USSF doesn't make it easy to get licensed. I know there are logistical issues that are beyond their control. Like equus said, the basics of coaching are easy enough but it takes commitment from both sides to make it better. Someone needs to be available to train coaches (new or experienced) and the coaches need to seek out these resources.
Sorry but this has been proved wrong at the 2010 world cup. They gave up on football that tournament and decided to kick and play defensive football throughout. I would love to see playmakers and sweepers take back their roles on the pitch and become more important again. Football now is relying on speed and power over skill. Even the horrible plastic balls that are being used are unnatural. Athletes first, footballers second is what we see currently with many teams and coaching philosophy. It should be reversed or at the very least hold an equal par.
I think only a few teams follow that philosophy. Everything the US is doing to revamp their program seems to be counter to that. And I think Spain highlights this. I read an article that discussed what England or the US would have done to an Inesta, given his size. It theorized that in the US or English system they would have tried to make him a winger because he lacked typical size and athleticism. That guys like Rooney only make it as creative players in England because he has all size, speed, athleticism, and skills. The words of the current US officials, and I forget who said it, have also theorized that players like Sneijder might not have made it out of US socccer, because its difficult for skill and creative players to prosper playing "ugly" soccer. So, though I think in any sport, that pure athleticism is a highly prized and often overvalued, being a good soccer player or footballer, is getting more and more recognized. It's a bit silly that people talk about this as if its unque to Soccer. Basketball experts are constantly drafting players based on crazy athletic upside only to have them bust out of the nba. Then a guy like this Lin kid shows up out of no where. American Football does the same. Look at Tom Brady, drafted in the 7th round. There is a magical balance to any sport. The trick of finding that balance and developing it, is still somewhat mysterious.
we may be getting away from it more than you think. In the current U17 side, there's a kid from Virginia. helluva creative player, not physically imposing at all. Barca is the soccer world's favorite example these days. Rightfully so. People talk about their style of play but it seems borne out of necessity. They're not super-athletes (they are amazing soccer players though) and if they tried to play a "power" style they wouldn't be as successful. I'm hesitant to use Barca as an example because they are such an outlier, they occupy this special moment in time where the right players came along at the same time and into a system. For as long as Barca has been playing and developing players, and have had many successful teams they never achieved this kind of sustained success.
I am from Europe so not to sure about how America is going about this. But in the last 20 years here there has been a movement away from skills to power. It is not just a few clubs, but many. Infact clubs who have the other approach are a minority. You only have to look are many of the over sized muscled players or the players who can run all day. Many would not have made it in the game even 20 years ago to the highest levels. I am not saying this is just football that is more and more relying on power, I didnt bring that up and since this is a football forum, why would anyone be comparing it with basketball in the first place? You only have to add in the fact that football has become a money business. Many teams are afraid to lose because even smaller sides are on stretched budgets and relegations are now potentially fatal for a club. The sport has somewhat died because of the money side of things. Jose Mourinho is regarded as one greatest ever coaches but to me he is the image to what has went wrong with football. Win at all costs, zero style or sportsmanship. Athleticism is favoured over skill because it is seen as more realiable in a results driven business. There are examples that say different like the obvious one of Barca, Feyenoord are another good example (fantastic approach), but they are few and far between
I think it's not that power is preferred over skill, but power is more readily "manufactured" than skill. The number of really good players are few. We discuss endlessly how to develop skill players but very few coaches in the world can actually do it. Add to that, a lot of money is paid for skillful players so only the rich teams can have them. Few teams like Arsenal are patient enough to bring skillful players up, but it backfires because these same players don't show enough patience in the club. Defending in soccer is a relatively easy concept. So you can more easily get a group of players who are athletic, don't have to be the smartest, most skilled and you have a team that is hard to break down and on the other end they do just enough to score. Skillwise these power players are "good enough," but it doesn't matter that the majority are power players. As it has always been, the skillful players are the difference makers. Pele, Maradona, Platini, Messi, Zidane, Henry, Figo . . . but you always had skillful power players as well... Viera, Gulllit, Davids, Maldini . . .
I think as long as the teams that emphasize skill over athleticism or able to balance it corrently are winning, then other teams will keep trying to get that right mix and they will keep erring onside or another. The easiest side to err on is Athleticism. Its easier to find, see, recognize, and doesn't take as much development.
Zdenek Zeman is a coach who's name every football fan should know. Read up about him, he is a true inspiration to any aspiring coach.
In my mind I cannot divorce athleticism and power from the great skilled players. Dribbling in particular involves athleticism as much as skill. Take Maradona as the the best example: How can anyone say that he did not have athleticism and power? Can you divorce skill from classic "total soccer" which is based on pressing high up the field? When I was young the conflict was between passing and dribbling skills and endurance--because there were no substitutions allowed. Power and athleticism has always had an important place in the sport. The greatness of the game is that anyone can play. If any one aspect of the game has primacy over the others, it is mentality. The winner is the side which best adapts to its and its opponents strengths and weaknesses. In a 11 a side game, the circumstances are often complex and changing during the match. For a developmental coach, the style question is academic really. We want, in the ultimate end, to develop players to their maximum potential in each of the four pillars.
He was one of the first to question Juve and Moggi and thus his career suffered, no coincidence. I dont have much time right now and maybe this is not the right thread. Tomorrow I will poSt about him if I find a thread related to coachs or maybe I should start a thread on him, he is a coaching genius, currently in charge of Pescara. Check out Italy clubs, southern clubs and you will see a thread for this club on here. Here is a quick clip [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eAuWd2shxw"]La Roma di Zeman - I giocatori - YouTube[/ame]
I don't understand why you mention him here. 1) This is not a fan forum. 2) He uses a classic 433 system with traditional soccer values of hard but fair play. He is the current evolution, or, if you think the 451 systems in vogue are not variations of a classic 433, then he is "the ghost of Christmas past" playing an Italian version of Dutch total soccer. Obviously he is to be admired, but he is not breaking new ground stylistically in 2012. Edit: Okay now I see from the clip what your point was (He is a talented coach who apparently has a knack for developing young professionals--which means he can make money for a European club.) In the US we have a lot of talented coaches, but the ones that change sports are the Vince Lombardi's. He not only changed football; he changed "coaching" for all team sports. Knowing a great coach can be inspiring. It is one weakness in my own background that I never played organized soccer until I was in my 30's. So I never had a development oriented coach or trained in a development oriented practice. For soccer. I had the great honor of playing 5th string split end in high school for someone who may well be the greatest high school football coach, period. He is a legend in the state of Michigan. And a huge influence on anyone who ever played for him, or even sat on the bench for him.
USA will have the next evolution as a result of this product. Kids with skills and interchangeable all over the filed. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nQ61LUklyI&feature=share"]Ferdie's Magic Carpet Unveiled at NSCAA convention - YouTube[/ame]
Anybody else have comments given the US v Italy friendly? On style it looked very much like variations of the 433 going after each other. I may watch again to pay more attention to what Italy was doing. I was watching the US players mostly. What I saw was a very Brazil like dependence on the double CB-double CM box to guard against a counter-attack and sending both full backs forward into the attack behind functional wingers. A very European 4231 is one way to describe it. When they defended the last third, they pulled the flank players back to adopt a 442 shape with Dempsey in a forward position alongside Altidore. It looks to me like we won't see the US moving away from the currently favored double DM style for the foreseeable future. As for Italy, historically they don't invent attacking styles. And I don't think pulling players further back in the system is in the future cards. So I don't believe Italy is a place to look for trend setters. What we may be missing is in Asia. If some team (other than Australia) has success with an innovative system, we could see a new style arise there. For example Japan came out of nowhere and captured the women's world cup. That certainly has drawn attention to their youth training. Japan, however, was using established Western ideas, but very effectively.
I didn't catch that friendly rca2 and have yet to watch a replay. I came across this blog explaining how to defeat Barcelona. Apparently, new ideas will be springing from chess. http://twelvepointsports.blogspot.com/2012/01/hypermodernism-and-madrid.html Makes me wonder if we will ever see Tex Winter's triangle offense adopted to soccer; what kind of outside the box thinking we will see.
I read a lot, and that may be the strangest essay I have ever read. Assuming its a serious discussion, chess tactics don't apply to soccer. The comparison fails because chess is a capture game, rather than an invasion game. Chess is won by capturing the king. Soccer is won by scoring points by advancing the ball into the opponent's goal. Chess is more like military combat (at the lowest level), so possession of the "center" in a tactical area is relatively unimportant compared to the ability to interdict the center. An illustration is the L-shaped ambush. You don't place soldiers in the center. That is the kill zone. you place the soldiers in an L shape surrounding the center on two sides so that they (the entire force) can influence the kill zone horizontally and vertically. The "new" attacking tactics advanced by the essay was described as a 424 system, but in reality was simply playing long balls to bypass the midfield to counter an opponent's clogging up the midfield. The "new" defending tactics I did not understand at all. I think he was proposing that the ball be funnelled along either touchline (and trapped against the touch line), but I don't know how you do that without controlling the center. (That is the part I don't understand.) I find it amusing that pushing attacker's wide is proposed as a new idea.
Here is a serious article on game theory. Game theory is not a theory about games. It is behavoiral science theory used to develop models used to predict human behavior (modeling populations rather than individuals). In the IT area of artificial intelligence they may talk about it in modeling a single brain. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-theory/ One thing you can appreciate from game theory and a comparison of soccer to chess is why soccer is touted as the world's greatest game. Soccer is immensely more complicated than chess. In soccer players moves are not defined, movement is not restricted to turns or spaces, and there are no pauses for analysis in between moves or for team mates to discuss their next move. Communication and knowledge in chess are not a problem, while soccer is played with a team of 11 individuals. Finally soccer is not limited to a single or even a shared cultural context for a team.
I wish I knew, but FIFA will try to tell us all after the results are in after the next world cup. Remember this one from FIFA about the future of football "windscreen wiper" - is a libero in midfield who stationed himself in front of the defensive block and took action to stop opposing attacks. This role is becoming more and more important in footballing tactics. On the other hand the typical playmaker is no longer part of the scene. His duties have been spread around, with the "windscreen wiper" carrying the main defensive responsibility and the midfielder playing just behind the strikers being the main point of attack. The flank midfielders link in pairs with the outer backs and complement each other both in defence and in attack.
I suspect the author of the blog is drawing inspiration for his analogy from this book [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Football-Chess-Tactics-Strategy-Beauty/dp/1843821869"]Amazon.com: Football and Chess: Tactics Strategy Beauty (9781843821861): Adam Wells: Books[/ame]
All I will say is that in University I started playing a great deal of chess with friends and then we stopped. We got to where we were routinely playing 3-5 moves ahead. After about 3 months I started seeing other things as chess problems to solve. I stopped playing, and the analogies stopped. I don't think there is anything to be learned about soccer from comparing chess to soccer.