|
Post by jash on Oct 11, 2017 10:33:52 GMT -5
Although I ultimately agree with the majority of your comments and give it a "thumbs up" I am also sick of hearing that "Americans" have a "win only" mentality. You CAN have both.... a DEVELOPMENT and WINNING mentality.... and, no, it shouldn't come at the cost of an arm and a leg. I don't know what others mean specifically when they talk about winning vs development, but in my opinion they are often at odds with each other. A few examples: - "important" time in games (starting, last few minutes of a close game) not shared amongst players even when the game itself is not meaningful. Getting time in those situations is critical to developing important game skills that cannot be simulated.
- academy programs that do not pool but rather pick set teams that practice in isolation (a scrimmage or two doesn't count). Pooling players in the younger ages where the games do not matter gives a player-level pro/rel that pushes players in a way that non-pool play cannot
- overemphasis on choosing early puberty players, labeling them as the top players, and pushing down the late bloomers that may have skills and strong soccer sense but simply cannot compete physically against the players that develop physically earlier.
The last one is the worst to me. I saw it time and time again that late bloomers were dismissed in favor of early bloomers that were bigger, stronger, and faster -- the early bloomers got great results! Many of the early bloomers went on to be successful while just as many flamed out once everyone else caught up with them. But the early bloomers get the best minutes, the best training (top teams), and the mental boost of success that can make or break some kids. Other than giving up our "win at all costs" mentality, the only way to solve this is to place players based on biological age rather than chronological age. This would, of course, increase the cost of play. There are no magic answers.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Oct 11, 2017 10:41:25 GMT -5
Come on - we are just stupid parents.
|
|
|
Post by soccerlegacy on Oct 11, 2017 11:08:54 GMT -5
Although I ultimately agree with the majority of your comments and give it a "thumbs up" I am also sick of hearing that "Americans" have a "win only" mentality. You CAN have both.... a DEVELOPMENT and WINNING mentality.... and, no, it shouldn't come at the cost of an arm and a leg. I don't know what others mean specifically when they talk about winning vs development, but in my opinion they are often at odds with each other. A few examples: - "important" time in games (starting, last few minutes of a close game) not shared amongst players even when the game itself is not meaningful. Getting time in those situations is critical to developing important game skills that cannot be simulated.
- academy programs that do not pool but rather pick set teams that practice in isolation (a scrimmage or two doesn't count). Pooling players in the younger ages where the games do not matter gives a player-level pro/rel that pushes players in a way that non-pool play cannot
- overemphasis on choosing early puberty players, labeling them as the top players, and pushing down the late bloomers that may have skills and strong soccer sense but simply cannot compete physically against the players that develop physically earlier.
The last one is the worst to me. I saw it time and time again that late bloomers were dismissed in favor of early bloomers that were bigger, stronger, and faster -- the early bloomers got great results! Many of the early bloomers went on to be successful while just as many flamed out once everyone else caught up with them. But the early bloomers get the best minutes, the best training (top teams), and the mental boost of success that can make or break some kids. Other than giving up our "win at all costs" mentality, the only way to solve this is to place players based on biological age rather than chronological age. This would, of course, increase the cost of play. There are no magic answers.
It's funny, I, for the most part, agree with your bullet points. In fact, one of my daughters is currently fighting that belief that because she is smaller, she isn't able to contend with the bigger girls. Doesn't matter that she plays with an aggressiveness and a passion that puts the bigger girls to shame and "wins her the day" on most occasions. She still is perceived as too small most times she steps out on the field of play. It isn't until people see her play that they realize she belongs. Unfortunately, when tryouts are for 3 days with 1-2 hours each, and because they are all at the same freaking date/time (a whole other dumb idea for another discussion) it is hard for her to catch the eyes of those that have already marked her off their list for her size alone. Still I don't see it as a them having a "winning" mentality because they may pass her by, but rather a lack of understanding, willingness and time, to give her a fair evaluation. As for having your best players on the field at the end of the game... I see no harm in that. Yes, you're objective in a game is to "WIN". If a player wants to be given the opportunity to be out there when it counts, they show that in practice, where the "development" mentality happens. Oh , and I agree on pool players as well. It should be that way... in fact, I think it should be that way all the way through at least U13 and probably U14 at least. Let the "winning" mentality of the players show who should be on the field and on which 'level' team, weekly, at practice.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Oct 11, 2017 11:18:38 GMT -5
jash has a good point with the mental boost of success. creating and inspiring confidence in yourself. Saw this a ton last year, coach would stick with the same 11, and rarely would intermingle the bottom 1/2 of the roster with the top (perceived top talent) on the team. It was always the B players thrown out their together, vs mixed in together as a group. Same thing always at every training session for scrimmages. Kid began to lose confidence in their abilities and honestly lost faith and trust with the coach.
|
|
|
Post by Futsal Gawdess on Oct 11, 2017 11:36:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by rocko1989 on Oct 11, 2017 13:17:15 GMT -5
I am not arguing at all. If we fire everyone, who does the hiring? What is the structure within USSF for hiring new folks?
My personal feeling is this: it seems as if every country has some ups and downs in its nation team program. That is why we hear of Golden Generations.
Is it possible this group of players just isn’t good enough? Were the guys in 2002 that much better players than this group we have today? What is missing?
|
|
|
Post by infoguy on Oct 11, 2017 13:37:11 GMT -5
Maybe we can measure U.S. Soccer success by the number of Americans in La Liga, Bundesliga, Premier League, et al in Europe?
|
|
|
Post by fan on Oct 11, 2017 18:25:18 GMT -5
Why would a stud 2 sport player ever choose soccer over another sport. It’s a joke. US Soccer is actively discouraging stud 2 sport players from playing soccer with DA. It's a great deal for basketball, football, etc. teams who get those players but soccer is going to miss out on a lot of excellent athletes. And burn out a lot of kids who are asked to specialise when they're barely in middle school.
|
|
|
Post by rifle on Oct 11, 2017 19:28:39 GMT -5
Now I'm loving Tata and Athur's new team.. but there is truth in this: U.S. Soccer is held back by the closed market that has kept the Major League Soccer (MLS) franchise owners happy, but the rest of the sport hindered for over two decades. A closed market that provides a safety net to encourage mediocrity and punish greatness. It’s the antithesis of growth and success. It stands against everything that the American dream represents. Yet this league has prospered financially in the States because the Federation endorses it as the First Division of Professional Soccer. www.topdrawersoccer.com/world-cup-articles/us-soccer-failures-has-an-easy-fix_aid43012
|
|
|
Post by dreaddy on Oct 12, 2017 1:26:51 GMT -5
The head honchos at US Soccer complain about Pay to Play for our youth, but at the same time they, along with MLS and the MLS Players' Union object to FIFA's compensation formula. Under that system, when a full professional is transferred to a club, a percentage of the transfer fee is to be split amongst the youth clubs which contributed to that player's development.
It may not amount to a whole lot of money (on the other hand it may), but it would certainly help with the youth clubs' expenses. In other parts of the world many small clubs are measured not by the championships they win but by the number of players they can develop and sell to the big clubs. I'm sure that kind of incentive would be helpful for our clubs as it is in the rest of the world.
|
|
|
Post by infoguy on Oct 12, 2017 6:52:41 GMT -5
It's amazing how many schools of thought are out there (here, FB, etc.), to explain the USMNT's poor showing. My pain is starting to subside a bit, and let's not forget there's no Chile, and Argentina (for instance) was almost knocked out of it. Chile, as a nation for instance, will punish some people, but doesn't necessarily need to revamp what it's doing - look who they have on their national team for God sakes.
Is there something wrong with development? I believe that major clubs in Atlanta have talented coaches for their top teams, primarily non-Americans (no offense to some outstanding American coaches that I know). As players age, these coaches aren't accepting just anyone, believe me. There are different styles, yes, let the right style win out and attract the talent. It's happening.
Is the pay-to-play system a cause? Maybe, but at the end of the day, using CF or UFA as an example, look at their teams' success in the state of GA. If they are doing it wrong, let a club that does it different (for some, the right way) knock them off their thrones.
Are the best athletes going to other sports? Yes, there are great athletes playing other sports. But the sheer number of boys playing soccer, we have a huge pool of players to draw from in state, regionally and as a nation. The sport of soccer is better for the majority of boys and girls - look what Lacrosse has done. It's stealing players from baseball and football. The great sport of soccer will take care of that as well, which we are seeing IMO.
This all to say, I think we had the wrong coach and leadership this time around, folks.
|
|
|
Post by fridge on Oct 12, 2017 7:49:06 GMT -5
GREAT discussion. As I read through all of this, I had two thoughts that kept creeping into my mind.
1. I am not sure there is another sport where a bunch of men lose and the root cause is focused on how these men are being (or were) developed at 10 years old. It doesn't seem to happen in baseball, basketball, football, etc. Why is that? Is it because our soccer success in the US has been mediocre so we are more intentional in figuring out how to make it better? Or, is it because most of our best male athletes don't play soccer so we need to be more intentional in developing the kids we have? I'd love to hear some thoughts. (And compare that to the US woman's program--has it been "intentional" with development during all of its success--I would say NO. Rather it draws better female athletes in this country.
2. Linking local club's developing kids to the US National team is unrealistic. Take any mid-sized club. It's main concern is survival. Survival occurs with measurable success--wins/losses. "Development" is not an easy measurable and even tougher to market. These clubs can't tell some kid "please don't leave our club for the other club because while we are 5/5 and they are 10/0, we are developing you better and 10 years from now maybe you will be on the national team." (I am a 100% believer in opting for a better trainer over a better team, but that is a tough sell generally.) So, my guess is that is why they created the DA concept--identify the better kids, get them in the same atmosphere of high speed, high talent and high competitiveness. Will a couple kids fall through the cracks? YES. But, that is a reality.
Thanks for the thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by touchlinedad on Oct 13, 2017 9:57:37 GMT -5
I took a few days to think about what happened and read a lot of reaction before posting my thoughts. First off, some of what has already been posted here is great stuff that I haven't seen anywhere else. Compensation payments to clubs that develop players would help with the pay to play problem and I certainly agree with the post about early bloomers versus late bloomers. That is so true at the Academy level. But here are a couple of additional thoughts.
1. From U.S. Soccer down to the U9 Academy level, there needs to be more focus on developers great defenders as well as attacking talent. I have seen lots of coaches focus on developing offensive players yet very little emphasis on defense. If you look at the results of the hex, the teams that allowed the fewest goals are the ones progressing to the World Cup. The same goes for just about every other confederation. Yes, we need to score goals and we have the attacking talent for that. But if we give up goals like we did all throughout the Hex, we will never get anywhere. The best offense in soccer begins with a great defensive backline. Pulisic is a wonderful attacking midfielder. But if you don't have a great defensive midfielder and a backline behind him, his talents will go to waste. Too often, I see the weakest players shoved into the back and left to fend for themselves. Both my kids play defense and I asked them this week if they have ever received any defensive-specific coaching. One said no and the other said "a little, kind of." That just won't cut it at any level. And I understand that at the youth level, being a defender is not perceived as being fun. The goal scorers get all the attention and midfielders get a lot of time on the ball. But that's where coaches have to change the dynamic. They need to make it clear that defense is just as important as offense and coach accordingly. And I'm not advocating the U.S. start to sit back and defend and play for 1-0 victories. But we have to have defenders with the skills necessary to stop the other team from scoring. As Vincent Company said, "Strikers score goals. Defenders win championships."
2. Youth sports have become big business and soccer is no exception. The introduction of ENCL for boys is a classic example of how youth soccer in America is a business. The introduction of Girls DA cuts into its bottom line, so U.S. Club Soccer creates Boys ENCL to bring in more revenue. It certainly isn't about player development. As Will Parchman, formerly of Top Drawer Soccer, wrote on Twitter: "US Youth and US Club hate each other for petty reasons. USSF doesn't do U6-U12 and acts arrogantly in the youth space. Hurting everyone." I've also advocated fewer tournaments, especially for Academy teams. I would get rid of preseason tournaments altogether and instead organize friendlies with other teams to warm up for the season. Preseason tournaments are just catnip for those coaches who want to win at all costs. I know the clubs who host them make money but it's just another expense to add to the bottom line for parents. The "tournament industrial complex" needs to be reined in.
Again this has been a great discussion and very therapeutic.
|
|
|
Post by jash on Oct 13, 2017 10:24:39 GMT -5
1. From U.S. Soccer down to the U9 Academy level, there needs to be more focus on developers great defenders as well as attacking talent ... "Strikers score goals. Defenders win championships." Good post, and I don't want to dismiss everything else you said as unimportant, but this really speaks to me. My son was a defender and got very little love. I'll give you some specific examples from his experience and things I've heard/seen: - I was told by a college coach (keeper coach, not a head coach) that many college programs will only recruit forwards and maybe some midfielders, and will never recruit defenders. They feel they can "grow" defenders themselves out of the players in the other positions who will have better ball control.
- Defenders (and keepers) take an awful lot of emotional blame for mistakes. My son missed a tackle that then led to a goal on a really excellent move by another team's striker in a regular season game and the coach benched him the rest of the game plus another, and brought it up regularly. That's an extreme example by a coach who I considered to be a bad human being and for whom my son never played again, but it is not atypical except in the duration of the grudge. Strikers can miss easy goals and all they really get is an "aww, darn" usually. I know, I'm biased, but this is more true than most of us want to admit.
- ODP (and I know we have some ODP coaches here who will disagree with this, but I have personal experience) sometimes overlooks players who choose to play defense. When you get to the large-sided scrimmages, the players who "take one for the team" and stay back and play defense don't get any love while the ball hogs (and their friends who they will pass to) get noticed. My son only tried out for ODP once and didn't make it, but my opinions are based much more on another player who is an excellent defender who didn't even make it past the first round. This is a solid, athletic, intelligent, strong leader, and skilled (on the ball and off) player. I don't think it's a PLAN to ignore defenders (like some NCAA coaches do) but it happens.
Bringing this back to the USMNT, our defense is atrocious. And I don't wonder why.
|
|
|
Post by soccerdaddy on Oct 13, 2017 11:15:26 GMT -5
1. From U.S. Soccer down to the U9 Academy level, there needs to be more focus on developers great defenders as well as attacking talent ... "Strikers score goals. Defenders win championships." Good post, and I don't want to dismiss everything else you said as unimportant, but this really speaks to me. My son was a defender and got very little love. I'll give you some specific examples from his experience and things I've heard/seen: - I was told by a college coach (keeper coach, not a head coach) that many college programs will only recruit forwards and maybe some midfielders, and will never recruit defenders. They feel they can "grow" defenders themselves out of the players in the other positions who will have better ball control.
- Defenders (and keepers) take an awful lot of emotional blame for mistakes. My son missed a tackle that then led to a goal on a really excellent move by another team's striker in a regular season game and the coach benched him the rest of the game plus another, and brought it up regularly. That's an extreme example by a coach who I considered to be a bad human being and for whom my son never played again, but it is not atypical except in the duration of the grudge. Strikers can miss easy goals and all they really get is an "aww, darn" usually. I know, I'm biased, but this is more true than most of us want to admit.
- ODP (and I know we have some ODP coaches here who will disagree with this, but I have personal experience) sometimes overlooks players who choose to play defense. When you get to the large-sided scrimmages, the players who "take one for the team" and stay back and play defense don't get any love while the ball hogs (and their friends who they will pass to) get noticed. My son only tried out for ODP once and didn't make it, but my opinions are based much more on another player who is an excellent defender who didn't even make it past the first round. This is a solid, athletic, intelligent, strong leader, and skilled (on the ball and off) player. I don't think it's a PLAN to ignore defenders (like some NCAA coaches do) but it happens.
Bringing this back to the USMNT, our defense is atrocious. And I don't wonder why.
Great point and I will agree that Defensive players most likely will NOT get picked for ODP as they are overlooked at State Tryouts. The below text is from a welcome letter will explain and no my son is NOT a defender, he is an Attacking Mid. I want to let it be known that I am not bashing anyone in ODP because I think Jacob Daniel is a great person and coach. He has done very well for Georgia Soccer! ODP - "introduction letter to youngest pool" from Jacob Daniel Director of Coaching Georgia Soccer " 7. Playing different Positions – At our State Tryouts, we look for the most skillful players. Since the most skillful players tend to be attackers and central midfielders at the club level, 80% of our state pool players are typically attacker type of players. So we have to convert some of the attackers into defenders. We use the first part of the year to evaluate the players and see which ones are best suited to playing in the back.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Oct 13, 2017 11:22:02 GMT -5
I agree with all this for sure..... but and big but, the role of left backs and right backs is changing drastically. The expectation is to get up and down the field and basically play as attacking players. Being able to defend is almost not even a requirement anymore to playing left or right back.
|
|
|
Post by jash on Oct 13, 2017 12:57:10 GMT -5
ODP - "introduction letter to youngest pool" from Jacob Daniel Director of Coaching Georgia Soccer " 7. Playing different Positions – At our State Tryouts, we look for the most skillful players. Since the most skillful players tend to be attackers and central midfielders at the club level, 80% of our state pool players are typically attacker type of players. So we have to convert some of the attackers into defenders. We use the first part of the year to evaluate the players and see which ones are best suited to playing in the back. So I was wrong. ODP is doing the same thing as college coaches -- trying to turn attackers into defenders. What do you hear consistently about the USMNT? Our defense is terrible. It's not working. Stop trying to make attacking-minded players into defenders. Take the defenders and teach them some new skills rather than taking people who don't want to defend and making them do it halfheartedly. I know some of those 'converted' defenders who played ODP and they hate it. Ask them. They hate it. I believe defenders are often defenders because of personality or mindset, and similarly for keepers (especially keepers), attackers, and midfielders. Hearing this directly from ODP is rather sad to me. EDIT: bad quoting
|
|
|
Post by touchlinedad on Oct 16, 2017 11:19:21 GMT -5
Wow. Thank you, jash and soccer daddy for your posts. I was sympathetic to my two players when they complained that ODP only picked the kids who dribbled, who didn't pass and were flashy. But internally, I wondered if they were compensating for not getting picked. Now I know they were telling the truth and this is something I've heard from other players who tried, including some who were picked for ODP. Reading that line from the ODP letter just made my blood boil.
And Soccerhouse, to your point about left and right backs, I agree with you that those players have to be both offensive and defensive. But if, for example, DeAndre Yedlin bombs forth into the attack, the U.S. HAS to have a defensive midfielder who can hang back and cover for him. A defensive midfielder who can tackle and put a body on the opponent, ala Jermaine Jones (or, in a perfect world, Patrick Viera).
Somebody has to play defense and any team is better off to have a player who likes playing the position versus an attacking midfielder shoved into the defense because the team already has an attacking midfielder. Jash, I truly felt your comment about defenders not getting "any love." My oldest has played center back and he said that center backs and goalkeepers are the players under the most pressure on the field. A striker can do nothing all game, score one goal and is praised for it. A center back can play a perfect game and even then he might not be noticed but one mistake and he is blamed for everything, Omar Gonzalez being the latest example of that.
And I agree that defenders often have a personality or mindset that suits them. When I played youth basketball, I enjoyed the defensive side of the game more than offensive. I was smaller than most of the players and so wasn't getting a lot of opportunities to score. But I loved stealing the ball and setting the offense in motion. I was fine not scoring, just as long as we won. And if there was one thing that made me mad, it was a forward who was lazy on defense, just like strikers who are lazy in defense. And in soccer, every attacker is a defender and every defender can be an attacker. So, yes, let's develop skillful players but let's make sure we develop skillful defenders in addition to midfielders and forwards.
|
|
|
Post by goteam on Oct 17, 2017 17:26:15 GMT -5
Maybe get the adult money grab out and something might change in this town. It's no surprise us soccer is what it is .. I've been around this town/clubs for 8 years now and boy there are some stories I could tell: Crap coaches(overwhelming majority) who would rather have speed & size than teach technical and the game itself. Money contributed to clubs ensuring their kid plays on the right team , and on and on and on. I've enjoyed watching my son play but I can tell you I'm not going to miss the bulshi* . ATL is big regional center- and if it is an embarassment- where do they do it right?
|
|