Qualifications

[Unregistered]

Cujo, let's simplify this for YOU.

We agree in general with you that there is a phenomenon, that you described pretty well (i.e the US is not doing as well as it should with soccer).

We don't agree with your explanations for this. Perhaps the answers take more than five minutes to figure out and then with a post on T-S. It's OK if it remains a question. On top of that, your various fave themes all conflict with each other.

Your whole complementary player thing ni particular makes no sense. Taken literally, we would put middling varsity high school players on the national team and MLS squads. You don't take a kid at 14-16, and say, "I am going to develop you as a complementary player." Wittingly or unwittingly, you are actually arguing to have LESS talent on the national team rather than more. I think most believe we need MORE talent -- perhaps meshing together better, yes, but your proposal makes no sense at all.

And with all due respect, I doubt giving more of a role to 50+ year old D license guys who maybe took a team to MTOC or a state cup semifinal is the answer. And I am one of those myself.

Then offer up a better solution or anwer. Merely dismissing my points does not qualify. Furthermore I am not saying any role player can be effective on the UNMNT. What I am saying is that rather than trying to develop a slew of 5 tool players that we should focus on building teams that have all of the components needed to win. I have said this several times and I don't know how else to explain myself. Either you can't or don't want to understand what I am saying.

Let me try one more time and use the US WNT as an example. Michelle Akers was slow but superior in the air, patient, and had great field vision but was not a prolific scorer or a superlative defender. But what she did well she did extraordinarily well. But you can't have 11 like her on a team. Nor can you have 11 Hamm's or Lilly's or Chastains.

We are so focused on recruiting and moving our players from team to team in search of the Holy Grail soccer situation that we are neglecting building players who understand how being strong in a role or several roles works within a team concept.

I don't know how else to make my point and like I said. I am still waiting for someone to come up with a better theory.

- Cujo

[Unregistered]

First, no that's not why it was a well articulated post. You had nothing to do with my reply. Don't be a presumptuous douche.

Not only was it not well articulated it was factually incorrect. Spain does not have 11 5 tool players. But this does not mean that as a team comprised of players with a remarkable set of strengths that they are arguably the best or one of the best teams in the world. But they do not have the 11 best players in the world. Do you understand the difference?

- Cujo

[Unregistered]

Not only was it not well articulated it was factually incorrect. Spain does not have 11 5 tool players. But this does not mean that as a team comprised of players with a remarkable set of strengths that they are arguably the best or one of the best teams in the world. But they do not have the 11 best players in the world. Do you understand the difference?

- Cujo

You are not very smart. Spain doesn't have 11 5 tool players? And btw, can you stop using that stupid term from baseball? Not having the best 11 players in the world doesn't mean all their players aren't top-rated players. The top 500 players in the world weren't trained as role players. And nobody has a better answer yet. The US probably woudl have thought of it by now if the answer is as simple and easy as you suggest. And please do not explain your point yet again. WE GET IT! WE DON"T AGREE!

[Unregistered]

Not only was it not well articulated it was factually incorrect. Spain does not have 11 5 tool players. But this does not mean that as a team comprised of players with a remarkable set of strengths that they are arguably the best or one of the best teams in the world. But they do not have the 11 best players in the world. Do you understand the difference?

- Cujo

I can pretty much guarantee you that no one, not half, not some - no one - is going to read this and say aloud to themselves or in a posted reply, "damn straight cujo, way to set him straight."

I assure you, it's not that you're points are lost on me and they require further explanation, more like, you don't see for yourself where you've fallen short.

You just used the Spanish National Team as an example to support your 11 complementary players over 11 supreme talents. Really? That's funny. VERY funny.

[Unregistered]

You are not very smart. Spain doesn't have 11 5 tool players? And btw, can you stop using that stupid term from baseball? Not having the best 11 players in the world doesn't mean all their players aren't top-rated players. The top 500 players in the world weren't trained as role players. And nobody has a better answer yet. The US probably woudl have thought of it by now if the answer is as simple and easy as you suggest. And please do not explain your point yet again. WE GET IT! WE DON"T AGREE!

Intended or not, the post implies that Spain could or should have a roster composed of different players and that roster might include the 11 best players period, or these different types of players ("5 tool" - meaning "complete" or "total" soccer players). Obviously it doesn't stand to reason that any team ever has the best, therefore using this logic how these players are characterized could be skewed into being a roster of complementary parts rather than all-world. But that's where using Spain as the example is really, really, really misguided. Spain IS essentially an all-world team, relatively speaking, but they play in a way that supports this complementary parts being better idea.

Their 4-2-3-1 formation essentially requires that outside of 2 central defenders that anchor the back line, all other players, including the outside backs, bump up to become active in the possession attack.

[Unregistered]

Then offer up a better solution or anwer. Merely dismissing my points does not qualify. Furthermore I am not saying any role player can be effective on the UNMNT. What I am saying is that rather than trying to develop a slew of 5 tool players that we should focus on building teams that have all of the components needed to win. I have said this several times and I don't know how else to explain myself. Either you can't or don't want to understand what I am saying.

Let me try one more time and use the US WNT as an example. Michelle Akers was slow but superior in the air, patient, and had great field vision but was not a prolific scorer or a superlative defender. But what she did well she did extraordinarily well. But you can't have 11 like her on a team. Nor can you have 11 Hamm's or Lilly's or Chastains.

We are so focused on recruiting and moving our players from team to team in search of the Holy Grail soccer situation that we are neglecting building players who understand how being strong in a role or several roles works within a team concept.

I don't know how else to make my point and like I said. I am still waiting for someone to come up with a better theory.

- Cujo

Simplistic and misguided. You can't have 11 Mias or whomever (what's next, you can't have 6 Gretzkys or 5 Jordans?)... No crap sherlock. That's true, as you seem to mean it, regardless of the approach taken in developing players. But as we move through development, despite the reality of the "slanty line" we aim high, and so whether a high school tryout or composing the USWNT, we take the cream from the top.

Whether at the best level of HS play or the USWNT, I could give you present examples where among the best can play at a prolific level at striker on their HS and college teams respectively, but because of their elite club and USWNT rosters are LOADED, they have IMMEDIATELY become valuable contributors moving to fullback.

The only reason they were able to do this is because they were great soccer players, not complementary players at a given position.

[Unregistered]

You are not very smart. Spain doesn't have 11 5 tool players? And btw, can you stop using that stupid term from baseball? Not having the best 11 players in the world doesn't mean all their players aren't top-rated players. The top 500 players in the world weren't trained as role players. And nobody has a better answer yet. The US probably woudl have thought of it by now if the answer is as simple and easy as you suggest. And please do not explain your point yet again. WE GET IT! WE DON"T AGREE!

I think you are assuming that you need to be a 5 tool player (not just a baseball term) in order to play at the highest level. This is where my premise disconnects with those that disagree with me. If as a coach you are trying to develop (recruit) a team where every players does everything well then you are on a fools errand. 1st of all these players are rare and the selection and player distribution systems are such that rarely do more than a few of these players wind up together.

I also believe that too many people in this discussion don't understand the nature of top players. Right now I believe that Messi is the best player in the world. But that does not mean that he is the best at everything that he does. By far he is the best 1 v 1 player, he has superior technical and tactical skills - but other areas he is just ok i.e. defense or just very good ie. playing balls in the air.

But back to the original point. Nobody can deny that the changes in the way we are selecting our youth coaches and the way that we are training our youth players are not working.

And finally you are simply not understanding the meaning of role player. Once again as I have said a million times the newly minted soccer purists seem to think that soccer is exempt from the principles of development that apply to every other sport in the world. Beckham in his prime was a fairly complete player but had one obvious incredible strength. That was his primary ROLE in the team. You can't have 11 Messi's or Beckham's. Is any of this stuff sinking in. At a pub over the weekend with some friends (all soccer nuts like myself..) we were discussing this very issue. These guys are much brighter soccer minds and accomplished coaches than I am and they clearly understand the points I have expressed here.

If this forum is filled with parents I can cut you slack - you are not supposed to understand the game like others do. You don't have to. But if I am having conversations with coaches and club officials then I think I am beginning to understand why MA youth soccer is such a mess.

- Cujo

[Unregistered]

Simplistic and misguided. You can't have 11 Mias or whomever (what's next, you can't have 6 Gretzkys or 5 Jordans?)... No crap sherlock. That's true, as you seem to mean it, regardless of the approach taken in developing players. But as we move through development, despite the reality of the "slanty line" we aim high, and so whether a high school tryout or composing the USWNT, we take the cream from the top.

Whether at the best level of HS play or the USWNT, I could give you present examples where among the best can play at a prolific level at striker on their HS and college teams respectively, but because of their elite club and USWNT rosters are LOADED, they have IMMEDIATELY become valuable contributors moving to fullback.

The only reason they were able to do this is because they were great soccer players, not complementary players at a given position.

I give up. You don't understand. You are now just arguing for the sake of disagreeing with me. Your post does not make any sense and has very little to do with my premise.

Not to mention the fact that your are dead wrong in your assertion.

- Cujo

[Unregistered]

Intended or not, the post implies that Spain could or should have a roster composed of different players and that roster might include the 11 best players period, or these different types of players ("5 tool" - meaning "complete" or "total" soccer players). Obviously it doesn't stand to reason that any team ever has the best, therefore using this logic how these players are characterized could be skewed into being a roster of complementary parts rather than all-world. But that's where using Spain as the example is really, really, really misguided. Spain IS essentially an all-world team, relatively speaking, but they play in a way that supports this complementary parts being better idea.

Their 4-2-3-1 formation essentially requires that outside of 2 central defenders that anchor the back line, all other players, including the outside backs, bump up to become active in the possession attack.

Thank you thank. You said it better than I have. There is hope.........

- Cujo

[Unregistered]

I think you are assuming that you need to be a 5 tool player (not just a baseball term) in order to play at the highest level. This is where my premise disconnects with those that disagree with me. If as a coach you are trying to develop (recruit) a team where every players does everything well then you are on a fools errand. 1st of all these players are rare and the selection and player distribution systems are such that rarely do more than a few of these players wind up together.

- Cujo

So what you're saying is that the dream team approach/example that you're using in making your case for the complementary parts model, at any level and any sport, doesn't really even exist - and even if anyone is foolish enough to chase it, what they end up having, in reality, is the best team they can end up with, some players being superior than others (perhaps "stars"), and filling out the roster with players suited for various roles with various abilities (perhaps "role players").

Enlightening. Thanks Capt. Obvious.

[Unregistered]

Thank you thank. You said it better than I have. There is hope.........

- Cujo

Apparently not, since I wrote that post, as well as the one you replied to saying you give up.

Maybe instead of diatribes, you'd best serve your case by offering up a thesis statement that can stand on its own and move along.

Personally, I don't think there's a debate here (meaning a thesis statement, singular and not plural, where opposing affirmative arguments - or at least one - can be made).

[Unregistered]

You can't have 11 Messi's

- Cujo

Sheer brilliance.

[Unregistered]

I have read all the posts on this thread. I think Cujo makes some excellent points. In my opinion, the bottm line is that youth soccer in America has too many people trying to win too many games , at earlier and earlier ages. Besides soccer, I bring expereince in other endeavors, where before you try and compete, one must have a full and complete understanding of basic skills, and the and a burning desire to master them, before entering the arena of competition. For the most part, members of the current model of Youth soccer at the present time just do not have the patience to pursue the path to excellence.

[Unregistered]

Apparently not, since I wrote that post, as well as the one you replied to saying you give up.

Maybe instead of diatribes, you'd best serve your case by offering up a thesis statement that can stand on its own and move along.

Personally, I don't think there's a debate here (meaning a thesis statement, singular and not plural, where opposing affirmative arguments - or at least one - can be made).

So you are arguing against your own position in the other post because I disagree with the first but not this one. Classic TS behavior.

In any case your latter post is still correct.

[ForzaAzzurri]

I have read all the posts on this thread. I think Cujo makes some excellent points. In my opinion, the bottm line is that youth soccer in America has too many people trying to win too many games , at earlier and earlier ages. Besides soccer, I bring expereince in other endeavors, where before you try and compete, one must have a full and complete understanding of basic skills, and the and a burning desire to master them, before entering the arena of competition. For the most part, members of the current model of Youth soccer at the present time just do not have the patience to pursue the path to excellence.

Exactly.

Case in point: U11 (and 12 and 13 and...) kids hopping on a plane as part of their, ahem,...d-e-v-e-l-o-p-m-e-n-t.