From what I have seen, I think the trends are that the club system and certainly the men's professional game are moving in the right direction. But I'm afraid the same can't be said for women's soccer and NCAA soccer. Apparently at the NSCAA convention the Duke men's and women's coaches gave a workshop and laid out the 9 characteristics they look for in recruiting... http://www.potomacsoccerwire.com/news/458/20206 These include; competitiveness, athleticism, willingness to take players on 1 v 1, special qualities, working off the ball, coachability, fitness, psychology, experience Not included? Technical ability and tactical awareness. Ok, I'll try to be fair and allow that movement off the ball can be demonstrative of some tactical awareness (it can also just be indicative of a willingness to run around like a chicken with its head cut off) and in special qualities they did mention technical skill (ability to head the ball and long kicking ability - uggh). I guess the first argument they would make is that obviously you need a minimum level of technical and tactical ability to compete. But clearly you need a minimum level of these other traits just to compete as well, so why gradate based on these? And I will anticipate that the next argument would be that technical and tactical skills can be taught. Certainly (especially when they are making choices with sophomore-aged players) other elements can be taught. I tend to think you can drastically improve the performance of players when they are immersed in a structure like the Duke athletic department with the resources available to deal with factors like nutrition, strength, flexibility, bio-mechanical training, sports psychology, et al. This is what they choose.
This isn't anything new. All they did, was say that they're looking for kids that have "it" already because "it" can't be taught/coached/learned. It's either there or it isn't. Just like speed and height. It's no different in any other sport. I mean, look at the best soccer leagues in the world. There are guys with "horrible" first touches. Sure, you can improve your touch but even at the most elite levels some guys simply don't have "it." Duke is looking for the kids that have the most "its" so they can coach up the X/O's part ... which is what you're saying they should be looking for. You've got it backwards.
nope, not buying it... What 9 things are we looking at? you contend "you have to be at base-level X in technique and tactics and we can coach you up the rest of the way if you can impress us in these 9 areas..." I say we will always have problems if that is the attitude. Why don't you see the coaches saying, "you have to be at base-level X in speed, athleticism, attitude and we can coach you up the rest of the way if you can impress us enough with technique and tactical understanding..." It's an attitude, and if people can't even see the validity of the argument it tells me the problem is even deeper than I think. It would be one thing if I didn't watch college soccer games that were hopelessly tactically naive, if US U-20 and U-23 teams weren't hopelessly outclassed tactically, if I didn't watch MLS players who negate all their physical gifts because when a ball is played to them at pace their technique breaks down and on their first touch the ball pops up in the air (watch an MLS game, note how often when the ball is played around the back that happens), if during the women's world cup our national team didn't lose the ball because instead of playing a pass with the dominant foot, a player couldn't at speed switch feet to create a better angle and get an accurate and pacey ball off with their weak foot. These are endemic problems that will only be solved when coaches demand a higher level of performance. If you ask me it is a lot more likely that you can increase the athletic performance of an 18 year old with haphazard training methods and a diet heavy on snack foods (with year round training and dietary regimens) than right the technical wrongs formed over a decade of playing (in 4-months of play and practice per year).
1- Didn't say it was right, just that that's the way it is. It's that way across our "major" sports ... so I'm not sure what the big shock is here with soccer. 2- No, you've got it backwards. I didn't contend that, rather the opposite. The coaches are giving you the things that they're saying the kids need to be "x" level at and then assuming they can coach up the X/O's <----- that'd be your tactical portion and technique. Speed/athleticism/etc aren't X/O's. 3- The reason it doesn't work for us in Soccer, is because half the problem is that not only is our player pool 40 years behind everyone but our coaching pool is as well. We simply don't have the coaches to take the approach that coaches in other sports do. That doesn't stop them from doing it though. 4- .... and that's the reason we have Robbie Findley and Argentina has Lionel Messi.
I don't agree. Take a look at Swansea. They don't have fantastic players but are currently ranked (for what it's worth) as one of the top passing teams in Europe. It's a culture that's evolved there over a number of years, with players trained to be comfortable with a possession game. Most of those players, I'm sure, would have had the same clumsy first touch associated with championship level players had they played elsewhere. Many years back, albeit to a lesser degree, Reading adapted to a passing game under Mark McGhee that had players chasing shadows. The key is that it can be done, but it takes time. It's something that probably takes 2-3 years to get everyone singing from the same hymnbook, from the new recruits to the youth team. The difference is that a club will take a long term view. A college is looking for an instant return.
Right, so they find the guys that fit the "already have it" mold (with speed/the other things we mentioned/etc) and then coach them on the touch and the X/O's of the game. Still though, there are players at Swansea that don't have great first touches. The coaching at Swansea has certainly helped most, if not all of their players in this regard but the fact remains that some of their players still have (relatively speaking of course) mediocre or bad first touches. Same deal at Arsenal. Diaby is horrid with his first touch, Djourou is worse than I am. Not only that, but you said exactly what my point was. Swansea coach the possession game (i.e. - the tactical or X/O's portion).
If you play college soccer, 99% of the time that means you are not that good. Anyone that is really the cut, is going to Europe before then. College soccer coaches here can teach players exactly ZERO.
I know! I mean, it's not like the American with the most goals in the EPL ever set foot in college soccer. Wait a second...
The number of US soccer players going directly into a professional setup in MLS or overseas with a reasonable shot at first division ball in any calendar year can probably be counted on two hands. Please, if I am wrong about this I'd love to have names for one year. don't know what you would consider 'ranked' but no, not that easy. At least not a full scholarship. There are not that many in the men's game. Are you interested in the chances of somebody in Colombia getting a scholarship?
I was interested a year ago but not now, I was very lazy to send all that videos and applications, a friend wants to apply, he is really good.
And that dude is still not fit to even tie Giuseppe Rossi's shoe laces who has played for Man U, Villareal and the Italian National Team.
Were it not for circumstances beyond his control, Dempsey may well have been an Arsenal star rather than a Fulham one. He was with the Arsenal youth set up before he had to come home due to a couple of family situations. And really, you're going to tout ManU on Rossi's resume ? He played all of what, 5 to 10 senior matches ? Please. The guy was loaned out to Newcastle and either Parma or Palermo (can't remember which one) over his 2-3 years with ManU. He didn't do squat until he got to Villareal. Last year he exploded, but other than that he hasn't done anything that would indicate your comment/comparison between Dempsey/Rossi is anywhere near true. That is simply not true, period.
So the ultimate unanswerable questions is would he be a better player today had he stayed at Arsenal and not quite likely stunted his growth playing college soccer? Maybe he'd be Champion's league team type of class rather than middle of the table team type of class?
The comment was obviously hyperbole but when you watch those guys play, whatever their actual accomplishments, I think Rossi is clearly a notch or two above Dempsey in terms of quality and that's not to take anything away from Dempsey. He's good but he's a rung or two below the top players. Rossi might get there and then again he might not, given injuries and the like, but quality wise he seems to have the potential to be a true world class player.
Perhaps, but right here in our very own domestic league we have a rather decently sized sample base to go off of. Take the last 5-10 years and guys that have gone the "normal American route" of development and pit them against the US guys that went the "normal soccer route" of development. I'll give you a hint: It's been compared before, and the results would surprise you. The overbearing issue here is that the entire spectrum of US players is that far behind the rest of the world. Outside of the 0.1% that are our world class players, NONE of the US guys would have fared any better had they gone on to Europe/SA/wherever rather than go the school route here. Our development is that are behind and it starts at the very lowest/earliest levels. As for the direct comparison I find it hard to do. There are certain "dynamic" things about Rossi that stand out but he's a different player than Dempsey is. Sure, you won't see Dempsey fly down the wing but in contrast you won't find Rossi shouldering up CB's either. They are quite different in their approaches/styles/abilities.
That just proves Sir Alex Ferguson is a 'past it hack' who can't spot talent even when it is dangled in front of him. Exactly! And though we can never know the answer to that question, we do know that the best players don't need college degrees to be great. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1tKmCgF0sE"]Pelé Goal against Sweden - 1958 - YouTube[/ame] Let's see old man Dempsey do that! "Universidade? O que é isso."
IMO Dempsey and Rossi both have done alright with their clubs... so no need to trash one over the other. Dempsey this summer needs to take the next step and move from Fulham ... - He didn't do squat until he got to Villarreal. Come on dude, how about doing some research ! When Rossi turned 20 he went on loan to Parma in Feb, 2007 from Man Utd and saved Parma from relegation. Look it up, if you don't believe me and that's why Villarreal paid €10m for him. Also, Rossi has been intergal part of Villarreal since July, 2007. Moreover, the College model may work for few, but it's not the real way to develop soccer/football player/s. .
Yeah, well first step is to decide on what schools he's interested in and then go ahead and recruit them. But the earlier he gets word to a coach the better the chance they'll be able to see him play, or have somebody he trusts see him play. Even if you don't get a soccer scholarship, being recruited as a player can help with other types of aid for school.
