Luck, bad calls, ugly soccer, ...

[Unregistered]

Whoever claimed that Messi is not a superior athlete is completely clueless. He is highly skilled (understatement)... But he is an incredible athlete.

Soccer is unique in that sometimes size matters. But in many cases, it doesn't. I.e Messi.

Nobody did. The comment was that skill trumps athleticism. They cited Messi as an example. They didn't say that he wasn't athletic. They inferred that his talent and skill were more important.

[Slow Xavi]

If you want to be an elite player, boy or girl, you have to be an elite athlete. Skill alone is not good enough. That's why you see athletes chosen over skill all the time. An athlete can add skill. You cannot teach athleticism. And this will concept gains even more momentum as the sport grows in the U.S. With more players to chose from, may as well weed out the weaker athletes.

I believe that Messi has a kind of elite athleticism, but what about Pirlo, Lampard (in each case even in their 20s), Busquets, or Tobin?

[Unregistered]

I believe that Messi has a kind of elite athleticism, but what about Pirlo, Lampard (in each case even in their 20s), Busquets, or Tobin?

Exceptions to all rules. Do you not agree that, in general terms, the very elite soccer players are also exceptional athletes?

[Slow Xavi]

Exceptions to all rules. Do you not agree that, in general terms, the very elite soccer players are also exceptional athletes?

In general terms I agree. Ronaldo, Messi, Bale all (in their own way) have rare and natural gifts. There are however world-class players that were not born the fleetest of foot. To drive the US game forward (at least on the men's side), it will take more than just attempting to recruit athletes (as important as that is) - soccer iq, technical ability, total ecosystem to support development are all needed. All things being equal though, it would have been nice to have been born quick. :o

[Unregistered]

To bring up another topic: what about intuitiveness about the game?

I bring this up because of Amy Rodriguez. We hate seeing her in the game because it's not a matter of "IF" she turns the ball over, usually by passing directly to the other team, but "WHEN" she turns the ball over. She drives me nuts. She is a turnover machine. Yet, apparently, she makes runs that no other forward would make. I guess they are just brilliant (according to analysts I've read - I'm not that knowldegeable about the game to agree or disagree). It must be true, or somewhat true because I can't think of any other reason she is on the team, other than she's got speed. She can't finish to save her life. her shot in the game vs. China (I believe) was what we can expect from a rec player. If it didn't go 10 feet wide left it is because it went 20 feet wide left. I think she has something like 35 goals in 120 or so games. Nice stats if she were a defender.

Players have intuitiveness about the game or they don't. I don't think you can coach that. You can watch film and point out a run that should have been made, or an angle that a defender should have taken, but soccer is dynamic and in the next game, you have thousands of unique situations, most of which are all different from the last game.

Is intuititveness an attribute, or am I just making something out of nothing?

[Unregistered]

I don't think you are. It's not something that is easy to teach either. It's one of those things that players either have, or they don't. Playing and watching a lot of high level play can help. With respect to Rodriguez I couldn't disagree more with the analysts. Her runs were mostly pointless and she was constantly in the way of other players. Sure she was able to run to areas and get the ball but it was for no purpose. If that was Ellis's plan, then I'd disagree with that. Her job was to run at the defense in the middle of the field like she did right at the beginning of the game. Not receive balls headed away from goal toward the corner with no hope of doing anything positive once she received the ball.

[Unregistered]

In general terms I agree. Ronaldo, Messi, Bale all (in their own way) have rare and natural gifts. There are however world-class players that were not born the fleetest of foot. To drive the US game forward (at least on the men's side), it will take more than just attempting to recruit athletes (as important as that is) - soccer iq, technical ability, total ecosystem to support development are all needed. All things being equal though, it would have been nice to have been born quick. :o

To drive the game forward you need some of the top 1%. It's not about recruiting athletes to soccer, it's giving them freedom to be athletic. I have no doubt the players listed above would have chosen basketball, baseball, etc if born here. Look what happens when a 1% player takes up a minor US sport; Tiger, Serena, et al. They dominate. But they do it differently. Serena doesn't play technical tennis. The same with Tiger at his peak. Other mediocre players are forced to adapt. It improves the visibility and competition level of the game as a whole. In my opinion, there are no 1% American males playing the game. On the women's side, we fail to recognize and develop athleticism. In fact, we discredit it. Sydney Leroux didn't start playing until late. She would have been laughed off the field by half the coaches in our area (and participants on this board) for her lack of technical skill. Case in point; international players seen as "athletic" are attacking players. You can't train for what you see on goals of the week. How do you practice a twice-deflected overhead-volley from 25 yards? But I've seen it happen. And it's valuable to the game. Check out the transfer fees payed for athletes. Who is the best attacking player we've developed? Landon Donovan? He's technical. We have Abby on the women's side. I would argue that she's not an athlete. She's more Manute Bol than Michael Jordan.

[Slow Xavi]

To drive the game forward you need some of the top 1%. It's not about recruiting athletes to soccer, it's giving them freedom to be athletic. I have no doubt the players listed above would have chosen basketball, baseball, etc if born here. Look what happens when a 1% player takes up a minor US sport; Tiger, Serena, et al. They dominate. But they do it differently. Serena doesn't play technical tennis. The same with Tiger at his peak. Other mediocre players are forced to adapt. It improves the visibility and competition level of the game as a whole. In my opinion, there are no 1% American males playing the game. On the women's side, we fail to recognize and develop athleticism. In fact, we discredit it. Sydney Leroux didn't start playing until late. She would have been laughed off the field by half the coaches in our area (and participants on this board) for her lack of technical skill. Case in point; international players seen as "athletic" are attacking players. You can't train for what you see on goals of the week. How do you practice a twice-deflected overhead-volley from 25 yards? But I've seen it happen. And it's valuable to the game. Check out the transfer fees payed for athletes. Who is the best attacking player we've developed? Landon Donovan? He's technical. We have Abby on the women's side. I would argue that she's not an athlete. She's more Manute Bol than Michael Jordan.

It would be interesting to compare the outliers in individual (Venus, Tiger, Shiffren) and team sports. Was Tiger Woods or Shiffren a top 1% in terms of athletic potential at birth? I don't know. Venus' power and athleticism relative to her peers is truly unique, although her crazy dad (along with Shiffren's parents) have to be given credit for designing a development path that was more than going with the flow (in each case they rejected what was considered best practices at the time).

I'm not sure Messi, Ronaldo, and Bale would be great basketball players, as good athletes they are (maybe baseball for the latter 2).

The part I think is not adequately considered in the 1% hypothesis is how much of the US sports ecosystem is slanted toward the development of professionals for big 3 from the cradle. Collegiate and HS football, basketball, and baseball (+ minor leagues) are giant development systems for the NFL, NBA, and MLB and have been for generations, with substantial financial and cultural support. College and HS soccer for males is largely an afterthought relative to the resources devoted to the big 3.

I don't disagree that athletic ability is often discredited in forums like this as being important for soccer performance; however, when watching the players coaches pick (including myself), clearly athletic potential is a strong consideration. Just the claim on the men's side "if we just had the athletes" seems like a cop out.

[Unregistered]

It would be interesting to compare the outliers in individual (Venus, Tiger, Shiffren) and team sports. Was Tiger Woods or Shiffren a top 1% in terms of athletic potential at birth? I don't know. Venus' power and athleticism relative to her peers is truly unique, although her crazy dad (along with Shiffren's parents) have to be given credit for designing a development path that was more than going with the flow (in each case they rejected what was considered best practices at the time).

I'm not sure Messi, Ronaldo, and Bale would be great basketball players, as good athletes they are (maybe baseball for the latter 2).

The part I think is not adequately considered in the 1% hypothesis is how much of the US sports ecosystem is slanted toward the development of professionals for big 3 from the cradle. Collegiate and HS football, basketball, and baseball (+ minor leagues) are giant development systems for the NFL, NBA, and MLB and have been for generations, with substantial financial and cultural support. College and HS soccer for males is largely an afterthought relative to the resources devoted to the big 3.

I don't disagree that athletic ability is often discredited in forums like this as being important for soccer performance; however, when watching the players coaches pick (including myself), clearly athletic potential is a strong consideration. Just the claim on the men's side "if we just had the athletes" seems like a cop out.

The argument I have objections to isn't whether athleticism in soccer isn't important. The argument I object to is that the USWNT only wins because of their athleticism. Of course athleticism is important in any sport, but I would argue that at the highest levels at least, athleticism is less important than other sports. The reason for this is the skill of being able to properly control a soccer ball with your feet takes many thousands of hours of practice. At high levels of the game, you could have world class speed but be totally ineffective because you can't control the ball.

I previously used Messi as an example of a less than elite athlete being an outstanding soccer player. Others have argued that he is a uniquely gifted athlete, and I think there's some truth to that. Although I wonder whether his natural athletic gifts are any greater than your average college athlete.

But let's take Messi out of the argument. How about Xavi in his prime? Fast? No. Strong? No. Big? No. Explosive? No. Among the World's elite soccer players? Absolutely.

[Unregistered]

The argument I have objections to isn't whether athleticism in soccer isn't important. The argument I object to is that the USWNT only wins because of their athleticism. Of course athleticism is important in any sport, but I would argue that at the highest levels at least, athleticism is less important than other sports. The reason for this is the skill of being able to properly control a soccer ball with your feet takes many thousands of hours of practice. At high levels of the game, you could have world class speed but be totally ineffective because you can't control the ball.

I previously used Messi as an example of a less than elite athlete being an outstanding soccer player. Others have argued that he is a uniquely gifted athlete, and I think there's some truth to that. Although I wonder whether his natural athletic gifts are any greater than your average college athlete.

But let's take Messi out of the argument. How about Xavi in his prime? Fast? No. Strong? No. Big? No. Explosive? No. Among the World's elite soccer players? Absolutely.

One could counter that Xavi is also a gifted athlete. But let's say he is not for the sake of argument. You have cherry picked him for an example. I would counter that this is still an exception to the rule. To be an elite soccer player you need to be an elite athlete. Of course, the more skill you have, the more you can get away with less athleticism. But at a certain point, all the skill in the world doesn't make up for lack of athleticism.

We had a kid on our team that was easily the best skilled player on the team. This kid could juggle like no other, had the best foot skills, had easily the best touch. But the kid was just not an athlete. No speed, no agility, no hops... When we started playing top level teams with incredible amounts of speed, this player just could not keep up, completely overwhelmed. Dropped to the B team eventually quit.

I don't disagree that thousands of hours practicing, improving skill is necessary. But why not take the athlete that does that over the non athlete that does it. And I do think the USWNT was much more athletic than Japan. One could argue that Japan has more skill. But USA overwhelmed them.

[Unregistered]

Messi is more athletically gifted/talented (whatever word you want to use) than nearly every collegiate athlete. His speed and balance alone make him a standout. He frequently makes some of the best athletes in the world look foolish. Xavi isn't as obvious and when compared to his professional peers he may not be the biggest, fastest, strongest but if compared to average pros and certainly college players, he would more than hold his own athletically. It is, however, his speed of thought and technique that truly sets him apart at the highest levels. That doesn't mean he isn't an extraordinary athlete.

It's all about speed at the highest levels. All players have technical ability. It's the difference in speed between collegiate and professional athletes (in nearly every sport) that is shocking. It's significantly greater than the difference between high school and college.

It's the same in other sports. Think about how many college players look like world beaters in college, but then they suddenly look slow and clumsy when they get to the NBA. Hint: they're not slow and clumsy. It's only by comparison that they look that way.