|
Post by Soccerhouse on Jun 16, 2015 7:55:39 GMT -5
There is no question I still love the US womens team and the squad. The question is how does a coach like Jill Ellis rise the ranks of coaching in America when she clearly isn't a quality coach. Yes, they still could win the cup and be one of a few coaches to achieve that, but still......
After watching Netherlands vs Canada last night, its clear both have past us bye. Canada has youth in key spots and even played a junior in high school meaningful minutes. Even though Netherlands will need some help getting out of the group stage, I walked away impressed with them. First womens world cup and they had times showed no urgency down 1-0 in a crucial must win/get points game. They played quality soccer, kept the ball on the surface and just dinged the ball around and chose when to push forward. They have youth in key spots and the future looks bright for them. Couldn't have been more impressed in a 1-1 draw than I was. Which begs the question ----- why can the USWNT play like that??? Its not just the Wambach factor, its our central midfield particularly holding mids that don't show for the ball and support wide players. Very little movement off the ball and stagnant.
That's the part i don't' understand as well, zero creativity besides Rapinoe and when Tobin gets on the field. I watch the US play and everything looks like its win the ball by brute force and speed. No finesse, no possession with purpose, nothing in terms of tactics and switching the play through the central players.
I still think the US makes it to the finals, just because..........But something has to change even if we lift the cup because its clear the USWNT is no longer the big dog in the world!!
Sorry, I'll now go back to my day job and keep my mouth shut.........
|
|
|
Post by jash on Jun 16, 2015 8:20:03 GMT -5
If my experiences in GA youth soccer are at all representative of youth soccer across the USA, our reliance on brute force and speed at the senior level is because that is the primary qualification for our top players at the critical U9-U13 age groups.
We focus on big and fast and "who can win games right now" because youth soccer is a business, and keeping the customers (who are the parents) satisfied means winning. Many of the players who would be tops in other countries are overlooked and either don't receive the same level of training/competition, or quit entirely (or both).
As the trend moves towards 11v11 at younger and younger ages, only the big and fast (early puberty) players can be very effective. And so we relegate to lesser importance (not leave out completely, but lower in importance) skills like finesse and intelligence in favor of kids who can jump higher (or are taller), can outmuscle and can outrun the others.
Every time we argue that our kids should be playing "big kid" soccer earlier and earlier, we are creating the future of our national teams. And this is what we get.
|
|
|
Post by blueronin on Jun 16, 2015 9:00:37 GMT -5
If my experiences in GA youth soccer are at all representative of youth soccer across the USA, our reliance on brute force and speed at the senior level is because that is the primary qualification for our top players at the critical U9-U13 age groups. We focus on big and fast and "who can win games right now" because youth soccer is a business, and keeping the customers (who are the parents) satisfied means winning. Many of the players who would be tops in other countries are overlooked and either don't receive the same level of training/competition, or quit entirely (or both). As the trend moves towards 11v11 at younger and younger ages, only the big and fast (early puberty) players can be very effective. And so we relegate to lesser importance (not leave out completely, but lower in importance) skills like finesse and intelligence in favor of kids who can jump higher (or are taller), can outmuscle and can outrun the others. Every time we argue that our kids should be playing "big kid" soccer earlier and earlier, we are creating the future of our national teams. And this is what we get. Agreed for the most part. Don't agree that 11v11 is the reason for player selection. Even if it's 8v8, the bigger, stronger, faster is always favored. That is what people value in sports regardless of the sport. That will never change. What the sport of soccer should concentrate on is teaching and forcing the players to play the right way.
|
|
|
Post by sidelinemama on Jun 16, 2015 9:22:06 GMT -5
I disagree, blueronin. I think it is the US that favor the bigger, stronger and faster athletes, which is why we are not especially successful in soccer worldwide. Yes, the women have had success, but as Soccerhouse has suggested, other countries are catching up now that women's soccer is becoming more popular worldwide. I much preferred watching that game last night than the US-Sweden game the other day.
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Jun 16, 2015 9:24:52 GMT -5
I disagree, blueronin. I think it is the US that favor the bigger, stronger and faster athletes, which is why we are not especially successful in soccer worldwide. Yes, the women have had success, but as Soccerhouse has suggested, other countries are catching up now that women's soccer is becoming more popular worldwide. I much preferred watching that game last night than the US-Sweden game the other day. Great point --- the Oh Canada/Netherlands game was a much better game and better on the eye for sure!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Keeper on Jun 16, 2015 9:27:40 GMT -5
If my experiences in GA youth soccer are at all representative of youth soccer across the USA, our reliance on brute force and speed at the senior level is because that is the primary qualification for our top players at the critical U9-U13 age groups. We focus on big and fast and "who can win games right now" because youth soccer is a business, and keeping the customers (who are the parents) satisfied means winning. Many of the players who would be tops in other countries are overlooked and either don't receive the same level of training/competition, or quit entirely (or both). As the trend moves towards 11v11 at younger and younger ages, only the big and fast (early puberty) players can be very effective. And so we relegate to lesser importance (not leave out completely, but lower in importance) skills like finesse and intelligence in favor of kids who can jump higher (or are taller), can outmuscle and can outrun the others. Every time we argue that our kids should be playing "big kid" soccer earlier and earlier, we are creating the future of our national teams. And this is what we get. So with you!!! I mean when I hear stories of barcalona and Messi playing 9v9 till U15 how is pushing a kid going through the giraffe stage at 11-12 good for soccer? And just another reason why i wouldn't be to sad to see the U.S. not get out of the group stage, maybe then U.S. soccer would be willing to cut all these older players and get the youngsters some playing time that focus on technical over long ball. Yes those two games yesterday were amazing! Loved watching the kiwis able to tie it up after getting screwed on that PK. And the Dutch never quitting against a better team.
|
|
|
Post by blueronin on Jun 16, 2015 9:47:27 GMT -5
I disagree, blueronin. I think it is the US that favor the bigger, stronger and faster athletes, which is why we are not especially successful in soccer worldwide. Yes, the women have had success, but as Soccerhouse has suggested, other countries are catching up now that women's soccer is becoming more popular worldwide. I much preferred watching that game last night than the US-Sweden game the other day. I think we are saying the same thing. I forgot to qualify it with people in the US.
|
|
|
Post by blueronin on Jun 16, 2015 9:54:35 GMT -5
If my experiences in GA youth soccer are at all representative of youth soccer across the USA, our reliance on brute force and speed at the senior level is because that is the primary qualification for our top players at the critical U9-U13 age groups. We focus on big and fast and "who can win games right now" because youth soccer is a business, and keeping the customers (who are the parents) satisfied means winning. Many of the players who would be tops in other countries are overlooked and either don't receive the same level of training/competition, or quit entirely (or both). As the trend moves towards 11v11 at younger and younger ages, only the big and fast (early puberty) players can be very effective. And so we relegate to lesser importance (not leave out completely, but lower in importance) skills like finesse and intelligence in favor of kids who can jump higher (or are taller), can outmuscle and can outrun the others. Every time we argue that our kids should be playing "big kid" soccer earlier and earlier, we are creating the future of our national teams. And this is what we get. So with you!!! I mean when I hear stories of barcalona and Messi playing 9v9 till U15 how is pushing a kid going through the giraffe stage at 11-12 good for soccer? And just another reason why i wouldn't be to sad to see the U.S. not get out of the group stage, maybe then U.S. soccer would be willing to cut all these older players and get the youngsters some playing time that focus on technical over long ball. Yes those two games yesterday were amazing! Loved watching the kiwis able to tie it up after getting screwed on that PK. And the Dutch never quitting against a better team. Maybe I'm just being pessimistic but I seriously doubt that losing would change the direction in the US player selection. The majority of the population inside and outside of soccer still think that the best US athletes do not play soccer and that's the reason for our downfall.
|
|
|
Post by jash on Jun 16, 2015 11:42:01 GMT -5
Maybe I'm just being pessimistic but I seriously doubt that losing would change the direction in the US player selection. The majority of the population inside and outside of soccer still think that the best US athletes do not play soccer and that's the reason for our downfall. I used to feel that way too, but now having lived through many years of youth soccer I have a completely different perspective. There are MORE than enough athletes playing youth soccer that we should be able to field strong teams that compete internationally. And clearly, as you say, there are plenty of people who feel like the reason we can't compete is we just haven't found the people who are big and fast ENOUGH, so we have to keep looking.
|
|
|
Post by soccerfan30 on Jun 16, 2015 12:50:11 GMT -5
The "we need our best athletes playing soccer" is just code for we need our strongest and fastest athletes playing soccer.
Take players like Xavi, Iniesta, Pirlo, etc - stand them next to LeBron James and ask who is the better athlete, most would say LeBron, all three aren't exactly athletic specimens but they have superior technical ability and high soccer IQ. Doesn't matter how big or fast a player is, a player with superior technical and soccer brain will win out, no one is faster than the ball.
I would guess that African teams are probably the fastest and have similar body types to LeBron James, how come an African team has never won a World Cup? Because you need more than power, strength and speed, typically the African teams are not organized and undisciplined defensively.
Look at Peyton Manning and Wayne Gretzky, neither are athletic specimens either, heck Peyton probably runs a 8.0 second 40 yard dash (sarcasm) and Wayne wasn't the fastest or most physically imposing player, however they both have high game IQ, spent countless hours perfecting their skills and their speed of thought is way ahead of everyone else.
|
|
|
Post by jack4343 on Jun 16, 2015 13:14:00 GMT -5
Agree with you guys. Out academy director is looking to help that. Usually, our u10 1st team girls move to 8v8 but he has stated the plan is to stay at 6v6 with an eventual switch to 9v9. He said changes are coming next year to the guidelines of U.S. Soccer. I am all for it. Emphasize skill and technique and position on the small field instead of opening up the field to allow wide open spaces for the athletes to run. As you get bigger, your decision making must be faster and your touches have to be good. They'll be better soccer players for it in the future. Now I hope we have enough quality teams to play this year. Not sure if the other clubs are on board.
|
|
|
Post by lovethegame on Jun 16, 2015 15:35:50 GMT -5
I disagree, blueronin. I think it is the US that favor the bigger, stronger and faster athletes, which is why we are not especially successful in soccer worldwide. Yes, the women have had success, but as Soccerhouse has suggested, other countries are catching up now that women's soccer is becoming more popular worldwide. I much preferred watching that game last night than the US-Sweden game the other day. I agree with all that's been said. The world has caught up. Sadly, these same things were said at the last World Cup (or Olympics, I'm not sure which). It was said the US needed to begin playing possession soccer to be able to compete since other countries were catching up with our athleticism and were beyond us when it came to technique and tactics. I thought that was what what Sermani was hired to do, and it seemed they were playing a different type of soccer before he was fired.
|
|
|
Post by soccerdad44 on Jun 17, 2015 6:40:26 GMT -5
If my experiences in GA youth soccer are at all representative of youth soccer across the USA, our reliance on brute force and speed at the senior level is because that is the primary qualification for our top players at the critical U9-U13 age groups. I believe the refereeing, or to be more precise lack of refereeing, contributes to this. Referees who don't enforce the rules is the norm. Teams pick up on this and take advantage with fully extended American-football-style stiff arms, dragging players down from behind, 2 hand shoves in the back, etc. It seems some coaches even coach and/or encourage this sort of intentional fouling/cheating. It favors bigger and stronger. IMO we need some sort of referee certification and evaluation system to emphasize the rules of the game.
|
|
|
Post by jack4343 on Jun 17, 2015 13:00:14 GMT -5
If my experiences in GA youth soccer are at all representative of youth soccer across the USA, our reliance on brute force and speed at the senior level is because that is the primary qualification for our top players at the critical U9-U13 age groups. I believe the refereeing, or to be more precise lack of refereeing, contributes to this. Referees who don't enforce the rules is the norm. Teams pick up on this and take advantage with fully extended American-football-style stiff arms, dragging players down from behind, 2 hand shoves in the back, etc. It seems some coaches even coach and/or encourage this sort of intentional fouling/cheating. It favors bigger and stronger. IMO we need some sort of referee certification and evaluation system to emphasize the rules of the game. Here we go again with the refs lol. I won't go into my whole spiel again but let me say a couple of things. Firstly, there is a certification process and evaluation program. These refs aren't picked up off the streets before the game. Also, refs at the youth soccer level are also learning their role just like our kids are. I don't expect my kid to play a pro and that goes likewise for refs. They are learning their craft under some pretty hostile conditions. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. I don't know why they even do it to be honest.
|
|
|
Post by rifle on Jun 17, 2015 19:12:57 GMT -5
I disagree, blueronin. I think it is the US that favor the bigger, stronger and faster athletes, which is why we are not especially successful in soccer worldwide. Yes, the women have had success, but as Soccerhouse has suggested, other countries are catching up now that women's soccer is becoming more popular worldwide. I much preferred watching that game last night than the US-Sweden game the other day. I agree with all that's been said. The world has caught up. Sadly, these same things were said at the last World Cup (or Olympics, I'm not sure which). It was said the US needed to begin playing possession soccer to be able to compete since other countries were catching up with our athleticism and were beyond us when it came to technique and tactics. I thought that was what what Sermani was hired to do, and it seemed they were playing a different type of soccer before he was fired. And apparently Ellis was hired because the players feel she'll do what they want.... Despite being some kind of technical advisor to US Soccer, it sure isn't getting on the field.
|
|
|
Post by zizou on Jun 18, 2015 9:01:57 GMT -5
I think it is worse than USWNT has been caught. I think the development of this team may have been put back by a generation of players. Meaning that the old guard being able to [apparently] dictate terms of their own departures, new [and very promising] players being left out of the fold [look at U23s that deserve a chance], and questionable talent identification by the current regime, has created a gap that may linger for a while. I hope not, but I am not optimistic based on what I see [although I am by no means a soccer expert like others on the board, just a casual observer]. Anyway, this article is interesting and summarizes some points we have all been making. Not sure I agree that some of those players would instantly make the team better, but I get the author's main point: USWNT Player Selections
|
|
|
Post by Soccerhouse on Jun 18, 2015 9:37:40 GMT -5
lloyd is a greedy player that wants to score vs distribute. holiday is a great attacking player but is being forced in a defensive role.
I have to agree -- why have box and rampone on this roster vs younger players. I'm not a morgan brian fan right now, but I like her on the roster. I would have rather seen them take a shot on a younger attacking mid fielder, someone with creativity, someone who works hard on and off the ball.
That the big thing for me, the effort of movement of the ball just isn't there.
There is no question this regime has set up back. Yes, we still can win this thing, but all day yesterday on xm/sirus radio 94 the message was consistent, this is ugly soccer.
|
|
|
Post by volunteercoach on Jun 18, 2015 9:49:35 GMT -5
What's interesting to me is the US Soccer Curriculum recommends teams to play a 433, either as a 4231 or 4123 variation. IF a team were to play a 442, it is stated that the midfield should be a diamond to allow flank play for the outside backs. Ellis said Lloyd and Holiday were both 6's against Nigeria...uh...what? I guess the national team doesn't need to follow their own curriculum.
|
|
|
Post by rifle on Jun 18, 2015 10:12:42 GMT -5
Can you imagine hypocrisy from a soccer governing body? Cough.. U12 players playing 11-a-side.. cough..
|
|
|
Post by soccerdad44 on Jun 19, 2015 6:57:36 GMT -5
I believe the refereeing, or to be more precise lack of refereeing, contributes to this. Referees who don't enforce the rules is the norm. Teams pick up on this and take advantage with fully extended American-football-style stiff arms, dragging players down from behind, 2 hand shoves in the back, etc. It seems some coaches even coach and/or encourage this sort of intentional fouling/cheating. It favors bigger and stronger. IMO we need some sort of referee certification and evaluation system to emphasize the rules of the game. Here we go again with the refs lol. I won't go into my whole spiel again but let me say a couple of things. Firstly, there is a certification process and evaluation program. These refs aren't picked up off the streets before the game. Also, refs at the youth soccer level are also learning their role just like our kids are. I don't expect my kid to play a pro and that goes likewise for refs. They are learning their craft under some pretty hostile conditions. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy. I don't know why they even do it to be honest. I agree. But "letting the kids play", aka blatant fouling and cheating, does nothing for the integrity of the players/coach/game. Parents and coaches should be stepping up to put an end to the nonsense. If I saw my kid drag someone down from behind, not playing the ball, or using a stiff arm to maintain possession; I would let them know immediately that isn't acceptable. Take them out of the game, have them lose some playing time. But when is the last time you saw a coach or parent step up and do this? It is impacting skilled play, IMO. There may be a place in the game for strategic fouling in professional games, but not at the youth level.
|
|
|
Post by jetta25 on Jun 21, 2015 18:59:39 GMT -5
The "we need our best athletes playing soccer" is just code for we need our strongest and fastest athletes playing soccer. Take players like Xavi, Iniesta, Pirlo, etc - stand them next to LeBron James and ask who is the better athlete, most would say LeBron, all three aren't exactly athletic specimens but they have superior technical ability and high soccer IQ. Doesn't matter how big or fast a player is, a player with superior technical and soccer brain will win out, no one is faster than the ball. I would guess that African teams are probably the fastest and have similar body types to LeBron James, how come an African team has never won a World Cup? Because you need more than power, strength and speed, typically the African teams are not organized and undisciplined defensively. Look at Peyton Manning and Wayne Gretzky, neither are athletic specimens either, heck Peyton probably runs a 8.0 second 40 yard dash (sarcasm) and Wayne wasn't the fastest or most physically imposing player, however they both have high game IQ, spent countless hours perfecting their skills and their speed of thought is way ahead of everyone else. Oh Look, France just won with big, fast and athletic, I guess it is possible to win with that body type. I their opponents are in the locker room dressing wounds for the carper burns they got when trying to stop the French forwards. I have been reading how athletic players are almost a negative when it comes to the development of this sport. I think we should find a way to just discourage them from trying out so the coaches won't be tempted to pick them (can't trust these coaches to make to correct decision when picking their team) (sarcasm). In any sport using speed (pace) to put pressure on a defense, and open up space is a time honored tactic. I have seen quite a few teams with combinations of both types of players be successful. Also, just because a player is big, fast and athletic does not mean they do not have a soccer IQ or superior technical skill or at least have the potential to be a better than average player.
|
|
|
Post by greenmonkey on Jun 23, 2015 13:15:00 GMT -5
I think it is worse than USWNT has been caught. I think the development of this team may have been put back by a generation of players. Meaning that the old guard being able to [apparently] dictate terms of their own departures, new [and very promising] players being left out of the fold [look at U23s that deserve a chance], and questionable talent identification by the current regime, has created a gap that may linger for a while. I hope not, but I am not optimistic based on what I see [although I am by no means a soccer expert like others on the board, just a casual observer]. Anyway, this article is interesting and summarizes some points we have all been making. Not sure I agree that some of those players would instantly make the team better, but I get the author's main point: USWNT Player SelectionsTHIS Zizou is EXACTLY what I have been trying to articulate these past few weeks. The soccer I have been watching "this" generation (my young academy players) play from the sidelines as a parent for the past few years is very very very different than the professional soccer our girls in the uswnt have been playing. I have heard it reiterated over and over and over again for years from the sidelines of her academy games ... "we teach possession soccer, play from the back, distribute the ball (i.e. unselfish play versus ball hog), crisp clean passes, individual foot skills and creativity, willingness and ability to go 1v1 and 2v1 and win the ball" So um ... if the young academy players "get it" ... how is it not being played that way profesionally?I think YES you are right and its because there is that "generation gap" ... Without drifting too far off topic ... I wonder if the lack of opportunities for women to play professional soccer are partly to blame? (isn't NWSL the 3rd attempt at a professional women league in the past decade?) Then again don't most of the "younger generation" always arise with a we know better, can do it better, etc. mentality anyway :-) I hear or read over and over that the "younger" players on our current wswnt team and news teams say its for the love of the game and FOR THE FUTURE GENERATIONS that they play professional soccer (clearly not the money unless its endorsements) and that "they" know they are "entrusted" with creating, maintaining, providing, uplifting, inspiring "the next generation" of women soccer players. I have not watched the prettiest soccer these past few games from the uswnt but you can't deny the passion, fire, fight, desire, and dreams that its inspiring in my daughter. So at least they are getting that aspect of their job right :-) I think we all agree we are still fans of the players and of the team and yep I agree that there is PLENTY of opportunity for some better soccer to be played from the uswnt and hopefully we get to see some of it ... soon.
|
|
|
Post by zizou on Jun 23, 2015 13:51:00 GMT -5
The "we need our best athletes playing soccer" is just code for we need our strongest and fastest athletes playing soccer. Take players like Xavi, Iniesta, Pirlo, etc - stand them next to LeBron James and ask who is the better athlete, most would say LeBron, all three aren't exactly athletic specimens but they have superior technical ability and high soccer IQ. Doesn't matter how big or fast a player is, a player with superior technical and soccer brain will win out, no one is faster than the ball. I would guess that African teams are probably the fastest and have similar body types to LeBron James, how come an African team has never won a World Cup? Because you need more than power, strength and speed, typically the African teams are not organized and undisciplined defensively. Look at Peyton Manning and Wayne Gretzky, neither are athletic specimens either, heck Peyton probably runs a 8.0 second 40 yard dash (sarcasm) and Wayne wasn't the fastest or most physically imposing player, however they both have high game IQ, spent countless hours perfecting their skills and their speed of thought is way ahead of everyone else. Oh Look, France just won with big, fast and athletic, I guess it is possible to win with that body type. I their opponents are in the locker room dressing wounds for the carper burns they got when trying to stop the French forwards. I have been reading how athletic players are almost a negative when it comes to the development of this sport. I think we should find a way to just discourage them from trying out so the coaches won't be tempted to pick them (can't trust these coaches to make to correct decision when picking their team) (sarcasm). In any sport using speed (pace) to put pressure on a defense, and open up space is a time honored tactic. I have seen quite a few teams with combinations of both types of players be successful. Also, just because a player is big, fast and athletic does not mean they do not have a soccer IQ or superior technical skill or at least have the potential to be a better than average player. I don't think anyone is arguing that big, strong, athletic players are a negative. I think people are arguing that simply taking big, strong, and athletic at the expense of skilled players with high soccer IQs that may be lower on each of the physical dimension scales is a recipe for long term disaster. All else being equal, if you have a 5'8", 145lb blazing speedster, strong as an ox female player, in peak physical condition, who plays with exactly the same soccer acumen and skill set of Mia Hamm, and I have to pick between the two, I am taking the blazing speedster every time. That is not the point. The point is that evaluators tend to value the physical attributes at younger ages over skill. Let me ask you something. One the one hand, you have an 11 yr old girl, who is slight of build but has obviously worked so hard on her soccer skill set that she can do essentially every 1v1 move at pace. But it is easy to knock her off the ball at this point because she is sort of weak. Nevertheless, it is clear she sees the field well and understands the game. On the other hand, you have an 11 yr old girl who is a physical beast for her age. On the 8v8 field she succeeds by simply running by and over other players. She has a powerful shot, and tends to dominate these games because most of the other players are just not in her league physically. But if you had these two players at a camp, and had them doing skill work (doing fast-paced drills dribbling through cones, one and two-touch passing, 1v1 moves, juggling), it was obvious that the big player was not in the same league skill-wise as the slight player. Which one do you take if you have to choose? I think most people are saying that the big player gets selected a disproportionate amount of the time. Now this may or may not be a bad thing. Maybe the big player just started playing last week. But let's assume that both of those players have been playing soccer since they were 5 yrs old (the more typical scenario). They both have had the same amount of time to develop their skill sets. The slight one developed in spades. The big one did not. I would say, and I think other people might say, this shows a difference in what one might expect in the future. The big one is just not going to do the work to develop elite skills. The slight one has proven she will do the work. Maybe the big one will continue to be a physical beast. But maybe (and this often happens) she gets caught on multiple physical dimensions. This is bad for her, and is probably the result of coaches early in her development failing to reinforce the importance of something other than being a physical beast. Which one seems like the better long term investment? I think the point is that talent evaluators would lose their life savings if this was the stock market. There are signs of this as far up the ladder as the USWNT. Just as an example. Leroux is a serious physical specimen. And is obviously an elite level athlete. She also has a phenomenal goal scoring record for the USWNT. In 2012 she averaged something like 2.5 goals per 90 minutes for the USWNT. In 2014, however, getting considerably more minutes, and playing about the same number of games, she averaged about 0.5 goals/90 minutes. She has scored against some good sides for sure (e.g., France, Brasil, Japan). But the overwhelming majority of her goals come against minnows (Guatemala, Ireland, Mexico). What is the difference between power teams and minnows? Power teams have athletes also. She cannot run by and/or through those players. The problem for her is she also cannot outmaneuver them. What is the difference between the average women's international side in 2012 and in 2014? Everyone has become bigger, stronger, and faster. I wonder whether Canada would even take Leroux now if she was available to them? Their forwards are more skilled than Leroux. I wonder how much longer she lasts on the senior side? It is pretty easy to see she is not comfortable on the ball. She has no obvious 1v1 skills she is comfortable enough to use in a match. She has one strategy, and that strategy no longer works very consistently. She did create an impressive goal against Australia in this tournament. But otherwise she has looked like she does not belong out there. The Nigerian back line easily neutralized her. I feel badly for her that she was not properly developed. Wonder who her college coach was at UCLA? Oh my goodness, it was Jill Ellis!!
|
|
|
Post by jetta25 on Jun 24, 2015 22:27:10 GMT -5
Oh Look, France just won with big, fast and athletic, I guess it is possible to win with that body type. I their opponents are in the locker room dressing wounds for the carper burns they got when trying to stop the French forwards. I have been reading how athletic players are almost a negative when it comes to the development of this sport. I think we should find a way to just discourage them from trying out so the coaches won't be tempted to pick them (can't trust these coaches to make to correct decision when picking their team) (sarcasm). In any sport using speed (pace) to put pressure on a defense, and open up space is a time honored tactic. I have seen quite a few teams with combinations of both types of players be successful. Also, just because a player is big, fast and athletic does not mean they do not have a soccer IQ or superior technical skill or at least have the potential to be a better than average player. I don't think anyone is arguing that big, strong, athletic players are a negative. I think people are arguing that simply taking big, strong, and athletic at the expense of skilled players with high soccer IQs that may be lower on each of the physical dimension scales is a recipe for long term disaster. All else being equal, if you have a 5'8", 145lb blazing speedster, strong as an ox female player, in peak physical condition, who plays with exactly the same soccer acumen and skill set of Mia Hamm, and I have to pick between the two, I am taking the blazing speedster every time. That is not the point. The point is that evaluators tend to value the physical attributes at younger ages over skill. Let me ask you something. One the one hand, you have an 11 yr old girl, who is slight of build but has obviously worked so hard on her soccer skill set that she can do essentially every 1v1 move at pace. But it is easy to knock her off the ball at this point because she is sort of weak. Nevertheless, it is clear she sees the field well and understands the game. On the other hand, you have an 11 yr old girl who is a physical beast for her age. On the 8v8 field she succeeds by simply running by and over other players. She has a powerful shot, and tends to dominate these games because most of the other players are just not in her league physically. But if you had these two players at a camp, and had them doing skill work (doing fast-paced drills dribbling through cones, one and two-touch passing, 1v1 moves, juggling), it was obvious that the big player was not in the same league skill-wise as the slight player. Which one do you take if you have to choose? I think most people are saying that the big player gets selected a disproportionate amount of the time. Now this may or may not be a bad thing. Maybe the big player just started playing last week. But let's assume that both of those players have been playing soccer since they were 5 yrs old (the more typical scenario). They both have had the same amount of time to develop their skill sets. The slight one developed in spades. The big one did not. I would say, and I think other people might say, this shows a difference in what one might expect in the future. The big one is just not going to do the work to develop elite skills. The slight one has proven she will do the work. Maybe the big one will continue to be a physical beast. But maybe (and this often happens) she gets caught on multiple physical dimensions. This is bad for her, and is probably the result of coaches early in her development failing to reinforce the importance of something other than being a physical beast. Which one seems like the better long term investment? I think the point is that talent evaluators would lose their life savings if this was the stock market. There are signs of this as far up the ladder as the USWNT. Just as an example. Leroux is a serious physical specimen. And is obviously an elite level athlete. She also has a phenomenal goal scoring record for the USWNT. In 2012 she averaged something like 2.5 goals per 90 minutes for the USWNT. In 2014, however, getting considerably more minutes, and playing about the same number of games, she averaged about 0.5 goals/90 minutes. She has scored against some good sides for sure (e.g., France, Brasil, Japan). But the overwhelming majority of her goals come against minnows (Guatemala, Ireland, Mexico). What is the difference between power teams and minnows? Power teams have athletes also. She cannot run by and/or through those players. The problem for her is she also cannot outmaneuver them. What is the difference between the average women's international side in 2012 and in 2014? Everyone has become bigger, stronger, and faster. I wonder whether Canada would even take Leroux now if she was available to them? Their forwards are more skilled than Leroux. I wonder how much longer she lasts on the senior side? It is pretty easy to see she is not comfortable on the ball. She has no obvious 1v1 skills she is comfortable enough to use in a match. She has one strategy, and that strategy no longer works very consistently. She did create an impressive goal against Australia in this tournament. But otherwise she has looked like she does not belong out there. The Nigerian back line easily neutralized her. I feel badly for her that she was not properly developed. Wonder who her college coach was at UCLA? Oh my goodness, it was Jill Ellis!! So your issue then with the decision makers? I see it differently, I see the big, strong, athletic player getting pushed to defense immediately, with no chance or thought of them ever sniffing the offensive side of the ball from a young age. I see that far more on other teams so I am sensitive to the 'labeling' the Lebron -sized player as someone who will never be a Mia Hamm type (thinking she could never develop that skill set because of her physical attributes). Part 2 of that scenario is the big, fast, athletic player gets to play forward at a younger age, scores many goals (because the defender is usually the kid who has less technical and/or is there because the parents dragged her there). That player, as she moves up in age group, scores less and less goals (the parents were satisfied because she is scoring lots of goals, it does not get mentioned that this will not continue because when she gets older the defenders will get bigger, faster, stronger). Then one day comes the discussion to move to defense. Now, that in itself is not a bad thing but could that player have been a better midfielder/forward ? I guess it depends on what angle you look from, so you will have to forgive me because I get sensitive to labels. There is currently a big, strong player in the Big 10 (don't remember the school) who was moved up to forward IN COLLEGE, never played that position much but now she is making a big impact on her team. Makes you wonder what would have happened if she had that opportunity from the start. Now you mentioned 'the big one is just not going to do the work to develop elite skills' is this something you find with all big players? Are there no big players that want to develop elite skills? If this is the fault of the coaches she comes in contact with earlier in her career then who will change that mindset? I am not for just having bigger players in the pitch, but what I am for is every player having the opportunity to develop to their best potential without pre conceived ideas and projections on what player they will be. I have read the stories of the big player pushing out the little player, and damaging the future of soccer. I just wanted to show a different side of this argument Sidney Leroux So lest use her as the poster child for this discussion because she is the favorite punching bag. I has been mentioned that she is not good 1v1, this is true, but this was never a secret. This is her style; she has one best move - the speed move. I am assuming she did not buy or bribe her way on to the team, I assume there was an even better evaluation done on her because she has international experience. She has made this team with 3 different coaches so they must have seen something. I don’t think she deserves the vitriol everyone likes to heap on her as part of the reason why this team may not be successful. You mentioned that she was somewhat effective against good sides. Do you know of many players where their goal average does not go down when they play against good sides? That is supposed to happen when you play better teams. I don’t hear commentators railing about Wambach’s 1v1 skill set because her greatest asset is getting her body in the right position to make the headers. That is an instinct that is difficult to master. A good coach understands a player’s limitations and puts them in a position to be successful for themselves and for the team. The problem with this team is not Sidney Leroux, she is the same player that Jill Ellis coached before. She has been asked to play a different role than she was playing before, does she excel at her new role? Would Patrick Ewing make a great point guard? What should have happened is she should not have made the team if the coach could not use her in the current system the team is playing (does anyone know what that system is by the way?). There are 2 types of goals, deliberate – coming from design, style of play, and goals of opportunity – rebounds, defender out of position, and long inaccurate service balls from distance (boom ball?). This team appears to be looking for the second type more especially when Wambach is in there. As to the question if Canada would accept her back, would she want to go back? She moved from a potential audience of 40 million to a potential audience of 400 million, would you want to go back? For many reason and many burned bridges her star is getting dim so that is not really an option. This is interesting: www.soccerwire.com/news/global/uswnt-good-enough-is-good-enough-but-something-is-amiss-in-womens-world-cup-run/
|
|