletes" who are only there to play sports. It is (if not immoral) wrong to give "scholarship" money other than on the basis of need to not-really-scholars. It is immoral for the colleges to lead "student-athletes" to think they will have careers in professional sports as opposed to whatever their majors are.

      When did colleges switch mission from education to entertainment?

      Regarding high school - yes (inter-school leagues), as it fuels the scandalous college system, and perverts the mission of schools from education to tribal warfare.

      Comment


        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
        You are ALL over the place. Athleticism is NOT just size and speed and the vast majority of experienced soccer coaches know to look for more than just those two athletic traits. To be clear, they are looking for athleticism that applies to soccer; speed, agility, endurance, eye/foot coordination --- and size and strength if the other elements already exist. No coaches are picking teams based on measuring height and lining the kids up on a track to see who wins a foot race. What ends up happening is that the smaller "skilled" kids don't have anywhere near enough skill advantage to have an impact on the field, and teams end up playing the ball to the kids that DO have an impact. Unfortunately, that tends to be the faster kids who can outrun their lack of skills, and they dominate the play until they reach an age where they cannot really learn the skills they've missed along the way.

        You say athleticism is easy to see, and you are right. It is NOT easy to train, though. Slow kids don't become fast (they become less slow), and kids with no agility don't become squirrels (they become less zombie-like). You can't make an athlete; you can only improve what athleticism she has. Likewise, you can't get a kid with no field sense or ball instincts to suddenly see the field and anticipate plays. At the elite levels, the VERY top players are great athletes with field sense, instincts and technical ability. They are the unicorns, and at an event like the ECNL showcase there might be 5 of these kids in total (certainly not 5-6 per team like the parents like to think).

        BTW - I have one of those big, tall, very fast kids. What made her stand out athletically was that - when all the kids started running, cutting, moving their feet, reacting and stopping/starting - she was more agile and had faster feet than all the other kids. She was able to physically dominate the technical, "clever" players you seem to be advocating, because she was simply faster and quicker and could take away their space in a flash. She could win every contested ball, and coaches loved her for it. She lacked the creativity to be a great player, but she was very competitive up through the college level.
        And there it is. You completely missed my point while advocating for my argument. Coaches loved her athleticism. Size, speed, agility, whatever. Clever technical players struggled against her. Guess what? Those clever, technical players had to learn to adapt and deal with players like your kid... I’m sure some did. Meanwhile your kid relied on her natural genetic gifts and was not forced to solve problems with awareness and skill. Where do you think creativity comes from? Which is the better soccer player? In the US, most coaches would say your kid. Anywhere else in the world, the smaller, slower, technical players. You think Mexico or Spain or Argentin has more athletic players than the US? Take a look at average height on the teams.

        Bottom line, the focus on size and speed, especially speed, is one dimensional and shows a lack of understanding of team attacking and defending tactics. It’s our security blanket.

        Comment


          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
          Taking credit for "producing" a player that you did not produce is a fraud regardless if it is tempting to do it or not. My kid might be tempted to plagerize school work she did not produce but that is fraud.
          Define "produce". Is it 1 year, 3, 5? It's not fraud because there's no set definition to it. Parents just need to be wary of the bullsh++. Most likely their kid will never ever be a pro player so who cares if a club had one in the last 5 years? Same with college commit lists - lots of questionable claims there too. Is the club a good fit for your player? Ill he_she learn, be challenged and get good playing time? That's all that matters

          Comment


            Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
            And there it is. You completely missed my point while advocating for my argument. Coaches loved her athleticism. Size, speed, agility, whatever. Clever technical players struggled against her. Guess what? Those clever, technical players had to learn to adapt and deal with players like your kid... I’m sure some did. Meanwhile your kid relied on her natural genetic gifts and was not forced to solve problems with awareness and skill. Where do you think creativity comes from? Which is the better soccer player? In the US, most coaches would say your kid. Anywhere else in the world, the smaller, slower, technical players. You think Mexico or Spain or Argentin has more athletic players than the US? Take a look at average height on the teams.

            Bottom line, the focus on size and speed, especially speed, is one dimensional and shows a lack of understanding of team attacking and defending tactics. It’s our security blanket.
            another person trying to make the binary argument because we look at everything so individually. Maybe BOTH players could co-exist on the right team, with good coaching and do better than thye could as individuals? Just saying, this rush to say who is "better" is way to simplistic. it depends.

            There are tall slow more technical players out there - think Horan and small faster ones who are less so - Crystal Dunn

            Too many stereotypes in this thread.

            Comment


              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
              Define "produce". Is it 1 year, 3, 5? It's not fraud because there's no set definition to it. Parents just need to be wary of the bullsh++. Most likely their kid will never ever be a pro player so who cares if a club had one in the last 5 years? Same with college commit lists - lots of questionable claims there too. Is the club a good fit for your player? Ill he_she learn, be challenged and get good playing time? That's all that matters
              the only reason this "produce" thing exists is the need for clubs to claim players for marketing reasons. Bottom line is the players usually have many influences in their development. Parents, Coaches, other players, mentors and many many more

              Comment


                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                another person trying to make the binary argument because we look at everything so individually. Maybe BOTH players could co-exist on the right team, with good coaching and do better than thye could as individuals? Just saying, this rush to say who is "better" is way to simplistic. it depends.

                There are tall slow more technical players out there - think Horan and small faster ones who are less so - Crystal Dunn

                Too many stereotypes in this thread.
                They can and sometimes do coexist on teams. It is rare though. My take-away from the ECNL Florida Showcase is that size and speed are on display. Only saw a few teams playing good soccer and players making smart decisions. Saw lots of over-dribbling and lots of banging the ball forward with no purpose other than to clear lines when there were other obvious choices. Pretty much what EJ saw. I personally think it starts with player selection, hence my previous post. Hard to play any sort of possession without smart, technical players and they seem to mostly be smaller and slower.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                  They can and sometimes do coexist on teams. It is rare though. My take-away from the ECNL Florida Showcase is that size and speed are on display. Only saw a few teams playing good soccer and players making smart decisions. Saw lots of over-dribbling and lots of banging the ball forward with no purpose other than to clear lines when there were other obvious choices. Pretty much what EJ saw. I personally think it starts with player selection, hence my previous post. Hard to play any sort of possession without smart, technical players and they seem to mostly be smaller and slower.
                  You would think coaches would realize that rostering fast players in the hopes that they can outrun the ball is futile.

                  - a coach

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                    They can and sometimes do coexist on teams. It is rare though. My take-away from the ECNL Florida Showcase is that size and speed are on display. Only saw a few teams playing good soccer and players making smart decisions. Saw lots of over-dribbling and lots of banging the ball forward with no purpose other than to clear lines when there were other obvious choices. Pretty much what EJ saw. I personally think it starts with player selection, hence my previous post. Hard to play any sort of possession without smart, technical players and they seem to mostly be smaller and slower.
                    i disagree. I dont think there is correlation between stature and playing type. They are coexisting now on teams. Go look at the roster of a team you consider to be possession based and technical. There are players in the starting line ups who came from Clubs who payed nothing like that.

                    There is no denying that the majority of teams tend to be more direct, but that a surprise. It is easier to ensure consistency year in year out by playing that way. It is less risky, less technically dependent and when you cannot guarantee the quality and size of fields or refs etc its appealing in a results driven business.

                    The expectations that every player CAN be technically and tactically sound is flawed. wont happen.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                      You would think coaches would realize that rostering fast players in the hopes that they can outrun the ball is futile.

                      - a coach
                      i have no idea why we isolate speed. Rostering ANY player that is one dimensional is a risk. A really technical player who cant move can also be a liability. You have to surround players with others who bring the best out in the BUT at Club level, you have the push/pull between individual development and ream success.

                      The Clubs who tout team success seem to do better in the marketing part of it, but do they produce more high level players? I dont think they do. Those Clubs tend to reap the tactical edge in most games, but they dont necessarily ever have to develop other skills.

                      Generalization I know, but you get my point.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                        i have no idea why we isolate speed. Rostering ANY player that is one dimensional is a risk. A really technical player who cant move can also be a liability. You have to surround players with others who bring the best out in the BUT at Club level, you have the push/pull between individual development and ream success.

                        The Clubs who tout team success seem to do better in the marketing part of it, but do they produce more high level players? I dont think they do. Those Clubs tend to reap the tactical edge in most games, but they dont necessarily ever have to develop other skills.

                        Generalization I know, but you get my point.
                        Its all a joke

                        Comment

                        Previously entered content was automatically saved. Restore or Discard.
                        Auto-Saved
                        x
                        Insert: Thumbnail Small Medium Large Fullsize Remove  
                        x
                        Working...
                        X