Wow!!! I knew there was a problem in coaching but, if that record is true, then it is clear that the coach has effectively learned how to lead players direct into losses. Few coaches have records that bad so the USSF must have really put on a deep search to find that one. Maybe we could move Snow up to the men's senior team. It would be a step up there but Snow is not suitable for the girls. They need to be taught how to use their skills, gain new skills and how to use those skills to win matches. What they seem to have been taught is how to misuse their skills in order to learn how to lose. Winning is not everything at this level BUT it is important and this is totally unacceptable for a coach to have this team so badly prepared and not at all ready to really play every game to try to put their best effort forward. I know of a Soccer mom that is coaching her daughter's U10 team that would have the girls better prepared than what I saw from these girls in this tournament. The US girls deserve MUCH better than what they are getting.
True. It was perplexing that they put their best player in the game in the second half and the play dropped dramatically. BUT, just because you dominate play does not mean you really played well. For a lot of the time even in the first half it looked like the US was trying to find a way to fail spectacularly. I think the girls just had no idea how to really play with aggression and the had no real instinct to win.
It really does not matter who the coach is, they failed and have failed all the Uxx age groups since the beginning of the Uxx women and girls playing at the international level or at least for the last 10-12 years. The fact that our women's/girl's Uxx teams have done so badly at the international level but then turn around and does quite well at the senior level says that someone or many someones are failing the kids and failing them big time. The talent is clearly there with the players but it seems the coaches are only in it for the easy paycheck.
Carr had a ton of key injuries to deal with. This u17 group's overall performance through their run up has to be considered when evaluating him. These kids and coaches worked hard with a ton of prep for this cycle. Not fair at all to conclude coaches were only in it for a paycheck.
Didn't see the game but not sure how you can "dominate" a game and not play well--those terms tend to be mutually exclusive, unless your opponent is just terrible, and that doesn't usually apply to German teams. The Germans scored three goals on corners, yes, which suggests that the U.S. set-piece defense was bad; maybe in that sense they were not aggressive.
Dominating play does not mean finishing or marking correctly on set pieces. The US in every match they played failed to perform the fundamentals of team defense and they did not ever really get physical when it was required. It is not at all unusual that you out possess a team and even out shoot them but you get beaten because you fail at one fundamental or another. Playing well means you are better at what you need to do to win, that the US did not do. All their shots and time of possession was pretty much meaningless. You also need to watch the game. The Germans did not score three goals off corners, that was North Korea. The First German goal was off a very well taken free kick and a mistake in positioning by the US goalkeeper and at least two of the others were off counters in the run of play. I do not think even one was off a corner.
YUCK! What a terrible team and even dumber coach!! We have like 4 or 5 of these players committed to UCLA. They are most definitely all riding the bench because no way is Sunshine Fontes starting for us if she plays the way she did at this WC. Similarly with Fishel's predictable far post corner kicks that went nowhere, that's not happening at UCLA. At this moment, I don't want to see any of these people in a Bruins uniform anytime soon.
Henderson is referencing Carr, not Snow. He coached with ellis at ucla as assistant. He went to u of san francisco for 5 years and pulled off the quoted record before resigning. He then coached mediocre club ball for a few years while running us market centers in texas. When ellis was elevated, he became full scout, then u14 head coach, and now u17 coach. They finished last in group.
In the first half, the Americans were clearly stronger than the Germans. 1. Free kick and a counter. The game was something like that. USA has a chance to score. No goal Germany has the ball, 10 seconds later USA has the ball. USA has a chance to score. No goal. Germany has the ball, 5 seconds later, Germany has lost the ball. USA has the ball. USA has a chance to score. No goal. The US has played very aggressively. They have always put the Germans under pressure. Of course they had to run a lot for that. Then you have to score goals because someday the condition is gone.
if the national program is anything like the ODP, than obviously their going to run into problems/ If you don't know, the ODP is suppose to try & bring the best players together in each state. But let's say your kid makes the team, then depending where their headquartered, (for example)you got to make the 200 miles ride for each practice, hundreds more for when you finally start playing other states ODP teams. ......and remember too; our youth don't play FIFA ball over here, but American ball; unlimited subs all the way into college, backwards clock, silly sit down rule(till at least next dead ball) on yellow cards, slide tacklin, banned in my state & so on. what they should do is just let whoever wins the ECLN u17 championship, represent the US. The chemistry is all ready there, as well the talent, as I've written on other threads hoe the one select team, DeAnza Force 98, went over to Europe & won against the academy squads of some of the top pro clubs around(DeAnza Force did have Tiena Davidson as well as other that currently playing for Stanford)
A case could be made the decline of USYNT started with a rise of ECNL. 2008 was the year u17s did well in this competition....ecnl started in 09 and we have performed progressively worse ever since. One semi appearance @u20 since ECNL era, but it's largely been the same trajectory. ECNL and DA are closed systems that might help colleges recruit better players, but don't create the same competitive cauldron as the "win or go home" / "all teams have equal access" era prior to ECNL. Nearly all major contributors on our SR team grew up in the old system. Very few pure ECNL players have made any impact. Open up the top level and allow all clubs to compete on a level playing field (as they did before ECNL). Battle tested talent that can perform under pressure will rise to the top. Young coaches with better ability to nurture effective styles of play would have access without necessarily needing to consolidate into the big clubs. ECNL (and DA) have concentrated youth soccer into the hands of a small group of clubs and coaches. The same group had significant power before, but they had to compete to retain it. Today it's structurally enforced. I agree a true U17 National champion could represent better at a youth world cup than the current USSF approach, but in today's fragmented youth market, no legitimate national championship exists.
One of the dumbest posts I have ever read on this forum. ECNL has brought talent together to better develop our youth. Without it you would never have the young talent called into the wnt. Pugh, Davidson Fox and many more to come. ODP is a complete fail. Without ECNL most of these kids would be wallowing with subpar talent on a local club team that no one has ever heard of
I agree about ECNL: It's been /good/ for women's soccer in America--very good, I'd say. We have a /lot/ of good/very good young players, but chemistry might be an issue with our youth NTs, and there are simply a lot of good youth NTs around the world. I've never been one to think that the U.S. should, or can, dominate every tournament. It is unrealistic.
I don't know about dumbest...unpopular maybe. Of the names you mentioned, Pugh is the only one who has made a significant impact on the full team. Her club Real Colorado was a power before ECNL. She played high school, USYS soccer and against boys in addition to ECNL. It's a stretch to say she wouldn't have had the same opportunities in the pre-ecnl era. And this has nothing to do with ODP. It's about entry requirements of the top competitive level in youth soccer. Before ECNL, teams were forced to consolidate talent. You couldn't attend top showcases if you weren't a great team (with results to prove it). You couldn't make regionals without winning at the state level. You didn't play in nationals without being one of the best in your region. ECNL came along with a closed system and guaranteed its member teams access to college coaches, regardless of TEAM quality. Yes, good players on marginal teams are more easily identified. But talent is more dispersed across all the member clubs in each market. Great players competing for minutes on truly stacked teams is becoming a rarity now that DA, ECNL, USYS and US Club competitions litter the youth landscape. It may be an unpopular opinion, but where is the evidence ECNL or DA has been a step in the right direction for anything other than creating more parity in college soccer? It's difficult to believe our YNT teams falling off a cliff since the rise of ECNL is only about bad YNT coaches and the rest of world catching up.
I actually think the deterioration of the women's/girl's programs retaliative to the rest of the world at the youth level is symptomatic of our adults trying to control the play of the kids too much and the stupid political competition between adults in the youth system(s). I know of at least two prospects that dropped out of soccer because, to quote one of them, "the coaches have taken the fun out of playing soccer." I do not know what would be better but I would suggest that competing organizations, as they currently are, serve only to satisfy and serve the adults. Kids are only there for the gains they can provide to the adults. I think one organization truly aimed at helping the kids would be ideal. But that would have to somehow be opened to all players at all economic levels and ethnic backgrounds. It is unfortunate that any organization is even required because every time most adults involve themselves in kids play the kids suffer to some extent. That may be why some smaller nations have better/more successful youth programs. There are fewer adults involved and there is only on group in charge of youth development so the energy the adults expend in political fighting that does not benefit the kids is minimized. As I, and some others, have said before, "The only thing wrong with youth sports in the US is the adults."
well since North Korea has best record in u17 girls World Cup history, do you think Uncle Kim gives his girls all the freedom to be developed on their own? Germany spanked us 4-0, but do you think it was done without adult supervision? Or is it more that several of their squad are all ready playing pro ball in the 1st Division Bundersliga?(if you checked their roster, you'll find out) but the winningest formula at this age group is drum rolls please.........High School! A lot of country's fund their own all year round boarding schools where the major curriculum is to eat, live, breath soccer(math & reading are secondary classes). You got be very good to be chosen, but that's why use see Asian & African do well out there. Even a rich, capitalist country like Australia has it's federally funded Sports Institute(though that's for multi sports & gets funded as well from the richer sports federations) Living in the South, I only know of Florida that has various sports boarding school types, but their for profit & cost a small fortune but I hear ya when you say more kids should go to their local park & play more pick up games among themselves. But unlike basketball. somehow soccer never got indebted that way in American culture and fat chance it will since now soccer academies for 2 year olds seems to be the newest rage!
If you watch a decent amount of GDA, you will see the teams being forced (I suppose by US Soccer?) to all play a similar style and formation, largely focused around having the defenders pass the ball around, eventually trying to advance and turning it over, then have the other team's defenders pass the ball around. Coaches claim they are teaching technical skills, parents buy it, and the truth is not revealed until the U20s are knocked out in the group stage, and now the U17s. The creation of GDA has taken the girls youth game backwards.
I think the confusion is that Snow coached the last U17 (or U20?) team that did not advance out of the group stage, but was still retained on the US Soccer staff. Maybe he is coaching the U23s now? Will be interesting to see what happens to Carr after this disaster.
too much hand wringing? this kind of outcome has been predicted on these boards by several posters. germany's girls play on pro teams. spain's girls do as well. the rest of the world is just paying attention, and it's their game like basketball is ours. more importantly, the u.s. was in the group of death!! and youth play is really very unpredictable!! witness, mexico is in the final, and canada is in the 3rd place game....these are teams we beat consistently.
If this was a one tournament or one youth team issue then it would be easier to remain philosophical. However the performance concerns transcend various teams in recent years. I am also of the opinion that there are valid concerns and questions that cannot be adequately accounted for or explained away by the global development of the game and/or tough tournament draws. Now for the admittedly subjective bit. In a sense it is unfair and problematic to compare recent teams to those that came along a decade before. But the eyeball analysis to me shows that recent teams demonstrate poorer organization, less flexibility in tactics, and worryingly less confidence on the ball...which translates to tentativeness. You may counter well the opponents are tougher now than the weaker opponents in the past which flatter their predecessors. But I don't think it explains differences that I'm observing and some concerning trends. Namely because I've been re-watching past teams and noticing that overall the players approach and decision making is largely different than today. So yes you can parse out any possible discrepancies caused by assumed broad global progression. Whatever ability or skill differences may or may not exist the choices and composure of the players is different. This is true even when factoring in conjectured or theoretical differences in the speed of the game or the skill of the opponents. A few marked differences I've observed: The players are more reluctant to even attempt to beat players one on one. Many players on each part of the field panic at pressure more easily (ie they need a larger cushion of space). They're more likely to look around for a safety valve or relief than to get themselves out of trouble. They show less patience. Meaning for example players more often shoot low percentage shots rather than hold for players making runs. This is true even when the retreating defender is playing off the ball handler, giving them time. Whatever about showing less sophistication but I certainly noticed that they do play more predictably than teams even just six or seven years ago. I know where the ball is going earlier and can project the choices the players will make more often. From the POV of the opponent it's easier to diagnose and stifle not only a US foray or counter, but to severely limit if not neutralize US possessions from the back. I would be concerned that in certain areas that they're doing worse than stagnating, they're regressing. Don't allow the progress of the game globally to conceal ongoing issues with US soccer development, staffing, approach, and implementation. It would also be a bit of hubris to give a Gallic shrug and comfort ourselves that deficiencies within the youth team structure and US Soccer development won't matter in the bigger picture because of the scale and size of the US.
interesting. i see increased confidence on the ball. but so is the opposition. and now they don’t give us as much space. they’re not ssccuurred! previous u.s. teams never consistently held , controlled, and passed the ball out and around the opposition when being pressed near their own goal. they just got rid of it as quickly as possible, and our speed and athleticism up front took over. we don’t select for speed anymore. our girls are definitely now more footballer than athlete. we started going to world cups without any speedsters up front who scared defenders out of their boots in around 2014, when horan! slowpoke horan!! was our best forward. (that was a good move, btw. horan is an excellent footballer) The last time we did well, we had ohai up front, making defenders quake every time she got the ball. and the last time we won before that, we had syd AND alex up front scaring defenders in their tracks. so, we don’t have the speed/athletic edge we used to have, and the other teams are faster and more athletic at closing us down and getting behind us. add to that they have century old soccer systems with better coaches….its good that real soccer cultures are paying attention to the women’s game. we will just have to fight smarter, harder, better to stay on top on the senior level where it all counts. but woso is gettting better. like i said we have to fight smarter, harder, better.
Mexico lost to Spain 2-1, another good youth performance for Spain and a feather in the cap for Mexico. Quite a surprise.