National Championship - Regional Observations.

This is not to stir up a hornet's next, but I would like to get some thoughts on some observations that I have made about the USYSNC National Champions over the last four years (that is far back as the USYSA website goes for all age groups).

Region IV has won 11 national championships.
Region III has won 7 national championships.
Region II has won 4 national championships.
Region I has won 2 national championships.

Some observations:

Region IV has won 3 of the last 4 in the U14 category. This could mean that there is better skills development at the younger ages out west.

5 of the 7 NCs for Region III have also been in the U14-U16 categories.

Region II does not have a national champion before U17 but then 4 of the 12 total between U17-U19 come from Region II. I am not sure what that indicates but it appears to be significant.

Region I only has 2 national championships and also has the fewest number of finalists. I had heard some time back that I and IV had the largest populations to pull from but I wonder if that is still true today with the demographic push to the south.

Again...just would like to get some insightful feedback on these observations. For those believing that I am from Region IV...I am not. I reside in Region III.

BTW...these are just on the girls side. No boys observations were made.

interesting. Weather is a factor (more time to play outdoors, etc) Did you consider repeat champions/finalists? Do the numbers change if you consider distinct teams from a region rather than just region? With that short a time frame in your data one team might appear at different age groups and skew the data

As you can tell from my name, we're from Region IV. At the younger ages, the Region IV teams, esp So Cal, seemed to be dominant physically (speed, size, etc). I've noticed last year and now that seems to have diminished significantly, if it even exists anymore.

My dd went to a college camp in Region II. The talent pool was very rich from girls from Region II areas.

IMHO, So Cal has been too reliant on fast strong girls and not focused enough on developing soccer players with soccer skills and tactical ability.

I think that you would get that observation (complaint?) in every region. As a matter of fact...the DOCs and coaches that I have talked to have made no bones about the fact that they want their biggest, fastest, strongest athletes on their top teams...and that they can train them on the other facets (technical, tactical, & mental).

My observation would lend itself to the conclusion that Region IV is doing more with those other three facets earlier than the other regions.

After further review...I realize that I made a mistake between Region II and Region I Results. The actual results are below.

Region IV has won 11 national championships.
Region III has won 7 national championships.
Region II has won 5 national championships.
Region I has won 1 national championships.

Daughter started playing in region IV at the age of 6 when then moved to Va in region I when she turned 9 big difference on how soccer is viewed.

1) Foot skills are not taught till around U9-U10.Daughter was on strong team in CA but only mid level player. When she started here moved up 2 age groups just to match skill level.
2) Score not kept or posted till age 13.Kids here dont know how to react when the score counts. Its hard to tell a kid dont care about the score. Then you get to a tournament and face kids that deal with it during the year they dont have a chance.

Region IV and Region II would be dominated by one state too, correct? California and Texas?

Well...pretty much. If you break it down by state...it looks like this (Again...girls only):

6 Champions and 5 Runners Up from North Texas.
6 Champions and 4 Runners Up from SoCal.
4 Champions and 0 Runners Up from NorCal.
1 Champion and 0 Runners Up from South Texas...

...for a total of 17 National Championships and 9 Runners up from California and Texas. There are 7 Champions and 15 runners Up from all other states combined!

With the completion of the most recent USYSA National Championships on the girls side...I thought that I would re-raise this topic. First...I have gone back the last ten years to document the champions by region at each of the girls age groups. Even more interesting patterns than before. Items of note:

- 2011 was the first year in the entire decade that Region IV did not crown at least one national champion. Back in 2002, the first year review...ALL of the national champions came from Region IV!
- Region IV still overwhelmingly has the most champions of the last decade (29 champions; 13 each for Regions II and III; and 5 for Region I).
- If you only look back over the last five years, the numbers distribute much more evently (11 for IV; 10 for III; 6 for II; 3 for I)
- Every year but 2 had a National Champion from Region IV at U14. Only in 2007 and 2011 did the U14 champ come from another region (both times from Region III)
- Region II has produced 10 of their 13 national championships at U17 or older and all three of those age exceptions came at or before the 2006 event
- Region III has won the most national championships in the last two years with 6 national champions. All of them are from Texas.
- I find it quite interesting that so many national team players come from Region I but that there is a definitive shortage of national champions from the region with only 5 in the last decade (1 out of every 12).

Well...food for fodder. Thoughts?

Winning a National Championship at Youth level doesn't mean that the player is automatically a National team player. Your observation is perhaps a proof that whoever is selecting for National teams is not just looking at "winning" teams and "winning" players, but rather for the really quality players.

Yet there was not a single player from North Texas in the 36 player pool from which the recent womens world cup squad was chosen.....clubs in N.Texas (like The Texans) could'nt give a rats ass about developing players. they care about "winning" games for kids so they can attract better players and make more money.

The Texans for example recently recieved an "average" grade as far as coaching goes from the national association... a grade which pissed them off no end even though I think they were graded too highly....

The Texans have well over 200 teams in their system...if each team carries 18 players (some have as many as 22) and each player pays $2500.00-$3000 per year (which they do) you are talking some serious money....and THATS what they really care about.

This is the case of most high level competitive clubs around the country, contrary to what they say or claim otherwise.

Or another way of looking at it is that we are not picking the right players for our National Team. Maybe the North Texas players are developed to play together as a team, and the National Team picks players based on individual play and politics. That may explain why we had a so-so center back playing left back and center midfielders who can't pass and make lots of bad decisions.

Bingo! We have the answer.

Also, can someone answer how 4 girls from Utah and 5 from Colorado were invited to the latest U17 National Camp? Add in the 1 from Arizona and 1 from Nevada and you have nearly 1/2 the team from one general area. If that's not politics, then what is it?

The really serious youth player should be more concerned with developing their own game than playing for a "winning" team when they are 13-14 or so. The "big" clubs in this area (N.Texas) dont care anything about "player development"....they care about making a ton of money....try to recruit slightly better players and keep the gravy train chugging along.

While making money is important in North Texas (as well as everywhere else), the training that the girls on the top teams are getting is also paying dividends. Not only the ability to compete for National Championships, but also in money being offered by colleges.

If it is not about player development, then please explain how many of the NTX girls are competing for college national championships. Obviously, they were trained well somewhere along the way. And please don't offer up that crap that they developed at other programs and were recruited. There is very little turnover of the best players in the top teams.

Actually there is indeed quite a bit of turnover each year with even the top clubs...certainly in this area....there are many girls who are just very good players and have become very good players often in spite of mediocre "coaching" just by getting out and working with a ball day after day after day.

Bitter much? You have offered nothing of substance. And no, there isn't much turnover in the Top Teams. Sting and the Texans usually have 6 or 7 U11 originals after 6 years. I doubt if many clubs can claim the same. There is a churning of the bottom of the roster but most starters at u11 are starters now.

Could you also show me where the Texans coaches got an average grade? Sounds like you made it up.

First, I think the thread has been hi-jacked. It was not intended to be a discussion about the merits of player development versus club status, but rather about relative regional strength at the national level.

With that said, I think you are both somewhat right...but like politics today...neither completely. Anybody who believes that the best trainer in the world can take a sub par athlete and make them a division 1 college player is fooling themselves. Almost all of the athletes playing on the very best teams nationally are far above par. That said...there are inumerable examples of clubs prioritizing the interests of winning over the interests of player development. Candidly, how can they not. We live in a society that over-values wins and losses and the clubs that win the most...can usually attract the best to come play for them. Recruiting...whether you like it or not...is as much a part of the best soccer clubs as anything. You can have fantastic coaches, a great administration and support system...but without a stable of superior athletes...you cannot become a top-notch club.

Texans, Sting, Lonestar, Challenge, PDA, Eclipse Select, SoCal Blues, CASL....read local boards and one thing that is common about all of them is there is a venomous jealousy toward them by neigboring clubs because they win consistently. And if you think that is a problem with girls youth soccer...take a look at Texas A&M's exit to the Southeastern Conference. The under-pinnings of that move is based almost exclusively on jealousy aimed at their burnt-orange neighbors down the road.

As someone whose kids play for one of the above clubs, I can tell you that not only is there jealousy, there is an incredible emphasis from other teams on beating these teams. I have seen teams that play decent soccer throw all that out the window when they come play us in order to try to win. It is crazy what people will do in order to show that they can be/beat the best.

I can't speak for the other clubs above, but at ours, they make NO EFFORT to win at any age below U13. They are all about development and it shows. If more clubs were worried about development at early ages, then we would see an improvement in our player pool, until this happens, we will continue to go downhill. And, until the parents stop caring about winning, the clubs will never emphasize development enough. I have watched countless parents leave our club because we weren't winning enough or their DD wasn't the star striker, in many cases their kids were good enough to be the star center back or keeper, but because they have gone to clubs where there is no development, that will never happen!

Not "bitter" at all. I'll get the info (name of person with USSF who gave the Texans the average grade) in my next reply (have the info at home)

Fact is the USA has failed to produce a SINGLE male outfield player who has played for any of the world's TOP clubs...the Man Utd's, Barcelona's etc...whereas a small country like Holland has produced dozens and dozens.....and that is down to the misguided clubs and parents who value "winning" over player development.

Have you read Brilliant Orange? If you had, you would understand why the Dutch produce so many quality players. It's a culture that we don't have and never will.

Read it and enjoyed it.

As Klinnsman mentioned in his first interview after being named national team coach, all the very best players of all time (Pele,Maradonna,Cryuff,Messi,Rooney,Ronaldo etc) learned the skills of the game by playing the game, in the streets,at school, at the local park or wherever they could with no adult involvement at all. As young kids....4 to11 years old they probably put in up to and more than 30 hours a week touching a ball of some kind.....compare that to the youth set up here where kids generally have two-three practices a week and a game on Saturday for a total of about 6 hours or so with a ball....and that only if their "coach" does'nt spend half of practice running meaningless laps instead of spending the entire practice with a ball.

IIRC Pele was discovered by Santos at age 14....started at 15 for their first team and scored twice in a world cup final at 17.

Obviously I am not a fan of the Texans and the rest as I feel their main purpose is to generate revenue and most of 'em could'nt give a rats ass about developing players who can reach their true potential....and by that I mean represent their country at the highest level.

England66,
Show me a club where they state anywhere in their bylaws that their intent is to develop a player for the national team. We, as parents who pay some pretty high fees, think that those fees entitle us to get individual development. Of course some of that will occur to varying degrees. But the fact of the matter is...as JH eloquently stated...the truly gifted athletes work hard "on their own" outside of the team practices...as well as in them. Should they glean some skills and tactics from their club coaches? One would hope so. But their job in the U14 and up premier levels is to win first, develop second. Anyone who thinks differently is looking through rose-colored glasses.