Checkin on our Pro Academies

[Unregistered]

Population of Oregon: 4.191 million
Population of Croatia: 4.154 million (Made the World Cup final 2018)
Population of Iceland: 338 Thousand (Played in the World Cup 2018 Made Qfinal Euro 2016)Population is not the issue ... it's a combination of a lack of true soccer culture, a pay to play model, a lack of clubs who truly focus on player development, quality coaches who put player development over trophy chasing, etc. .... as many posters have pointed out. I'm sick of hearing the population argument!
Want to see how it's done? Pick up the Croatian Development Curriculum:

https://development-curriculum.romeo...nt-curriculum/

Interest in American football, Basketball & Baseball in Croatia & Iceland.
Less than .01 of population. Interest in Football 99.9%.

Oregon interest in American football, Basketball & Baseball as reflected in dollars spend and TV rankings is nearly early every breathing human.
Interest in Soccer in Oregon about .015% That's generous

The population comparison is perhaps the stupidest angle you could ever attach yourself to. Iceland & Croatia culture & population have nothing in common with Oregon, USA when it comes to World Football.

Please list the Number of NBA, NFL & MLB players in Croatia, Iceland?
Then list those countries TV Rankings for American College Football, Baseball & Basketball, followed by the NBA, NFL & MLB rankings.

Soccer in the states is not something anyone pays attention to, that's why parents 'pay' buffoons to coach and travel with their kid to play for nothing. Road to nowhere.

You wanna change it, stop paying and go play.

Do you have the balls?

[Unregistered]

The total population doesn't matter. The number of youth players is a better starting point.
Oregon - 50,000
Croatia - 90,000
Iceland - 25,000

Most likely geography and costs are why we don't produce like other countries.
Oregon - 98,000 sq miles
Croatia - 25,000 sq miles
Iceland - 39,000 sq miles

To maximize development the best players need to train 25+hrs/wk with each other. It's easier to accomplish in smaller countries. The costs to do that here would prohibit most families from pursuing it.

Best-athletes arguments belong on the flat-earther threads.

[Unregistered]

The total population doesn't matter. The number of youth players is a better starting point.
Oregon - 50,000
Croatia - 90,000
Iceland - 25,000

Most likely geography and costs are why we don't produce like other countries.
Oregon - 98,000 sq miles
Croatia - 25,000 sq miles
Iceland - 39,000 sq miles

To maximize development the best players need to train 25+hrs/wk with each other. It's easier to accomplish in smaller countries. The costs to do that here would prohibit most families from pursuing it.

Best-athletes arguments belong on the flat-earther threads.

25 hours a week is the number that should be honed in on.

Even if one assumes that number includes games as well as unorganized activities (personal practice, pickup games).... thats over 4 hours per day, 6 days per week.

If **any** of the local clubs provide more than 10 hours per week, including games, I'd be shocked. Most have under 5/week of training, plus a game or two on the weekends.

Even the Timbers Academy doesn't get close to that 25 hour figure, in terms of its organized activities.

How many kids around here play close to that? And do so against each other?

[Unregistered]

Good stuff in the last 2 posts.

One note on Iceland - there is substantial public subsidy for both coach licensing and field development. I think it is part of their fight against substance abuse. Has been a significant factor in reducing cost to serve while driving quality of programming.

Oregon does have some degree subsidy for any publicly owned fields; would be interesting to see how that compares to some of these other locations and relative cost of fields.

Love how folks rip on coaches pay - ironically from other folks who make a living coaching soccer. When you throw in the time and cost to get a C or B license in the states; not the richest career path.

[Unregistered]

25 hours a week is the number that should be honed in on.

Even if one assumes that number includes games as well as unorganized activities (personal practice, pickup games).... thats over 4 hours per day, 6 days per week.

If **any** of the local clubs provide more than 10 hours per week, including games, I'd be shocked. Most have under 5/week of training, plus a game or two on the weekends.

Even the Timbers Academy doesn't get close to that 25 hour figure, in terms of its organized activities.

How many kids around here play close to that? And do so against each other?

gtfo here with "25 hours." No one should be training in an organized setting 25 hours per week. Literally no one.

Trust me: volume is not the problem with the way kids are trained in OR.

[Unregistered]

gtfo here with "25 hours." No one should be training in an organized setting 25 hours per week. Literally no one.

Trust me: volume is not the problem with the way kids are trained in OR.

The issue is Oregon is part of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA and not part of soccer loving country like Croatia or Iceland.

Trust me on this, it's not that complicated.

[Unregistered]

gtfo here with "25 hours." No one should be training in an organized setting 25 hours per week. Literally no one.

Trust me: volume is not the problem with the way kids are trained in OR.

Training, no. Not unless they are being paid.

But the best kids play soccer for hours every day, not 90 minutes every Tuesday and Thursday.

[Unregistered]

Good stuff in the last 2 posts.

One note on Iceland - there is substantial public subsidy for both coach licensing and field development. I think it is part of their fight against substance abuse. Has been a significant factor in reducing cost to serve while driving quality of programming.

Oregon does have some degree subsidy for any publicly owned fields; would be interesting to see how that compares to some of these other locations and relative cost of fields.

Love how folks rip on coaches pay - ironically from other folks who make a living coaching soccer. When you throw in the time and cost to get a C or B license in the states; not the richest career path.

Some more good points here. The fact that licensure has become outrageously expensive is surely a factor. Should coaches be required to be licensed? Absolutely. Should that licensure cost more than a license to be an electrician, plumber, dental hygienist, registered nurse? Absolutely not. The fees to obtain coaching certification go up exponentially, and often require the coach to pay travel expenses and miss time from a "day job" (which most younger coaches have to have to survive). This is why you see some excellent coaches in Oregon stop at a C license. If USYS truly cared about providing a quality product they would quit wasting money on the .001% of future national team players, and subsidize training for coaches. Just like Iceland did.

[Unregistered]

gtfo here with "25 hours." No one should be training in an organized setting 25 hours per week. Literally no one.

Trust me: volume is not the problem with the way kids are trained in OR.

If we're talking about producing world class players, then yes, 25hrs is a good training target. That includes everything it takes to be a top performing athlete in a sport like flexibility, conditioning, individual skills, unstructured games, recovery, etc. This is most likely a live-in academy, of which there are many in other countries.

Without the training compensation model available in other countries, there's no way an MLS academy can afford to subsidize an entire live-in academy. So, that leaves the local kids to manage the extra 10-15 hrs of training/week outside of the academy on their own. If we're being honest, there probably isn't a single player in the academy putting in this kind of effort.

Even if most of the kids are this disciplined with their training, the odds of displacing a 1st team MLS player like Valeri, Chara, or Ebobisse is a very long shot. Especially when there are tons of players abroad to compete with when a spot does open up. A lot of things need to go right to get even a couple of home-grown players to work out and have a meaningful impact.

[Unregistered]

Some more good points here. The fact that licensure has become outrageously expensive is surely a factor. Should coaches be required to be licensed? Absolutely. Should that licensure cost more than a license to be an electrician, plumber, dental hygienist, registered nurse? Absolutely not. The fees to obtain coaching certification go up exponentially, and often require the coach to pay travel expenses and miss time from a "day job" (which most younger coaches have to have to survive). This is why you see some excellent coaches in Oregon stop at a C license. If USYS truly cared about providing a quality product they would quit wasting money on the .001% of future national team players, and subsidize training for coaches. Just like Iceland did.

Kids need to go out and have free play without any COACHES. Just amongst themselves, or in isolation this will spurn creativity and imagination, most of all desire. The problem in the states is little to no organic free play. Sadly it's all structured organized training time with little coaching or direction. This more than anything is the root cause of the problems with both the men and women senior teams and their complete lack of any stunning play or visionary play. Coupled with the fact you can barely earn a living wage if you are a domestic 'pro' in the states at any level.

The deck is certainly stacked against American kid given the pay to participate, travel etc..
model.

Love to drive by barren fields and schoolyards and see it filled with free play in the horizon--instead we get to see lectures from clueless philosophical millennial's to horded masses of little kids who just want to play...It's nice to dream..until then make sure your fees are current.

[Unregistered]

Kids need to go out and have free play without any COACHES. Just amongst themselves, or in isolation this will spurn creativity and imagination, most of all desire. The problem in the states is little to no organic free play. Sadly it's all structured organized training time with little coaching or direction. This more than anything is the root cause of the problems with both the men and women senior teams and their complete lack of any stunning play or visionary play. Coupled with the fact you can barely earn a living wage if you are a domestic 'pro' in the states at any level.

The deck is certainly stacked against American kid given the pay to participate, travel etc..
model.

Love to drive by barren fields and schoolyards and see it filled with free play in the horizon--instead we get to see lectures from clueless philosophical millennial's to horded masses of little kids who just want to play...It's nice to dream..until then make sure your fees are current.

I guess I don't understand why this is an either or.

Clearly the culture of pickup ball is mammoth in developing players - look at how much demand there are for south american players at places like Barcelona (which has a great academy), or the fact that suddenly London (where street ball still has its place) produces better wingers than Germany (with arguably some of the best academies in the world).

But when you look at the story of Iceland, it most certainly has prioritized the role of coaches in moving the needle. Never been there, heard they have different approaches to periodization (to the point of free play, they sometimes let kids straight out of school go right into relatively unstructured games/scrimmages with limited adult direction, until the willies are run out) . . . but they haven't rejected adults having a significant role in player development. Heck if you look at the Messi's, Pogba's, Neymar's of the world, they may not have a had paid coach driving their early development, but they certainly had dads driving it, so it isn't like there weren't adults pushing the needle.

So making free play the panacea and pay-to-play (or more broadly adult involved) as the cause of all our ills, just seems silly.

[Unregistered]

When it's the only show in town 'Timbers/Thorns' (the best of the best-amateur and pros in PDX) they have no competitor or comparable.

Oregon youth boys club teams have only been nationally relevant a handful of times in the last 25 years.

No coaching or leadership at the Timbers DA can change this reality.

The girls of this state don't even have a pulse at the national level of elite players going on 30 years.

The outcomes on the field for the timbers/thorns DA are expected and predictable when they compete against the nation's elite. Same as it ever was.

Our community of local clubs has no identifiable 'feeling' about the Timbers/Thorns DA program. Please support this bizarre statement with some facts or evidence based on the feelings of 60,000 registered youth players, admin and coaches. Haven't seen any survey's or polls on this 'feeling'.

Record setting sellouts for the Timbers and a multi million dollar stadium expansion to accommodate thousands on a waiting list to attend matches hardly makes it negative.

The Thorns are the Nation's flagship professional club with attendance figures that approach 15 to 20 thousand per match.

Not sure what reality you live in your head. Quite negative it seems and oblivious from the facts.

Keep drinking the koolaid and telling yourself all is well. I was speaking to the youth soccer community. Although, are you telling me the MLS team is looking good? Regardless of how they do, yes Providence Park is sold out. Will that continue if the team continues to be stagnant and the ownership continues to ignore the academy and development? Doubtful. But then again, you are a Timber's apologist and do not want to see the truth. No negativity towards the Timbers, they are my team as well. You should want more. Expect more. We all deserve more from the Timbers.

[Unregistered]

Thorns
u14 - no standings, 0-6 in 2019
u15 - 8th of 8
u17 - 8th of 8
u19 - 5th of 8

Timbers
u14 - no standings 2-4 in 2019
u15 - 7th of 10
u17 - 6th of 10
u19 - 7th of 9

Crazy part - Timbers academy started out alright (first couple of years). What happened? Are they weak because so many youth players are getting first team minutes?

That’s depressing. But considering the thorns is getting a lot of B teamers they might be doing better than expected. What’s the point though.

[Unregistered]

I guess I don't understand why this is an either or.

Clearly the culture of pickup ball is mammoth in developing players - look at how much demand there are for south american players at places like Barcelona (which has a great academy), or the fact that suddenly London (where street ball still has its place) produces better wingers than Germany (with arguably some of the best academies in the world).

But when you look at the story of Iceland, it most certainly has prioritized the role of coaches in moving the needle. Never been there, heard they have different approaches to periodization (to the point of free play, they sometimes let kids straight out of school go right into relatively unstructured games/scrimmages with limited adult direction, until the willies are run out) . . . but they haven't rejected adults having a significant role in player development. Heck if you look at the Messi's, Pogba's, Neymar's of the world, they may not have a had paid coach driving their early development, but they certainly had dads driving it, so it isn't like there weren't adults pushing the needle.

So making free play the panacea and pay-to-play (or more broadly adult involved) as the cause of all our ills, just seems silly.

Not as silly as comparing Iceland to Oregon.

The best players come from the streets. Always has been this way and always will be.

Sadly our local players come from the many diiferent street of dreams housing developments of Pay to play.

[Unregistered]

I guess I don't understand why this is an either or.

Clearly the culture of pickup ball is mammoth in developing players - look at how much demand there are for south american players at places like Barcelona (which has a great academy), or the fact that suddenly London (where street ball still has its place) produces better wingers than Germany (with arguably some of the best academies in the world).

But when you look at the story of Iceland, it most certainly has prioritized the role of coaches in moving the needle. Never been there, heard they have different approaches to periodization (to the point of free play, they sometimes let kids straight out of school go right into relatively unstructured games/scrimmages with limited adult direction, until the willies are run out) . . . but they haven't rejected adults having a significant role in player development. Heck if you look at the Messi's, Pogba's, Neymar's of the world, they may not have a had paid coach driving their early development, but they certainly had dads driving it, so it isn't like there weren't adults pushing the needle.

So making free play the panacea and pay-to-play (or more broadly adult involved) as the cause of all our ills, just seems silly.

Being ignorant does have its blessings. I guess.