THIS. Street soccer is necessary but probably overrated. If we develop fans, we will stand a better chance of developing players. The sort of player who idolizes the striker of his local MLS team, wants to play overseas when he turns 18, breathes red white and blue when the USA plays. Someone in another thread noted that if you find soccer gear at a sporting goods store, you're more likely to find shirts of Man Utd, Chelsea, Barcelona, Mexico or Brazil than the USA. I went to a bar to watch USA-Ghana and only 3 of us, out of maybe 50, had any USA gear at all. Not that they were bad people for watching the game without an appropriate shirt or anything, but can you imagine the same thing happening at a bar in Mexico or Germany or Argentina? It's getting better. This WC and every past one has raised interest. And it's the kids who are fans as well as players who will develop that drive, that dream, to become world class.
^. I would be very interested to know whether there is a measurable upswing in player registrations and/or attendances in the season/year after a WC as a direct result of the increased visibility of soccer in those years. Honestly, I feel like the impact is relatively negligible but I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise.
I noticed several posters were insulting and made ridiculous accusations of trolling against me here. I have ignored them because i'm not here to play childish games with children.
There were a bunch, plus a lot of other US soccer gear. Almost as many as Colombia and Brazil jerseys, which of course sounds weird except that they had just had a game a couple of hours earlier. Every time I went to see a US WC game this time except once, the majority were wearing US soccer gear (and that was a couple hundred people at a time). The most common by far were the new bomb pop jerseys, which leads me to believe that most of those people were new. I don't know what it's like all around the country, though.
I'd argue we'll be more likely to win a WC when fans, coaches and the country at large start recognizing success in footy isn't about athleticism and turning Lebron into a CB but rather developing touch and skill on the ball. We'd improve quicker as a nation if the word "athleticism" was banned from being used in conjunction with this sport. But just wait until the next MLS draft, we're going to hear about how athletic this prospect or that prospect is. It's backwards.
yes, skill is #1. But when kids start playing soccer first and watching soccer first rather than second, they will be playing it hours a day for FUN. That's when the clock strikes midnight and skill develops. Kids will play at breakfast, they'll play at lunch, and they'll beg their parents to let them play through dinner. This is what happens on every street in Europe, in South America, etc..
The majority of the best young players I've ever seen are the kids who are naturally very energetic, hyper kids who always want to play. The kids who get tons of touches a week because they can't get enough. I believe the single greatest ingredient of "talent" and the greatest predictor of future potential as a kid is "just goes nuts playing with the damn ball to the point that you have to tell him to knock it off."
The youth system is set up in the wrong way as well. Most youth teams are for profit organizations set up to make money, in fact even the grassroots programs from MLS clubs like the Red Bulls here in NY for example, they are there just to bring income to the club. Vast majority of the kids have absolutely no prospect of even being good enough for pick up games. This is where the USSF should step in and stop this practice of youth players having to pay ridiculous amounts of money to play in youth teams, especially for MLS clubs. The college system does not help either, the level of play is very poor for the age group involved, that is 4 years of lost experience skill and so much more lost because of a system that just does not work in soccer.
Growing up in a foreign area, I saw plenty of children playing football as if it were their life. I played too, but I didn't have the level of dedication as some to the game. Some children would play for hours and hours, and never come back home. This was a time and place where kids were allowed to roam free at young ages due to the safety of the area. Then again, they didn't have the things they have now to amuse them like the internet. this was the stoneage. but still, i'm sure that this still goes on today in these soccer mad nations. This needs to happen here, whether it be in the academies or at home, it has to be done for us to win the world cup. German imports won't get us there. We need a whole team of superior players built from the grass roots. A new culture of soccer mad kids needs to be spawned by soccer mad MLS and EPL loving parents. It will take a while before the parents are formed, let alone the kids. I'd say the generation in their childhood years now will be the generation that will spawn the kids that will be the world cup stars of the future. This is because the MLS will reach a high enough level by the time these children become young adults to capture their attention and dollars. Right now these kids are still not hooked by soccer, its still too raw here in the US. Too few parents in this country are soccer focused, in a serious level yet. MLS is still too young and niche. Only some current kids may latch on with the MLS in its current infancy and the USMNT world cup runs. However, most won't, it's still a niche sport here. However, their kids will be hooked from young ages, think 5 and 6 years old as MLS will by that time be a heavy hitting sport in this country having caught on with the parents.
Igli, you could not be more right with your assessment of the damage caused by the pay for play model in comp soccer. It hurts because: a) it reduces accessibility to the sport for those without the financial means to shell out a few hundred bucks a month. A lot of talent is effectively priced out of the sport. b) it goes against the ethos of the sport, that is that it is a sport for all regardless of socio-economic status, race or any other specific demographic. The pay for play model is a gravy train for club administrators and coaches and is once again indicative that youth soccer is driven by the ambitions of the adults rather than the needs of the kids.
The only thing not having pay to play does is expand the pool of players. But there are millions of kids in the system now. More than enough. You can add millions more by making it cheaper, but guess what? They won't get better coaching. And who is going to pay for these kids to play if their parents can't? Someone somewhere has to pay. It's not going to be taxpayers. It can only be mls clubs, unless USSF wants to start funding soccer clubs.
I live in a white suburban neighborhood in a Mid-Atlantic state. The kid next door has a little soccer field in his backyard with small goals and his friends come over all the time to play 2v2 and 3v3 games. The kid down the street has the same in his front yard. The kid across the street plays baseball and I've never seen him oin his yard at all. The average kid IS doing it.
You are pricing talent out of the sport though, that is the problem. It's not about having vast numbers of kids playing the game, as is the US has more registered youth soccer players than any country on earth, orders of magnitude more than say, the Netherlands. It's about the sport having access to the best talent not just little rich kids.
Some of these prodigies we hear of may play some street soccer but when it is recognized they are gifted, they are off to some sort of camp or some club's system. That must be at a very young age.
Those are the kinds of athletes a country like Brazil seems to have. Say compare Allen Iverson to a Ronaldinho type. But in turn, Brazil has also produced Pele, Kaka and Neymar so it is definitely a mixed signal as to what the physical attributes mean and then one can compare that to say Argentina and the players Argentina has produced. So it seems to appear that soccer still is the game that is more universal for all persons, both Pele and Maradona were something like 5'8" and 5'5", not big men yet about the 2 most famous soccer players there are in regards to more modern times at least.
There is more than enough talent in the system now to work with. The development system is not good enough.
Some people say Soccer favors smaller or maybe shorter men, I don't buy that straight up. I do see the closer to the ball, lower center of gravity angle and you could say Messi at 5'6" can display that. It's not an absolute but I do think it could come into play at times. Still, Ronaldo is 6'1". Though once you are real tall like Lebron James, I once had a tall person 6'7" that it was difficult for him to play soccer though he loved it. That said, I am aware there are some very tall soccer players. Serbia or Montenegro had one. Peter Crouch another example. Perhaps the exception and not the rule though players in the MLS and Premier League certainly are not lacking in height.