I have to say,... this thread was a huge disappointment. It contains 90% bickering ("pissing contest") with about 10% substance. It is sad to say, I think I am getting use to the incessant logical fallacies on Big Soccer forums. ---
26. Despite being presented with a list of facts about why American soccer hasn't improved as expected, American soccer fans challenge and disparage the list and its creators, insisting that foreigners don't understand the American system, and that soccer should follow the model of other American sports in which we clearly dominate because no other countries take those sports seriously.
1. The list isn't fact; it's opinion. 2. I'm not sure how anyone who remembers what U.S. soccer was like in 1989 could have expected much more than we have. Part of the problem is the "expectation" some people seem to have that the USA should vault right from insignificance to global dominance in one generation. 3. Americans challenge other people's opinions. In this thread, most posters agreed with some of the specific opinions and disagreed with others. That seems pretty reasonable to me. What is the alternative--blindly accept anything we are presented with in list form? 4. I don't think anyone disparaged the list's creators, necessarily--just pointed out that things other people were saying about the list's creators to pump them up (for example, that they were associated with Barcelona in some formal, youth-development way) were false, and that some of the other opinions they espoused were pretty ridiculous. That seems like a good way to judge a list-maker's credibility. 5. The list was made in California by Americans, as far as I know. 6. I'm not sure anyone is advocating that the current system is perfect and should not be changed in any way. And I don't think there's a lot of evidence that some of the specific changes the list advocates would be helpful or productive. If you want to completely redesign U.S. youth soccer development, shouldn't you provide some justification other than "This is how Barcelona does it?"
Hello, editor of the 3four3 blog. Thanks for your wonderful yet somehow disrespectful and ludicrous description of how myself and my fellow posters responded to the OP. I'm sorry we don't blindly follow the directives of a youth soccer coach with unfavorable development results when compared to USSF academies across the country.
Terrific. Marvellous. They have nothing to do with the Barcelona academy, they are just the youth team of the supporters club. In short, they are fans. http://www.barcelonausa.com/page/show/58695-about-us
if i knew when soccer games were on i would watch them all the time, but i never know when they are on.. and plus it would help me learn some stuff so i can play soccer
My opinions on improving US Soccer? #1 Get our most athletic/genetically gifted kids in our country playing/committed to the sport of soccer in the 5-10 age group and make it very enjoyable for them so they stick with it over the long haul and can progress through our development programs. I see soccer in our community as second-fiddle choice early on (more on the boys side) to many other sports and I'm sure that is the norm across most of the US. We have a couple top athletes in our soccer program, but many athletic minded parents will gear their kids into football, basketball softball/baseball, lacrosse, volleyball, dance, golf etc. Soccer many times ends up as the sport of choice for kids that don't have quite as much athletic ability as an outlet to stay healthy by running around and are involved in an afterschool activity. If we can better promote soccer at the earliest stages and get more interest from the top genetically gifted athletes to our sport, we'll make the whole development process to the top much easier. 2# Stop wasting time and money with academy tryouts/olympic development team tryouts etc. for kids younger than 16. Let our existing club format progression and high school soccer showcase player talent to the scouts progressing to the next level (D1 colleges and pro-development programs). That assures a better chance our best players at one level of play get enough evaluation time to get a fair shake to be moved up to the level of progression without leaving mis-scouted talent behind or committing too much development time and money on a 13 year old 8th grade phenom who was selected to an academy who ends up as an average D1 collegiate player at best.
26. Everyone is a "winner" in U-6 through U-11 youth soccer...trophies to all so not a single child has his/her feelings hurt. 27. Motivation to play the sport is not culturally driven but an outgrowth of societal norms. What is the prime mover in the motivation to play the game as a child? Parental and societal pressure, (maybe let's not call it "pressure," because that automatically might stress out the child). When does peer pressure arrive for the soccer player, as it may in other more "traditional " American sports? Perhaps not until the U-12 and older age-group split between travel/premier/academy/ODP occurs. 28. The seasonal approach to sport in the US and the monopoly the NFL has on fall use of stadium events driven by commercial revenue. Even with soccer specific stadiums, I believe MLS will not try to challenge the NFL's autumn stranglehold on television and media coverage. 29. The NCAA. This body of governance is a bastion of hypocrisy regarding amateurism/concern for the student-athlete ethos. Preseason limitations on providing adequate time to prepare physically for a soccer season are only the tip of the iceberg in looking for explanations as to why college soccer does a disservice to its players. If NCAA baseball is allowed to compete into June, nearly a month after every institution has shut its doors on the spring semester (and allow high caliber teams to compete in 50+ matches), than any discussion about college soccer and its inadequacies start and end with the NCAA. 30. That being said...there are 1000+ colleges sponsoring soccer between all NCAA divisions and the NAIA. The disparity between the top and bottom is immense. Further, the disparity between teams within each division is immense from top to bottom. Alignment, save for the most visible D1 conferences (ACC, Big East, PAC etc.) is not competitively driven, and even then, most are based on traditional and relative geographical proximity. 31. Coaching at the youth level will not improve, and player development for the vast majority of kids, will, therefore, remain relatively stagnant until there are enough experienced ex-players with a methodology to teach the broader tactical/technical aspects of the game in age appropriate and progressively developmental ways.
to be honest, we have to do a better job introducing kids into the game and teaching them proper fundamentals. Our problems is soccer are the equivalent of getting a kid to play basketball but waiting until they are 14 to teach them how to dribble and shoot the ball properly (not 100% equivalent, but in the same ball park). Let the kids learn how to dribble/develop fundamentals and figure out the game at a young age, and i bet as young kids have fun with it more "athletes" (i prefer talented players, athleticism is a bit broad) will be inclined to stick with it. And as more talented kids stick with soccer, hopefully there will be enough amateur clubs, quality travel teams and academy teams willing to help put them in a more competitive atmosphere and grow as players.
People are still bringing up that crap about picking 'athletes'? How many trophies do Spain's midgets have to win before Americans stop fantasising about 7 foot tall 250 pound African-Americans running round at the World Cup? That first comment by Bookmesir is the most amusing. Johan Cruyff decided that youth teams didn't need to win but should focus on developing talent instead. Obviously you people know more about developing footballers.
it's a stupid point people bring up, but then again there is a physical aspect of the game that can't be ignored. Endurance, quickness and pace (speed) are still very important, though we place way too much emphasis on them in soccer. I also have no problems with youth teams trying to win, as long as they don't cut corners on the kid's development in the process. We have to teach them to play it with proper technique and a good understanding of the tactics involved (or allow them an environment to let them figure that out). What i find funny is that the term athleticism is so polarizing when people talk about it in the states. You have the kids who think we suck because we don't have our best athletes, and then we have the guys who look at the term "athleticism" as this taboo thing that is everything wrong with us soccer, and that we should be trying to be barcelona. Well the thing is barcelona was created in a soccer crazy country with the perfect combination of infrastructure, money and culture to make that happen. It should be evident that it's not exactly easy to make a barcelona team, because there hasn't been a team capable of imitate them with success, even in countries with far more resources and potential to do so. Honestly we should start by at least trying to be germany or france or italy (well maybe not today's italy) before we even consider trying to be spain. Thierry Henry was a fantastic athlete and a damn good soccer player. Christiano Ronaldo is a tremendous athlete and a great soccer player. Didier Drogba, same thing. I don't think there's anything wrong with introducing athletic kids to soccer, but make sure you understand what elements make a soccer player great, and don't assume one kid is better than the other because he's a little bit bigger and faster. I think that's the most important part.
REFEREES in the USA SUCKKKKKKKKSSSSSSSS, no more big friendly matches in the US!!!! Thats why you guys are not a powerhouse and have a bad level.
(about the no soccer DNA in our coaching) I sort of agree with this, particularly at the younger youth levels in America. I've been really frustrated in my coaching career to find out that many of the parents of the children I've coached have played in college or at least high school soccer experience and they don't bother to volunteer to coach their children or even help out as an assistant. Either because they are too busy with their careers or just don't want to commit, while parents without any soccer experience frequently volunteer to coach mostly out of default because no one else steps up. That is how I got into coaching back when my child was U8...the league couldn't find a coach, so I stepped in last minute. Looking back, I wish I had more soccer experience to better develop these kids but again I stepped in as a last resort. The one thing I am proud of though is that I created a fun environment and most all the kids whom I've coached over the years continue to play or are still playing at U14. I didn't have any dropouts because I created a great playing experience. If I could go back to U6/U8/U10 and coach all over again, I'd be much better at developing their skills. Every season I think we learn and grow as coaches. Its important not to bad mouth coaches from seasons/years ago, because a bad coach from 5 years ago could be very good coach today. Coaches develop over time just like the players.
yup and I think our pro leagues are the worst when it comes to his. MLS is run by NFL guys. All the decision makers in the MLS office come from the NFL. Don Garber even stated that when he took the MLS job he wasn't even a soccer fan. I think their plan was to create a league that looked just like the NFL with divisons/conferences etc. I'm pretty sure this won't happen. The American soccer fans wouldn't put up with it. It's just boggles the mind that we still have the MLS draft and that we don't allow a young kid from Michigan who doesn't live near any pro clubs to trial with an MLS club. But then everything makes sense when you realize that MLS is run by NFL people.
Personally, I like the MLS playoff format better than EPL which reminds me of NASCAR season pts. I really don't know much about MLS draft so I'm learning as I read. Where do they get most of their players from? College, other international play? How would a trial/tryout with a team create better pro players than scouting players/looking at tape from the last few years and then drafting them like most any other pro sport? Perhaps they could draft more players each year than able to roster and then after "pre-season" they make some cuts like NFL? That way you draft and you get some tryouts...best players stay on roster.
first you have to realize that soccer is a global game and that there are leagues that have been in operation for a much longer time than MLS. The best way to develop players and allocate them to clubs has already been figured out. It does not involve making the player from Texas enter a draft where he could end up in Vancouver. MLS is the only soccer league on the planet that has an amateur draft. The reality is the MLS Draft is becoming less relevant because of the Homegrown Player rule. It's mostly made up of college players, though some international players enter it. I don't think the draft is a negative for those who enter it. Most of the kids coming out of college are not our best prospects. But the mere existence of the MLS Draft creates a barrier to entry for those who want to go professional without going through the college/draft system. Just look at the example of Josh Gatt. He had two choices: go to college or accept an offer from a European club. He ended up signing with a club in Austria. The option of going on trial with an MLS club and getting signed was not possible. MLS does not allow amatuers to enter the league through this manner. They must enter through the draft. To get into the draft a kid will pretty much either need a solid college career or already be in the national side youth setup.
While having academies is good for young player development, there's nothing at all to suggest the current system was anything to do with leagues deciding that was the best way to develop players. It's just that there's nowhere else for players to go for development. There's also plenty of thinking that allowing top clubs to stockpile youngsters, many of whom will hardly every play a match, is actually harming development - and not just in the playing sense. 30 years ago, an 18 year old at Manchester City would probably be living in a bedsit, polishing the pro's boots and sweeping the terraces in addition to their training, working hard in the hope of making the 1st team one day. These days the same young lads will own their own house and sports car and have the trapping of success without ever having achieved anything.
to be honest, the homegrown player rule hasn't really changed much in that front. Not that it won't potentially do so, but the problem is they don't have any real way to get those 16, 17 year olds playing time right now to get them ready to participate for the senior squads. Granted that's improving with more loans to NASL and USL squads (which hopefully will start happening more and more as those leagues start to grow and expand), but it's still a big issue as the majority of the HG players right now are completing stagnating in their development. And honestly, if they actually end up going in the direction of a minor league system similar to hockey and baseball (not recommending or being against it, but it's a proposal i've heard thrown around), the draft will only become more important as they will need to start dispersing the talent graduating from high school (well the 17 and 18 year olds that are done with their youth academies and regional clubs) and put them into their minor league rosters. Granted that's if the MLS opens up their draft with high school graduates, which i think would be likely if this scenario were to play out.
Again, THIS IS NOT TRUE. Anyone who is passed over in the draft is free to trial anywhere in the league and try to get a contract. Again, case in point: Bobby Boswell, who's been MLS Defender of the Year and about to start in his second consecutive MLS Cup final.