U-17 wnt

[Unregistered]

I am not picking on you, but this statement (and the oft-repeated "watering down" criticism of the status quo) is at least a gross oversimplification of the problem, is very likely misleading, and at worst, is flat wrong.

If you are willing to grant that in-born cognitive ability and physical potential are randomly distributed, then there should be 1,000 times as much talent born into the US male player pool than the Iceland player pool. (300M vs 300K people.)

But judging by the relative results of the Iceland and US MNTs, clearly this in-born talent is largely irrelevant, as its effect is dwarfed by what each country's player development machinery does with/to that talent. (Any objection that I have ever heard (e.g., "the USA is too geographically spread out," or "this costs a lot of money") is rendered moot, given that any reasonable-sized town like Boston has twice the population of Iceland in a smaller space, and we all know we spend a lot of money already.)

So, what is happening to squander all this talent? What the heck, let's gore several sacred cows by arguing:

(1) Town programs are not incentivized at all to develop players, even though they have the largest player pools of all. Talented kids don't develop good skills, and develop bad habits.

(2) Parents want wins now, not development later. They will actively take players away from development-focused clubs to win-at-all-costs now clubs.

(3) As a result, clubs' incentives to win at all costs all weeds out high-soccer-IQ but physical late-bloomers (can't gamble that the player will fill out, and can't wait anyway - gotta get gotsoccer points NOW or the parents will leave).

(4) Club cartel leagues which do not relegate, and which bar smaller clubs from entering, insulates big clubs from the costs of losing, and shields them from being embarrassed by competition.

(5) Big clubs' ability to dissolve losing squads and reshuffle them into new squads (perhaps with a change of coach) further insulates them from the cost of losing.

(6) The resulting consolidation of clubs, and the lack of viable independent clubs and leagues, limits choice, further shielding big clubs from the cost of losing.

(7) Lack of pick-up soccer culture doesn't force early physical bloomers from learning to play against physically superior opponents (i.e., older kids). Playing against physically superior opponents requires superior skills and/or IQ.

(8) Can't believe I'm saying this, but it is my personal observation that kids don't watch enough high-quality televised matches. How can you learn to play if you don't watch?

That was cathartic.

- a coach

Thanks for taking the time to post all this. Good food for thought. I agree with a lot of what you write, but struggle with the logic of #'s 5 & 6. If the clubs have a way of shielding themselves from the negative effects of too many losses, doesn't that allow them to work harder at development? For example, couldn't a big club - that has wiped out all the smaller competitors around it - be able to take its time with its most talented teams and really work to develop the players to do more than boot and chase? If they have all the best players, couldn't they afford to be more patient on the winning front? After all, for the top 20-30 players in a market, there really aren't that many legitimate choices.

[Unregistered]

Fair enough and valid point.

I misunderstood your comment that technical ability needs to developed early by the club or the die is cast...

I see combination play as something that can be more easily and quickly developed by a skilled player with exceptional touch. Certainly combination play does not need to be prioritized over individual technical skill and touch, no?

I certainly maybe wrong, but it would seem much easier to develop the combining skills once the individual skills are very strong.

Not arguing at all, trying to learn and I am open minded.

Sorry if I was unclear. Yes, individual technical skill is indeed the prerequisite to almost everything. The next layer/step would be tactical - and without that technical skill, one could not even begin to complete the tactical exercises.

To bring this back to that recent WNT U17 match against Cameroon, looking through coach's eyes, I saw the African team employing recognizable tactics in the US final third: switching points of attack; overlaps; holding width to stretch the defense; etc. I didn't see the US do much of that. (And the announcers made a big deal of how the US coach "lets the players solve problems.") Lots of times a US player would hoof a ball, and I would be wondering why, and what the player was actually attempting - who was the target?

And apropos of your skills point, while I saw inconsistency in the Cameroon players' skills (lots of balls in the air, occasional bad first touch, holding the ball just a little too long, etc.), the US players' skill levels (with the notable exception of the holding midfielder, Jones, if I recall correctly) were not what I would expect of NT level players. I mean, by 17 they should at least have good technique.

- a coach

[Unregistered]

Thanks for taking the time to post all this. Good food for thought. I agree with a lot of what you write, but struggle with the logic of #'s 5 & 6. If the clubs have a way of shielding themselves from the negative effects of too many losses, doesn't that allow them to work harder at development? For example, couldn't a big club - that has wiped out all the smaller competitors around it - be able to take its time with its most talented teams and really work to develop the players to do more than boot and chase? If they have all the best players, couldn't they afford to be more patient on the winning front? After all, for the top 20-30 players in a market, there really aren't that many legitimate choices.

If they do that, they risk losing. Ironically, of all the players in their club, they can least afford to risk losses with their top teams - the players who have the most to benefit from expanding their skill sets. If they try to start playing out of the back, they're guaranteed to screw it up and surrender a few goals. And if you do that, you lose games, gotsoccer points, parents, players, and then money.

And why rock the boat? The league is a cartel, and printing money.

- a coach

[Unregistered]

Sorry if I was unclear. Yes, individual technical skill is indeed the prerequisite to almost everything. The next layer/step would be tactical - and without that technical skill, one could not even begin to complete the tactical exercises.

To bring this back to that recent WNT U17 match against Cameroon, looking through coach's eyes, I saw the African team employing recognizable tactics in the US final third: switching points of attack; overlaps; holding width to stretch the defense; etc. I didn't see the US do much of that. (And the announcers made a big deal of how the US coach "lets the players solve problems.") Lots of times a US player would hoof a ball, and I would be wondering why, and what the player was actually attempting - who was the target?

And apropos of your skills point, while I saw inconsistency in the Cameroon players' skills (lots of balls in the air, occasional bad first touch, holding the ball just a little too long, etc.), the US players' skill levels (with the notable exception of the holding midfielder, Jones, if I recall correctly) were not what I would expect of NT level players. I mean, by 17 they should at least have good technique.

- a coach

Thanks for the response and just your involvement in this thread in general. I’ve found all your input on point. Agree on SJ, she stood out to me. Rarely lost the ball and passed with purpose.

[Unregistered]

I think your point is that come college and NWSL...its all about wins. As it should be.

Just my opinion as parent of a very motivated player....I think ultimately the player is responsible for developing their technical abilities. Sure, the club can certainly help by enabling development and facilitating and rewarding creative play even at the expense of wins. There are only so many contact hours between coach and player, though.

I've seen players make huge jumps in ability just using a half dozen cones, a wall, and a ball. A couple thousand touches are possible in as little as an hour. Compound that daily over a year....

Not really. My point is we have all the "best" players in one place by then and so why does the actual quality bot improve at most Colleges. In fact it gets worse. I can pick out maybe 10 schools that actually try an "play" and most have never won the CC. The leagues are not teh issue, the motivations here and the lack of a 'culture" to keep these coaches in line is a killer. The fox is in the hen house.

[Unregistered]

I think your point is that come college and NWSL...its all about wins. As it should be.

Just my opinion as parent of a very motivated player....I think ultimately the player is responsible for developing their technical abilities. Sure, the club can certainly help by enabling development and facilitating and rewarding creative play even at the expense of wins. There are only so many contact hours between coach and player, though.

I've seen players make huge jumps in ability just using a half dozen cones, a wall, and a ball. A couple thousand touches are possible in as little as an hour. Compound that daily over a year....

Im betting all the US U17 team consider themselves "motivated" The problem is the game in the US is not telling them any different. The Clubs keep them on teams and in age groups where they can generate wins. They are rarely challenged. The system flies them all over teh USA and the world and tells them they are great.

Then they go abroad and see kids without all the advantages they have who are technically a lot better. its a one week shock, then they come home and get told how great they are again.

[Unregistered]

I am not picking on you, but this statement (and the oft-repeated "watering down" criticism of the status quo) is at least a gross oversimplification of the problem, is very likely misleading, and at worst, is flat wrong.

If you are willing to grant that in-born cognitive ability and physical potential are randomly distributed, then there should be 1,000 times as much talent born into the US male player pool than the Iceland player pool. (300M vs 300K people.)

But judging by the relative results of the Iceland and US MNTs, clearly this in-born talent is largely irrelevant, as its effect is dwarfed by what each country's player development machinery does with/to that talent. (Any objection that I have ever heard (e.g., "the USA is too geographically spread out," or "this costs a lot of money") is rendered moot, given that any reasonable-sized town like Boston has twice the population of Iceland in a smaller space, and we all know we spend a lot of money already.)

So, what is happening to squander all this talent? What the heck, let's gore several sacred cows by arguing:

(1) Town programs are not incentivized at all to develop players, even though they have the largest player pools of all. Talented kids don't develop good skills, and develop bad habits.

(2) Parents want wins now, not development later. They will actively take players away from development-focused clubs to win-at-all-costs now clubs.

(3) As a result, clubs' incentives to win at all costs all weeds out high-soccer-IQ but physical late-bloomers (can't gamble that the player will fill out, and can't wait anyway - gotta get gotsoccer points NOW or the parents will leave).

(4) Club cartel leagues which do not relegate, and which bar smaller clubs from entering, insulates big clubs from the costs of losing, and shields them from being embarrassed by competition.

(5) Big clubs' ability to dissolve losing squads and reshuffle them into new squads (perhaps with a change of coach) further insulates them from the cost of losing.

(6) The resulting consolidation of clubs, and the lack of viable independent clubs and leagues, limits choice, further shielding big clubs from the cost of losing.

(7) Lack of pick-up soccer culture doesn't force early physical bloomers from learning to play against physically superior opponents (i.e., older kids). Playing against physically superior opponents requires superior skills and/or IQ.

(8) Can't believe I'm saying this, but it is my personal observation that kids don't watch enough high-quality televised matches. How can you learn to play if you don't watch?

That was cathartic.

- a coach

#8 is the single biggest factor-period.
Nobody watches any soccer anywhere in this country. An occasional game, perhaps, but no more.
American football teams spend copious hours watching film; it is how the game is taught.
Like teaching Math without a text book.
Every one of my sessions end with a reminder of key matches on the telly, yet at next session, not a match has been watched.

[Unregistered]

#8 is the single biggest factor-period.
Nobody watches any soccer anywhere in this country. An occasional game, perhaps, but no more.
American football teams spend copious hours watching film; it is how the game is taught.
Like teaching Math without a text book.
Every one of my sessions end with a reminder of key matches on the telly, yet at next session, not a match has been watched.

I caution my children to try to avoid absolutes; just as you have done here.

"Nobody watches soccer anywhere in this country" is a fallacy.

My daughter tries to watch a game every day. She tries to get in at the start, see the lineup, and follow a player who is playing the same position as she does. There's no excuse to not be watching games today. They are on, literally, every day. And, I know she is not alone.

The differentiator is many parents didn't grow up with the game, so they can't pass along understandings of what is happening and honestly, many just don't enjoy it.

But, for curiosity sake...we have posts going on and on about how kids from 3rd world countries are better players...how does that align with the need to watch games? Are kids in Cameroon watching West Ham v Crystal Palace?

[Unregistered]

I caution my children to try to avoid absolutes; just as you have done here.

"Nobody watches soccer anywhere in this country" is a fallacy.

My daughter tries to watch a game every day. She tries to get in at the start, see the lineup, and follow a player who is playing the same position as she does. There's no excuse to not be watching games today. They are on, literally, every day. And, I know she is not alone.

The differentiator is many parents didn't grow up with the game, so they can't pass along understandings of what is happening and honestly, many just don't enjoy it.

But, for curiosity sake...we have posts going on and on about how kids from 3rd world countries are better players...how does that align with the need to watch games? Are kids in Cameroon watching West Ham v Crystal Palace?

Great post. However kids from Cameroon GROW UP with soccer. They watched Samuel Etoo and many others from African nations. Its not so much about watching pro soccer on TV. Its about the position the game occupies in a particular culture.

Unless you are Japan, who imported it , its a very hard thing to overcome without very well coordinated planning and implementation. Something that is almost impossible given the current forces and the size of the USA. You do get pockets of culture - look at Kearny NJ - and see how many pros and soccer people have come out of that small area. These pockets are fed by a collective local culture.

Its not there on a national basis here.

[Unregistered]

Great post. However kids from Cameroon GROW UP with soccer. They watched Samuel Etoo and many others from African nations. Its not so much about watching pro soccer on TV. Its about the position the game occupies in a particular culture.

Unless you are Japan, who imported it , its a very hard thing to overcome without very well coordinated planning and implementation. Something that is almost impossible given the current forces and the size of the USA. You do get pockets of culture - look at Kearny NJ - and see how many pros and soccer people have come out of that small area. These pockets are fed by a collective local culture.

Its not there on a national basis here.

It will come, but will take time and the rest of the world continues to move forward in the meantime.

I grew up in the NASL days. My parents knew zilch about the game. My dad in particular grew to love it, because he loved watching his boys play. But, it wasn't part of his culture and there were limited games on TV.

My kids grow up in a soccer house. Their kids will (most likely) grow up in a soccer house. Over time, that will come.

[Unregistered]

It will come, but will take time and the rest of the world continues to move forward in the meantime.

I grew up in the NASL days. My parents knew zilch about the game. My dad in particular grew to love it, because he loved watching his boys play. But, it wasn't part of his culture and there were limited games on TV.

My kids grow up in a soccer house. Their kids will (most likely) grow up in a soccer house. Over time, that will come.

We have to remember that as our young players get better, opponents young players do as well, and they are often at a higher level to begin with.

with so many entities that have no desire to see it come, it will take a very long time.

[Unregistered]

I caution my children to try to avoid absolutes; just as you have done here.

"Nobody watches soccer anywhere in this country" is a fallacy.

My daughter tries to watch a game every day. She tries to get in at the start, see the lineup, and follow a player who is playing the same position as she does. There's no excuse to not be watching games today. They are on, literally, every day. And, I know she is not alone.

The differentiator is many parents didn't grow up with the game, so they can't pass along understandings of what is happening and honestly, many just don't enjoy it.

But, for curiosity sake...we have posts going on and on about how kids from 3rd world countries are better players...how does that align with the need to watch games? Are kids in Cameroon watching West Ham v Crystal Palace?

Most are wearing a team jersey of some sort and they sure as heck watching the top squads in the world.
Then they go outside and practice step-overs, in the dirt, with a tennis ball.
Nobody talks about overuse, too hot, too cold, crappy field, crappier coach...etc
1st world problems that 3rd world players always seem to overcome

Too many excuses...

[Unregistered]

Great post. However kids from Cameroon GROW UP with soccer. They watched Samuel Etoo and many others from African nations. Its not so much about watching pro soccer on TV. Its about the position the game occupies in a particular culture.

Unless you are Japan, who imported it , its a very hard thing to overcome without very well coordinated planning and implementation. Something that is almost impossible given the current forces and the size of the USA. You do get pockets of culture - look at Kearny NJ - and see how many pros and soccer people have come out of that small area. These pockets are fed by a collective local culture.

Its not there on a national basis here.

So you’re saying it takes a village?

[Unregistered]

There is no way to connect passes, break down a defense, and employ sophisticated tactics without strong skills. Very few US players, even our very best, have the touch, vision, and ability to pass and receive consistently. And the few that do, don't have teammates or coaches trying to emphasize these aspects.

My daughter learned to appreciate this type of sophisticated soccer playing indoor and pickup with young men from various soccer crazed countries. A few who are now playing professionally in the US and overseas. Players were not accepted who couldn't control a ball. Kicking without thought, poor movement off the ball, poor shot selection, or losing the ball unnecessarily was ridiculed. Like a hockey player that can't skate backwards in my youth.

Good play becomes addictive. It is very dissapointing to head to college and find the level of skill, and consequently team play, so poor. Worse than many top club teams.

Parents and kids chase a dream that can easily instead be a nightmare

[Unregistered]

It's clearly time to take a hard at the role ECNL/GDA is playing in this country. If these are supposed to the best platforms for development, they are not working given the amount of resources pouring into them.