I'm not advocating anything. Gentleman asked a question about college soccer based on style of play, I answered a question about college soccer based on style of play. He didn't ask who had (first and foremost) the best engineering program; that was added later, appropriately. Lots of other folks answering questions he didn't ask, and making pointed unrelated comments. Not unlike yourself.
I'm still confused on how Barcelona is anything remotely resembling the "less athletic/slower" description your giving to them Pulaski. Like are you even from this planet?
I guess I am of the mindset that it's better to answer the question in a way that will best help the student-athlete rather then answer the specific question that, in the long run, will not best help the student-athlete. Think big picture not small picture.
Some other people have made similar points about Barcelona, e.g., this site … http://footballspeak.com/post/2011/10/14/How-to-beat-FC-Barcelona-.aspx ... has a post about how to beat Barcelona, which includes the following excerpts on Barcelona’s “weaknesses,” which the writer claims include “pace,” “relatively small in height,” and “lack of physical presence” (relative weaknesses, for sure, I would say) … here are the excerpts: "Pace: As mentioned, one of Barcelona's weaknesses, especially in defense, is pace. The previous point spoke about counter-attacking football, and the best way to implement this is with speed merchants like Walcott, Ronaldo or Pato. On the break, Barcelona can easily be penetrated, especially with pace, as demonstrated by Theo Walcott when Arsenal and Barcelona met in 2010. Opposition team can either start with these fast players or bring on these fast players on as substitute trump cards, to outrun all the tired players on the pitch and cause attacking threats. Another brilliant example of pace being used against Barcelona, however not on the counter-attack, is AC Milan's Alexandre Pato and his recent goal against Barcelona in the Nou Camp. Height advantage: One aspect of Barcelona's game, many teams don't exploit is their size. Most of the Barcelona's players are relatively small and lack physical presence. This can be easily exploited during free kicks or corners - excluding Pique or Busquets, there really isn't any Barcelona player with a height advantage which can prevent attacking threats during set-pieces so opposition teams, like AC Milan have done, must use their players' physical presence to their advantage." End excerpts. I wouldn’t put it these exact terms myself, but this sort of critique of Barcelona is certainly out there …
I can tell you that their number 10 doesn't lack pace. Having a veteran central defender, who is the captain of the team but is a step slower than forwards is nothing new for any team. They other one is 6'4" so if he were blazing fast it would almost be unfair. Don't have to defend set pieces when you have the ball the whole time and it doesn't hurt when your two center backs are studs who are great in the air. There is nothing slow about Messi, Iniesta, David Villa. There is nothing small about Pique. Almost the old Brazillian model where you can have some smurfs running around but you better have some horses at center back.
Good points ... but like I said, other folks besides the guy who started this thread have suggested Barcelona are not as big, strong and fast combined cas some other top sides. Seemingly true to a degree in comparison to some other top teams, but as you also said it that doesn't matter much if your skills mean you have the ball for the vast majority of the game ... obviously.
I'm sorry but Nazareth College most certainly does not play anything close to a "barcelona style". They are usually big, physical, heavy english influence (both players and coaches) and are very reliant on set pieces and defending. Whoever gave you that idea about Nazareth is high.
Im not sure why any of the posters believe that the beautiful game is played at the 5/6th level of european soccer. At that level it is much more about the physical side of the game and getting results.
Im sorry but I just had a nice laugh at this. Who is giving you this information about the schools that play "beautiful" soccer? Because you would not be saying Bradley played beautiful soccer if you have ever seen one of their games. They play with a sweeper that sits behind the rest of the team by 20 yards and no this is not an exaggeration. They then kick the ball to the other team and try to use their high pressure and physicality to win the ball back deep in the other teams end. Granted, the system works for them because they have made it to the NCAA tournament two years in a row now, but when it comes to playing beautiful soccer, that is the wrong place to look.
Not to mention that, on a results basis, Bradley's "beauty" (sic) should be comparable to UW-GB and South Carolina (Bradley drew with both), and UMass, Memphis, Drake, Creighton and Louisville would be more "beautiful" (all Bradley losses) - particularly Creighton, who won that beauty contest twice last season. That said, I've never, in 25+ years, heard anyone (who actually knew anything) describe Bradley soccer as "beautiful". Effective, maybe...but never beautiful.
You might be onto something here. Without getting into the relative merits of lower-division soccer vs. American colleges, if what's most important to your son is playing soccer, maybe spending four years pursuing an advanced education is not what he should be doing. I advise people who say they want to play soccer full-time to start doing exactly that the moment they are certain it's what they actually want. If your son is not sure, college would seem like an excellent choice.
I have seen a lot of MVC games and some of Bradley's games over the last few years. Not all the way to beautiful but some skill at midfield has been a trait that has been able to get the ball up to Gaul. The sweeper situation seemed to be out of necessity with some injury problems on the back line at the end of the year which did seem to work with their man marking in the back. Not beautiful but teams did not know how to handle it. Creighton won two, one goal games to them this last year, but lost two to Bradley the year before year. BTW Creighton's formula seems to be a great back line (four MLS defenders in last three years, great for Holt) that pop long balls down to Finley for 1v1 matchups then mids & forwards pressing when ball gets turned over.
Here is some nice work by Penn State vs. St. John's in a spring scrimmage today: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=735527994166
You can attempt to take away the credibility my info, but you need to realize he wants Barcelona. When under pressure they bring the ball wide and go foreward to lessen the danger. Also try to tell me with a straight face that Barcelona's entire defence is not based off of rediculous high pressure until the other team gives up. First touch is right thank God someone else actually sees something. Everyone needs to relax as all the colleges I suggested are not an exact replica of Barcelona. To be honest there is nothing on this earth that is like them, to be honest the closest thing at the moment is Roma and you all saw how far that got them. The best of all is you got a "laugh" out of what I posted, but you are a keeper. Is it not true keepers are supposed to see the game? Not being hostile, but you question my response when in fact every one of those schools has aspects that fit the Barcelona style. If you really want a team that literally focuses on possesion as the number one goal the only school that I personally know is Louisville. During my trial there (during a summer camp I know the rules for NCAA) I was constantly yelled at for losing possession. They prefer you playing negative (playing back) just to keep the ball. On my phone sorry for any mistakes
You are right as a gk I am supposed to see the whole field. As I already said the style of play of Bradley is not ineffective since they have made the tournament the last couple years. I just have a hard time grasping how you are saying they attempt to play like barca. Just because a team is high pressure and tries to keep posession does not mean they are playing a barcelona style of play. You mentioned how you were yelled at when at louisville because they wanted you to play negative in order to keep possession; I am pretty sure thats how it is at most colleges. Its not club anymore when if you are under pressure you just kick the ball away. What seperates players is who can play out of this pressure and keep the ball for their team. And most good college programs attempt to do this.
You can't employ "O Jogo Bonito" in the colleges for many reasons. For starters, players even though may be good enough to play a certain way are coming from all different styles and backgrounds and thrown together all at once and then you have many graduating players and entire teams gone the very next year. Secondly, coaches don't have time to teach these players this type of play during the season because the season is too short. How can you start playing a certain way when you are together at best, a total of 20 games in 10 weeks? I mean you have most programs playing 20 games from September until early November and they usually play on Friday and Sunday with Saturday's and Monday's off. This coupled with the fact that most players have to attend classes, study and take exams, I mean how can they possibly have time to play the beautiful game?
You really frustrate me.... I'm going to say this as polite as possible. Why is Xavi, Iniesta, Bouquets, Scholes, Cleverly, and Pogba so desired and held within such a high esteem? They very rarely play negatively and when they do they create more space in doing so (moving off the ball). Louisville's focus is to hold the ball until the 80th minute and then shove it down the opponents throat as they are now dog tired. Playing under "pressure" is something anyone who wants to play competitively should have been exposed to at age 14, at least. Playing negative is a sure dumb found way to destroy chances. The players I listed above are the ones who find the "ball" out of nothing and sometimes a ball that was "launched" up the field in reality was a ball that should have been picked up. These "launched" ball also sometimes are meant to be given to the other team to add pressure on them. Not every school focuses on "possession". The majority of schools that are competitive find themselves having it because the quality of players are higher. You seem to expect all higher level teams put keeping the ball as the main priority, but in reality even good teams will be forced to throw that game plan out of the window. Good college programs get players who are all at a standard level, but have something that will mix well and stands out. U.A.B is an example of this. They took a freshman (in College), Norris House (good friend of mine), and started him as a defensive mid (last year). He is the most athletic kid in the world and averages a passing rate of 80% (during his academy seasons and first 4 games in college). By the end of the year he was down to 40% because they made him play the ball higher up the field (long ball) in an attempt to keep possession on the opponents third of the field. Even though their star players stats went down and they didn't have the ball as much they played better. The team this year went to the play offs and did fairly well considering what they have done in the past. What I am trying to say is that possession is not a focus and playing negative is a sure way for coach's to cross you of the list. Playing negative leads to the keeper booming the ball (usually) and no offense to your profession, but this leads to a shit storm in midfield. The fact that you knock on club soccer amazes me. Club programs have single handedly made the Academy program shine and even become a possibility. You should respect what has made the beautiful game become a respected sport in the U.S. If you really think that there is never a time when "booting" the ball is ok then your team mine as well be Barca. You are a keeper, your job half the time is to kick the ball off of goal kicks, free kicks, and pass backs this is "booting" the ball. Also do not even try to say you kick it to a teammate as there is only one or two keepers that come to my head that even are capable at attempting that. P.S Alabama at Huntsville and Montevollo are both good schools with good programs not "Barca", but play a good game.
I am not disrespecting youth soccer, I am well aware of its role in making soccer become more and more respected and popular throughout the country. Clearly there is a time when you have to boot the ball, I figured that just went without saying but I guess not. Its when you make this your game plan is when I have a problem with it. I also cannot understand why you insist that playing negative is not effective and that you should just rather kick it away. What does that benefit? Have you never watched a professional game? If they feel like they need to pull the ball back and play it back to the defense and work it around again to regroup then they do so! It happens ALL the time, and yes long passes are made up front but its with a purpose and with a target in mind, not just to kick the ball up there because they don't want to possess it anymore haha I am in awe that you think it is not a good idea to keep the ball and play it negatively and that you would rather just kick it somewhere.
So how do national teams do it since players are coming from teams in different leagues with different styles and are only together for a few practices?
Very few national teams play that way. There simply isn't enough time to employ a certain strategy when you are together 5 times a year. I mean by the time most national teams are assembled, they should be ready to play whichever way they are asked. I've actually never seen many national teams play that way at all and I've been watching the game for 35 years. You have Argentina who even though has Messi doesn't play like Barca and they don't have the cohesion of that club has and I doubt they will. Same with many others also. It took Spain 80 years to have a national team worth anything starting with GK Ricardo Zamorra in the 1930's but then their clubs simply dominated Europe from the 1960's onward. Brazil won with Pele' , then they hadn't won in 34 years until after Pele' retired but even then they have had trouble bringing all their players together. England has a great EPL league yet their national team is undesirable in my opinion and I've never been impressed watching them. Forget about Italy as they never had a national team worth watching. Yes they've won World Cups but no one cares about their national teams until they come together a few times year. If you notice when Italy wins most tournaments, they start out slowly and gain momentum and improve the more they are together and the further they progress. France did well in the mid 80's and late 90's & 06 only because of two men, Platini and Zidane. Sure they had other players too but those two made a difference on the national team but they've never IMHO played great ball, at least not as good as their players are in club ball. Germany plays technically sound football as a collective unit but in all the years I've watched them play, I've never saw an individual player play like a Kaka, Maradona, Messi or a Ronaldo. They are great players and have a great team don't get me wrong but they don't have that jogo bonito style. Still you can not compare top national teams like Brazil, Italy, Germany, France or anyone else for that matter to the NCAA college program as they are two completely different animals. If there are national teams who play this way when brought together,its only because they are dealing with multi million dollar athletes who do nothing other than play professional soccer in top leagues around the world on a weekly and/or daily basis. You don't have amateur teams like Akron playing Creighton and no one is worrying about their math test on Monday or cramming for a paper that is due on Tuesday. There is simply no comparison.
Given the fact that caleb porter tries to coach that style at akron do you think that it will have a negative effect on U23 team? QAfterall can't expect a team to play that style right out of the gate.
Well said and very good points falvo. Also many of the players brought into national camps have played together at some point, be it on other national teams, national camps or some sort of regional team/camp. Where as college has two weeks of pre-season to prepare for a condensed season and intergrate freshman and transfers into the mix. Much of the two weeks is conditioning and preparing for early season travel when most tournaments are scheduled... and oh yeah the players other full time job is starting... classes. I agree with most good colleges (like Creighton, Northwestern, Duke, Bradley, Harvard, Stanford...) have their team cramming for the Monday math test, but Caleb doesn't have to worry about players coming to Akron for and education, so he will have them cramming Monday for the next game in the video room.
If he's realistically not good enough to play professional after college, I'd worry about what his academic interests are, then pick schools based on that. From there pick which team you like best.