I am on the road (at a soccer game), pecking away on my phone, and my initial statement about Surf was incomplete. But, I loved what they had prior to their breakup. It was a model for what US Soccer should strive for. Their coach didn’t just pay lip service to the importance if intelligence, he practiced it. He was teaching those players chess while everyone else was playing checkers, and he chose players who could execute.
99% of the DAs do the exact same thing - stock their teams with early developers who can "make an impact" and help them win games now. It's almost comically stupid - given that there are really no consequences for winning and losing at these ages, especially for MLS clubs - but they almost all still do it, at least on the east coast.
Isn't this adage a bit old by now? People have been banging on about this for years, in every country that has a decent Academy structure. What would you like these clubs to do? I haven't seen anyone put forth viable solutions, only complaints. Around ages 13/14 the best 18 kids need to be selected to the squad. If a club/coach has any brains, they will also include a late developer or two that they see potential in. If a kid is so small/slow/weak that they can't compete with the current crop of players, what good does it do them to get run over everyday? What is wrong with putting these kids on a lower level team and keeping an eye on them? You could even bring them in to training with the DA team a couple of times per week as long as it isn't killing their confidence. I just don't know what people want. Soccer is sport, it takes a certain level of athleticism to succeed and whether people like it or not, size, strength, speed and quickness do matter. The issue isn't necessarily what is happening currently, but it is when the club/coaches totally dismiss kids at a young age and don't follow the kids progress. It's the job of the club to keep tabs on ALL of their players because at these ages, things can change in a matter of months. We have one group that says soccer concentrates on athletic ability too much and another group that says the US doesn't compete on the world stage because all the top athletes play other sports. Which one is it? These two thoughts are completely opposite of each other. If someone can give me the name of one small, weak, unathletic player that has had a great professional career, I could be inclined to see things differently.
Development isn't the goal. Enrollment is. Moms of 7 yo kids know nothing about U-17 teams, but looking up to U-9 champs.
Although cynical, that is undoubtedly true at many clubs. However, there are also lots of people doing it right these days.
The problem is you can’t possibly “develop” a soccer superstar. They are “self developed”. The emphasis needs to be encouraging players to work on their skill levels away from organized practices. Self motivation to become proficient has to be the key.
I don't think this is true. These kids train/play 6 days a week and are getting plenty of touches. Can working on our own make you a better player, absolutely, but it isn't going to make an average player into a superstar. What I think is missed in the US as compared to European Academies I am familiar with is the clubs ability to develop the mentality of the players. Often times, a great mentality is innate, much like athleticism. However, if pushed and encouraged the correct way, a great mentality can also be developed. In my opinion, we don't focus enough on the mental side of the game. We don't create enough uncomfortable environments for elite players and we don't push them go get the very best out of themselves. What I see in the youth across the US is often the very technically gifted kids are also more often than not, very weak minded and afraid to do any dirty work. They are more interested in showing off their tricks than anything else. The other side of the coin is kids that have a great mentality, but lack the technical side of the game. The trick is finding out how to merge these two aspects. I also absolutely hate the way the word "skill" is used in our country. Go to any field across America and you will hear the word used dozens of times per game. Unfortunately, for many, skills has become a synonym for excessive step overs, unnecessary tricks and flicks and a license to show off. Skill is also the ability to see a run and make it, the ability to hit a 40 yard ball directly to a teammate, the ability speed the game up or slow the game down when called for and many other things. I've seen thousands of "skilled" players that can't trap a ball properly or play a 20 yard pass. Skill goes way beyond the ability to beat a man.
Well there is nothing that is really going to turn average into superstar, but the very special players are typically highly motivated to improve and waiting until the next “supervised” practice to work in groups is not going to be enough. I’ve heard stories that Landon Donovan would carry around a soccer ball everywhere he’d go. He’d juggle it like a Hacky Sack or dribble the ball down the sidewalk on his way home. If he happened to walk by a field with a group of Hispanic players playing soccer he’d ask to join in. He was 100% a soccer junky. I recently watched the Diego Maradona documentary and I noticed that when he was warming up he’d juggle the ball behind him on the back of his left heel. There is no way a soccer coach taught him to do that, there is no use for that skill in a soccer game but it’s something he messed around with to get himself comfortable with his touch. Do you think LeBron James or Michael Jordan only dribbled and shot basket balls at practice? Tom Brady only throws balls in front of coaches? If we think that all we have to do is execute better to be elite we are kidding ourselves. Players have to be motivated to improve their skill set away from practice so time spent in front of coaches can be used for tactical training instead of basic technical skills. If a kid can’t control a ball before it goes out of bounds than any tactical training you give him is wasted time.
My point is, playing on your own is pretty much a prerequisite for great players. The ones that want to do it will always do it, but telling people it’s a requirement to be great makes it “not on their own.”
Then perhaps the players should answer a questionnaire before they join a DA team. Do you watch any soccer on TV? [no] Do you play soccer away from practice with your friends or family? [no] Hmmm.... I think we have a nice rec team for you to play on.
Oscar Pareja told me he did that too. And couldn't understand why all players didn't. Not sure coaches can force a kid to be a soccer junky but possibly by informing them of players and teams to watch they might get them to self motivate. It will always be a small number of kids that do that in any sport.
I think this is a good discussion. At the risk of going off the topic of this thread, I will add one last thing. As I mentioned above, these things have to happen organically and with the players own free will to do so. That doesn't mean we can't lightly nudge players in a certain direction, but if it is forced, the benefit won't be completely realized. I also think being a soccer junky can take on many different looks. You may have the kid that goes in the back yard and juggles golf balls and becomes a tricky little winger that is great at creating. You may have a kid that would rather watch thousands of hours of games on TV that becomes a #8 or #6 that has extraordinary decision making. You may have CBs that go to the park and hit long balls with a partner that becomes a great passer from the back. I guess what I am saying is there isn't any set blueprint that is going to produce the next star. There are so many factors involved, including luck and timing. What we should wish for is that one day, we will have thousands of kids taking a genuine interest in the game outside of structured trainings and matches. When this happens, we then need to ability to properly identify and merge the different talents into one successful NT.
What we lack is getting opportunity for players to play in an organic environment. Something that Larry Bird and others did in basketball. Bird played street ball with the hospital orderlies while growing up in his hometown and was able to develop against older, stronger, craftier players. And when he enrolled in IU under Bobby Knight, he was not a fit for Knight, but was for the hall of fame. Playing in Mexican Sunday leagues is a similar experience, but for how long before a kid transfers into a structured league.
I've known kids that did both. played select mostly on Saturday's and Mexican men's league on Sundays. One got a college scholarship to a small school in the Midwest somewhere. He struggled playing for a school that probably had less attendance than his club team. I hear he's a good chef now.
Pirlo, Sneijder, Xavi, Iniesta, Fabregas, Busquets .... It's true that selection bias for early developers is a problem everywhere, but IMO (1) It is a bigger problem in the US b/c we have less coaches with the expertise to actually assess talent and long term potential; and (2) many European Academies do take developmental age into account when assessing players. For example take this quote from an academy coach from Sporting Lisbon CP: "After witnessing an Under-16 player fail to control three 20-yard passes in a row just minutes after he had beaten three opponents and finished from 25 yards, I joke with Miranda that I cannot work out if he is the best or worst player I have ever seen. “He’s gone,” says Miranda with a cutting frown. “Look at his skin. Look at his legs. He’s finished. I’m serious. We do physical examinations on the boys every three months. This boy isn’t at the levels he needs to be and he’s finished maturing. We check players’ skin for acne, knees and other joints for growth.” “If a player isn’t performing at the standard we require for their age and their body has stopped developing, then we will release them. We prefer skinny, awkward teens to the finished product at 15." https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...orting-lisbon-academy-ronaldo-figo-ballon-dor
Definitely. These clubs first and foremost are looking out for the interests of their employers. That doesn't mean the players are screwed. Top talent, and developing it, is in everyone's interest. Interesting debate about the early versus late bloomers and who gets the nod. In my own experience at the U14 level, now seeing a few boys physically at possibly the peak of their development, dominating. And like the Sporting Lisbon coach cited above, we, some of us anyway, wonder how much upside is left in their development? My kid's growing, but he's still far from physically mature, which we see as a plus, figuring he could still be stronger and faster in the future. On the other hand, kids that are struggling to physically grow and mature, but have the necessary skill set, are a bit of a quandary. We have a boy on the team who is very quick with the ball, but hasn't grown at all in about four years. He is now struggling in the games against not only the bigger guys, but the normal one for that age. He's facing injury issues as he pushes himself to keep up. Wondering whether he will be able to overcome all that wear and tear. But, it would take an extra special coach to turn down the big, strong 15-year-old blowing by and shrugging off all comers. In a few years, it will probably be a different story, as others finally catch up. Ultimately, there is little risk, however, for the club either way.....
The country-level solution to this is scale. It's not to rely on individual coaches to realize which early developer hasn't peaked or which smaller, skilled player will bloom into an athlete, it's to simply have enough quality coaching that larger volumes of players can still be served so that every player gets a chance to play out with good coaching and competition. The US simply doesn't have that yet. We have an underdeveloped national network, and we have a huge country with a population that divides itself amongst many sports. The latter we can't really do anything about except encourage more kids to play the sport. The former is slowly happening. But slowly. In addition to helping the pro academies build and grow, the USSF could also actually work on accessible and effective coaching education instead of whatever weird focus they have now.
Jesus Ferreira was in a ton of US camps before he was formally naturalized. There are other examples as well. So, yes, I’d say.
Generally speaking, as long as they're not appearing in official international matches, it doesn't seem to be an issue. With that said, I have no idea whether U.S. Soccer has some kind of rules written down in pen on this.