ECNL/D1/Pro 0 - Netherlands 3 20U Women’s World Cup

[Guest]

don’t think op said it’s how they were taught. It is what is rewarded. Athletic players who make the right play should be the gold standard

But again how we define athletic is in the eye of the coach/scout. Some may see big strong tall fast and get super excited. Others see technical and love it. It all depends on who is doing the picking. College coaches are a bit different- depends on where you are looking. For UNC it’s only soccer but for Harvard you have to have the grades. They can’t look at the dummies. So perhaps- just a thought maybe they start looking deeper at the smarter athletes who can learn the game - like we learn chess. They will catch on quicker. Look at Midge - she’s pretty damn impressive but I cannot think of another Ivy kid that made it that far/ or more likely had better options post college.

[Guest]

"Which in some aspects is why you saw lots girls taking on 2-3 defenders while others are standing wide open"

I wonder why US players think beating two or three players is the ticket to the National team. Wouldn't it be great if they thought quick passing and movement was the key to making the National team. The u20 game would be better instantly-instead, they do what they think will get them rewarded. Why not, it's worked for them their whole lives. If we just changed that one aspect of scouting, I dare say, we might just have a different group of players out there.

Soccer Nut

That's exactly it. Every coach in the US (and especially every college coach) wants players that can take on other players 1-on-1. That's it! Whether it's speed or size, that's all they care about. You'll have no chance of making a college team if you try to play a possession game and actually pass the ball early instead of holding it until you're in trouble and then just booting hopefully up the field.

[Guest]

That's exactly it. Every coach in the US (and especially every college coach) wants players that can take on other players 1-on-1. That's it! Whether it's speed or size, that's all they care about. You'll have no chance of making a college team if you try to play a possession game and actually pass the ball early instead of holding it until you're in trouble and then just booting hopefully up the field.

It’s not all they care about. But if a girl can consistently take people 1v1 and win, it obviously makes their job much much easier. That being said their is certain times and areas in the field that I hate seeing girls trying to win 1v1. And forget about taking on 2-3

[Guest]

New comer to the conversation. Some of you are reading too much into the U20 team. These teams are always experiments and while yes they always want to win it's not a reflection of what the Sr team will be in 5 years. This team lost because they didn't play well together and there were some big mistakes defensively that exposed gaps. Both Japan and Netherlands play possession soccer and they do it well. Japan is a bit different because their baseline is excellent footwork combined with smart ball movement and endless collective defensive work. Netherlands plays total football and there was nothing special about it possession and good execution. In both games you can see the lack of cohesion amongst the US players and even though they had on paper a better team they failed to produce scoring opportunities. I would put most of the blame for the lack of opportunities on the coach because she couldn't get the best out of them.

[Guest]

But again how we define athletic is in the eye of the coach/scout. Some may see big strong tall fast and get super excited. Others see technical and love it. It all depends on who is doing the picking. College coaches are a bit different- depends on where you are looking. For UNC it’s only soccer but for Harvard you have to have the grades. They can’t look at the dummies. So perhaps- just a thought maybe they start looking deeper at the smarter athletes who can learn the game - like we learn chess. They will catch on quicker. Look at Midge - she’s pretty damn impressive but I cannot think of another Ivy kid that made it that far/ or more likely had better options post college.

Athletic means Athletic. Physically fit fast strong and good hand/eye (foot/eye) coordination. Technical players are not always fast or strong, they may be good dribblers and have good first touch and make accurate passes but lack the athletic abilities to play a higher level. This is how I define Athletic.

[Guest]

New comer to the conversation. Some of you are reading too much into the U20 team. These teams are always experiments and while yes they always want to win it's not a reflection of what the Sr team will be in 5 years. This team lost because they didn't play well together and there were some big mistakes defensively that exposed gaps. Both Japan and Netherlands play possession soccer and they do it well. Japan is a bit different because their baseline is excellent footwork combined with smart ball movement and endless collective defensive work. Netherlands plays total football and there was nothing special about it possession and good execution. In both games you can see the lack of cohesion amongst the US players and even though they had on paper a better team they failed to produce scoring opportunities. I would put most of the blame for the lack of opportunities on the coach because she couldn't get the best out of them.

BINGO. It’s just U20.

[Guest]

But again how we define athletic is in the eye of the coach/scout. Some may see big strong tall fast and get super excited. Others see technical and love it. It all depends on who is doing the picking. College coaches are a bit different- depends on where you are looking. For UNC it’s only soccer but for Harvard you have to have the grades. They can’t look at the dummies. So perhaps- just a thought maybe they start looking deeper at the smarter athletes who can learn the game - like we learn chess. They will catch on quicker. Look at Midge - she’s pretty damn impressive but I cannot think of another Ivy kid that made it that far/ or more likely had better options post college.

For that to happen you need a) coaches who can actually teach the game and b) players who take the time to learn the game. On the first point how many of our youth coaches played soccer at the highest levels and are highly trained? Abroad coaching is a respected profession with coaches who lived and breathe the game all their lives. For B, learning the game isn't just in games and practices but studying profesional games regularly. Abroad everyone grows up watching games on TV or live locally. You and your friends, family discuss the games players etc. Not many players watch soccer here. Only some coaches have their teams watch game film.

^ that is part of the reason athleticism becomes the default trait. It's easy to spot, requires little training and is readily available.

[Guest]

But again how we define athletic is in the eye of the coach/scout. Some may see big strong tall fast and get super excited. Others see technical and love it. It all depends on who is doing the picking. College coaches are a bit different- depends on where you are looking. For UNC it’s only soccer but for Harvard you have to have the grades. They can’t look at the dummies. So perhaps- just a thought maybe they start looking deeper at the smarter athletes who can learn the game - like we learn chess. They will catch on quicker. Look at Midge - she’s pretty damn impressive but I cannot think of another Ivy kid that made it that far/ or more likely had better options post college.

College coaches get paid to win. They need players that come in as locked and loaded as possible. If you're not or don't adapt quickly you're toast. There's little time or coach skill to develop players beyond what they need for a few years.

[Guest]

But again how we define athletic is in the eye of the coach/scout. Some may see big strong tall fast and get super excited. Others see technical and love it. It all depends on who is doing the picking. College coaches are a bit different- depends on where you are looking. For UNC it’s only soccer but for Harvard you have to have the grades. They can’t look at the dummies. So perhaps- just a thought maybe they start looking deeper at the smarter athletes who can learn the game - like we learn chess. They will catch on quicker. Look at Midge - she’s pretty damn impressive but I cannot think of another Ivy kid that made it that far/ or more likely had better options post college.

Athletic is not debatable. athletic and technically sound is the gold standard. Purce is not it. On paper, maybe. On the field. Purce is an older version of what you saw from the U-20s. One footed, dribble first. limited technical skill set. Great story though and that sells.

[Guest]

New comer to the conversation. Some of you are reading too much into the U20 team. These teams are always experiments and while yes they always want to win it's not a reflection of what the Sr team will be in 5 years. This team lost because they didn't play well together and there were some big mistakes defensively that exposed gaps. Both Japan and Netherlands play possession soccer and they do it well. Japan is a bit different because their baseline is excellent footwork combined with smart ball movement and endless collective defensive work. Netherlands plays total football and there was nothing special about it possession and good execution. In both games you can see the lack of cohesion amongst the US players and even though they had on paper a better team they failed to produce scoring opportunities. I would put most of the blame for the lack of opportunities on the coach because she couldn't get the best out of them.

your point is that we will outlast them and in 5 years will be better? Ok got it.

[Guest]

For that to happen you need a) coaches who can actually teach the game and b) players who take the time to learn the game. On the first point how many of our youth coaches played soccer at the highest levels and are highly trained? Abroad coaching is a respected profession with coaches who lived and breathe the game all their lives. For B, learning the game isn't just in games and practices but studying profesional games regularly. Abroad everyone grows up watching games on TV or live locally. You and your friends, family discuss the games players etc. Not many players watch soccer here. Only some coaches have their teams watch game film.

^ that is part of the reason athleticism becomes the default trait. It's easy to spot, requires little training and is readily available.

no other country is pretending that there are enough quality players for 340 D1 schools. The ECNL/GA myth capitalizes on parent dreams. there are coaches who can and do teach the game. There are players who take time to learn, but that is not enough. you need the best coaches working with the best prospects as much as possible to get the best results and in this system that usually happens by chance, not design. Parents are way too involved for that to happen and the business of soccer here is at youth level. Motives are mostly $$$$$$ based

[Guest]

BINGO. It’s just U20.

Awful take. individual development is largely over by u-20. The skill set a player has is pretty much defined by then.

[Guest]

no other country is pretending that there are enough quality players for 340 D1 schools. The ECNL/GA myth capitalizes on parent dreams. there are coaches who can and do teach the game. There are players who take time to learn, but that is not enough. you need the best coaches working with the best prospects as much as possible to get the best results and in this system that usually happens by chance, not design. Parents are way too involved for that to happen and the business of soccer here is at youth level. Motives are mostly $$$$$$ based

op here - yes the system is designed around the college track and no other nations have the system we do. But in many regards that's fine because very few of those college track players have the skills or aspirations to ever go pro or be on the national team. We almost need two tracks, one for college, one for the nation's top talent. Problem is most of the top younger players still play in college, plus our massive geography and schedules make it a challenge for those teams to practice together often enough. Then add in bad coaching and USSF incompetencies and it's not a pretty picture

[Guest]

op here - yes the system is designed around the college track and no other nations have the system we do. But in many regards that's fine because very few of those college track players have the skills or aspirations to ever go pro or be on the national team. We almost need two tracks, one for college, one for the nation's top talent. Problem is most of the top younger players still play in college, plus our massive geography and schedules make it a challenge for those teams to practice together often enough. Then add in bad coaching and USSF incompetencies and it's not a pretty picture

yes.pretty much what i just said. except you are looking at the issue way too late in the development cycle. the players who do have that potential should be ID'd long before College. The Id process should have nothing to do with the National team. it should be part of the professional environment and just like any opportunity, players can take it or not. if the geography is a issue, fine. People turn down opportunity based on location al the time. Sports are not different. The real problem is cost and the USA are used to systems in which parents pay, Colleges act as minor leagues ( with TV footing the bill) and pro teams cherry pick at the top. why? Cost. The only reason we have all these women's college soccer teams is football - Title 9. The system is built by necessity, not quality. NWSL is out there giving more money to 19/20 year olds from other countries to fill roles that College players could IF they were offered the same terms. the established system her does not work for womens soccer. It does not workl for mens either which is why the schools are now full of foreign players and our best talent is not in College anymore. Yet somehow we want to pretend it works for women because it is still good enough when only 5 countries or so actually have a legit commitment to Womens International soccer. Lowest bar ever., but we lap it up. USA USA...

[Guest]

yes.pretty much what i just said. except you are looking at the issue way too late in the development cycle. the players who do have that potential should be ID'd long before College. The Id process should have nothing to do with the National team. it should be part of the professional environment and just like any opportunity, players can take it or not. if the geography is a issue, fine. People turn down opportunity based on location al the time. Sports are not different. The real problem is cost and the USA are used to systems in which parents pay, Colleges act as minor leagues ( with TV footing the bill) and pro teams cherry pick at the top. why? Cost. The only reason we have all these women's college soccer teams is football - Title 9. The system is built by necessity, not quality. NWSL is out there giving more money to 19/20 year olds from other countries to fill roles that College players could IF they were offered the same terms. the established system her does not work for womens soccer. It does not workl for mens either which is why the schools are now full of foreign players and our best talent is not in College anymore. Yet somehow we want to pretend it works for women because it is still good enough when only 5 countries or so actually have a legit commitment to Womens International soccer. Lowest bar ever., but we lap it up. USA USA...

But those pay to play, scouting, logistical and coaching issues also exist with the younger teams, camps etc as well. It's a systemic issue up and down. We are not the rest of the world and can't ever be. The question then becomes how can we suss out the best talent and develop it in the environment we do have.