Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Oregon DA

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

    #16
    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
    If the quality of training is low, how does one fix it? Why do you think it is low? How do you know it is low? (Don't say "results against California", because then we are back to the question of why).

    Are coaching wages (compared to costs of living) higher here, or there?

    Is club formation easier there, or here? Are clubs there more or less protected from "poaching" than clubs here? Do state officials in CA enforce technical standards against clubs/coaches, and are they effective?

    In short, what are they doing differently in CA? What is being done poorly or not at all here?
    I’m not the OP.
    What the OP is saying is true though. The training here locally is poor. I can say this because I have traveled all around the country and world working with other academies. We do a poor job around here

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
      I’m not the OP.
      What the OP is saying is true though. The training here locally is poor. I can say this because I have traveled all around the country and world working with other academies. We do a poor job around here
      In what way?

      First, are you comparing actual real-live academies (places that strive to train professionals, often doing so full-time, in a professional environment) with local youth clubs? Are you saying that TA doesn't measure up to its peers? (I won't argue). Are you saying that outside of TA, we don't have anything close--all the other options are either nonprofit youth clubs or private training centers, which might have a "club" attached? Seattle has Crossfire Premier, for what it's worth, and many California youth clubs offer "academy" conditions despite not having a professional (or even semi-pro) adult first team.

      Or are you saying that the coaching at the pay-to-play youth clubs in other parts of the country is better than the pay-to-play clubs here? After all, most of what we are talking about here is the local amateur clubs, which OYSA requires to be nonprofits. Many of these operate on shoestring budgets, receive extensive assistance from local parks districts, and still charge too much money. And most coaches work part-time, and have to do something else in addition (whether in soccer or in some completely different field) in order to make ends meet.

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
        In what way?

        First, are you comparing actual real-live academies (places that strive to train professionals, often doing so full-time, in a professional environment) with local youth clubs? Are you saying that TA doesn't measure up to its peers? (I won't argue). Are you saying that outside of TA, we don't have anything close--all the other options are either nonprofit youth clubs or private training centers, which might have a "club" attached? Seattle has Crossfire Premier, for what it's worth, and many California youth clubs offer "academy" conditions despite not having a professional (or even semi-pro) adult first team.

        Or are you saying that the coaching at the pay-to-play youth clubs in other parts of the country is better than the pay-to-play clubs here? After all, most of what we are talking about here is the local amateur clubs, which OYSA requires to be nonprofits. Many of these operate on shoestring budgets, receive extensive assistance from local parks districts, and still charge too much money. And most coaches work part-time, and have to do something else in addition (whether in soccer or in some completely different field) in order to make ends meet.
        I’m saying everything you mentioned above. The coaches around here are dinosaurs and teach the game like it’s still 1989

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
          I’m saying everything you mentioned above. The coaches around here are dinosaurs and teach the game like it’s still 1989
          One could argue that kids produced in 89 were much, much better than what we produce today, at least at the very top.

          Comment


            #20
            Went kind of quiet with that question.
            I believe Jim Rilatt won one in 94 and Bill Bateman in 2010.
            Interesting note, with the development of certain clubs we haven't seen an increase in Oregon teams getting past regionals.

            With Oregon being fairly focused on soccer how can we explain that per details above we have evidence that Oregon is not producing talent on a regular basis. One that reads into that may take away the point that the data suggests our model is wrong or our culture.

            Anyone disagree?

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
              Went kind of quiet with that question.
              I believe Jim Rilatt won one in 94 and Bill Bateman in 2010.
              Interesting note, with the development of certain clubs we haven't seen an increase in Oregon teams getting past regionals.

              With Oregon being fairly focused on soccer how can we explain that per details above we have evidence that Oregon is not producing talent on a regular basis. One that reads into that may take away the point that the data suggests our model is wrong or our culture.

              Anyone disagree?
              There is a problem nationally too - the best players this country has produced to date never played in anything like the USDA. They played a butt load of games locally, with a bunch of tournaments, where they were overloaded, playing on teams that wanted to win games.

              I love, love, love some of the things that the USDA has pushed, but jury is out on what it is producing.

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                One that reads into that may take away the point that the data suggests our model is wrong or our culture.

                Anyone disagree?
                The problem is people. Good work doesn't happen here because there's no incentive: trying to do it right is harder work for no more pay, and the parents wouldn't know the difference anyway. Heck, most parents would complain that little Jonny is giving it away in his own penalty area rather than just booting it, and they don't want to be told to shut their stupid mouths during matches. Far easier to just pick up your check, deliver some reheated drills, and make sure everyone feels great about the jungle ball they're playing on the weekend. "GET IT OUT OF THERE, JONNY, SO WE CAN HOIST THE DALLAS(OR) CUP!!! And make sure you pay by the 3rd!"

                Timbers have a big enough platform to change that, but they've hired an under-qualified and unsupervised staff to interface with youth soccer here. There's ZERO dissemination or modelling of best-practices (which don't exist in their own house anyway).

                I honestly don't think that's anyone's fault. Everyone is behaving rationally. Until someone decides to do better because they want to, nothing will change.

                And for what it's worth, OR's small size can be an advantage in ways that CA's large size could never be. Plus, if you think developing soccer players is a numbers game (Hi, China! Hello, India!) or if you justify your job at the local pro academy by blaming the players you don't know how to train while telling everyone how high the standard is, then you'll likely not want to hear it.

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                  One could argue that kids produced in 89 were much, much better than what we produce today, at least at the very top.
                  It's hard to compare players from pre-1994 (when US hosted the World Cup and soccer started to stop being a niche sport) with modern ones. Who was better--Steve Ancheta or Marco Farfan? Who knows? Apples and oranges.

                  I'd say the best local players produced (males), in chronological order, include (local club, year of HS graduation, and senior/international play in parentheses):

                  Paul Conway (1988)
                  Andrew Gregor (FC, 1994)
                  Josh Sauders (1999, various MLS teams, Puerto Rico NT)
                  Ty Harden (FC, 2003, TFC & San Jose Earthquakes)
                  Chad Barrett (Westside, 2003, various MLS clubs, one UMSNT cap)
                  Nate Jaqua (ETFC, 2003, various MLS clubs, one USMNT cap)
                  Brian Rowe (ETFC, 2007, Orlando City FC)
                  Danny Mwanga (Westside, 2008, Philadephia Union)
                  Erik Hurtado (Westside, 2009, Vancouver Whitecaps)
                  Dustin Corea (Eastside, 2010, El Salvador NT)
                  Rubio Rubin (Westside, 2013, FC Utrecht, USMNT)
                  Marco Farfan (Eastside, 2017, Portland Timbers, USU23)

                  If there was a "golden era" it was in the first decade of the 21st century, not any time during the 20th.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                    It's hard to compare players from pre-1994 (when US hosted the World Cup and soccer started to stop being a niche sport) with modern ones. Who was better--Steve Ancheta or Marco Farfan? Who knows? Apples and oranges.

                    I'd say the best local players produced (males), in chronological order, include (local club, year of HS graduation, and senior/international play in parentheses):

                    Paul Conway (1988)
                    Andrew Gregor (FC, 1994)
                    Josh Sauders (1999, various MLS teams, Puerto Rico NT)
                    Ty Harden (FC, 2003, TFC & San Jose Earthquakes)
                    Chad Barrett (Westside, 2003, various MLS clubs, one UMSNT cap)
                    Nate Jaqua (ETFC, 2003, various MLS clubs, one USMNT cap)
                    Brian Rowe (ETFC, 2007, Orlando City FC)
                    Danny Mwanga (Westside, 2008, Philadephia Union)
                    Erik Hurtado (Westside, 2009, Vancouver Whitecaps)
                    Dustin Corea (Eastside, 2010, El Salvador NT)
                    Rubio Rubin (Westside, 2013, FC Utrecht, USMNT)
                    Marco Farfan (Eastside, 2017, Portland Timbers, USU23)

                    If there was a "golden era" it was in the first decade of the 21st century, not any time during the 20th.
                    Was thinking more nationally - Dempsey and Donovan both "entered" youth soccer roughly in 1989. Tab Ramos, Hugo Perez, Reyna all well before that. Does Pulisic have potential? Sure, but I don't think he has yet reached the level of any of those 5, or done it consistently.

                    A cynic could look at what were producing in 89 and argue - where is the progress?

                    In terms of Oregon, I don't know. Too close to home, to much political agenda in whatever take one has. Clearly there are some MLS franchises that are spending more dollars and doing so more effectively then the Timbers in developing the kids; however, Timbers have found ways to win without developing their own. I am not sure they are wrong from a business model perspective (although from PR perspective they have to give the academy lip service).

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                      Was thinking more nationally - Dempsey and Donovan both "entered" youth soccer roughly in 1989. Tab Ramos, Hugo Perez, Reyna all well before that. Does Pulisic have potential? Sure, but I don't think he has yet reached the level of any of those 5, or done it consistently.

                      A cynic could look at what were producing in 89 and argue - where is the progress?

                      In terms of Oregon, I don't know. Too close to home, to much political agenda in whatever take one has. Clearly there are some MLS franchises that are spending more dollars and doing so more effectively then the Timbers in developing the kids; however, Timbers have found ways to win without developing their own. I am not sure they are wrong from a business model perspective (although from PR perspective they have to give the academy lip service).
                      My obvious guess was that prior to 1996, the only real professional opportunities for domestic players were abroad; the stronger competition in the foreign leagues produced better players. For the first fifteen years of its existence, MLS was terrible; it had a decade after that of being mediocre, and has now reached the level of adequate--and while MLS has had the long-term effect of helping grow the game in this country, it also resulted in a generation of players that found it more rational to simply stay in the domestic league rather than go abroad--and thus lacked the skills to compete internationally.

                      I think we are starting to see a second "golden generation"--Pulisic was arguably the best player at the Gold Cup, even if the US didn't win, and guys like Tyler Adams and Weston McKennie are also doing well in Europe. This country now has a credible soccer culture, even if still takes a backseat to American football or hoops, and the fact that we're having this conversation means the need for improvement is recognized.

                      I think the USSDA has been a net positive (harder to say on the girls' side; the World Cup was won with players who came up through the youth system mostly before ECNL was formed), though it is not without its flaws.

                      Locally, its easy to point to the drop in first-class talent in the past decade and blame it on the Timbers; though there are many other confounding factors.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by Unregistered View Post
                        The problem is people. Good work doesn't happen here because there's no incentive: trying to do it right is harder work for no more pay, and the parents wouldn't know the difference anyway. Heck, most parents would complain that little Jonny is giving it away in his own penalty area rather than just booting it, and they don't want to be told to shut their stupid mouths during matches. Far easier to just pick up your check, deliver some reheated drills, and make sure everyone feels great about the jungle ball they're playing on the weekend. "GET IT OUT OF THERE, JONNY, SO WE CAN HOIST THE DALLAS(OR) CUP!!! And make sure you pay by the 3rd!"

                        Timbers have a big enough platform to change that, but they've hired an under-qualified and unsupervised staff to interface with youth soccer here. There's ZERO dissemination or modelling of best-practices (which don't exist in their own house anyway).

                        I honestly don't think that's anyone's fault. Everyone is behaving rationally. Until someone decides to do better because they want to, nothing will change.

                        And for what it's worth, OR's small size can be an advantage in ways that CA's large size could never be. Plus, if you think developing soccer players is a numbers game (Hi, China! Hello, India!) or if you justify your job at the local pro academy by blaming the players you don't know how to train while telling everyone how high the standard is, then you'll likely not want to hear it.
                        Agree. I really enjoyed reading this post. Thank you. I completely agree on the parents being focused in the wrong areas. The parents lack the understanding of the sport for the most part. For a coach, you can see evidence of players whom work not only in practice but outside of it as well. These players often times move up the ranking in game time depending on the gravity of the game. This is where the clubs need to be educating their parents as to let them understand that game time can be a show case of this weeks work but as the team steps into higher levels of competition there may be a focus on the players used due to ability/work habit. From what I hear on the sidelines, and being a involved with my own kids, it's obvious this isn't done too often. Fans all over the world are fairly educated across the board but here we choose to remain so self-centered we are unwilling to admit our child isn't playing at the same level as the "starters" which may be why he/she is not getting game time. As a parent, I should talk to my child and encourage practice in the area's they are having difficulties. I feel like this is pretty much common sense.

                        Comment

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