What about the coaches? If the coaches are the same people who have coached English youth football for the past 30 years, the same thing that has happened here in the US will happen there: little appreciable difference will be achieved. Every youth coach in each country, I think, is willing to make changes in youth development and has been for many years up until the point where he has to give his job to somebody else. At that point the plan understandingly meets insurmountable resistance. They all care about the sport and the development of the sport in their country. They just care about their job more. Nothing wrong with that. But I think "give his job to somebody else" is probably the most critical part of a successful plan. A bad math teacher doesn't become a good one by changing textbooks...
i'm more pessimistic about youth development in America. Because we know what works but our sport culture is structured in a way that we cannot follow the European blueprint. this is a very good article and shows what we are up against. http://theshinguardian.com/2012/06/25/player-development-in-america-toting-the-old-ball-n-chain/
I would say that these countries emphasize "ball competency". In those other countries that I mentioned earlier they emphasize "ball mastery". It's a matter of degree. In England it's more like, "Come on lads, let's push forward with pace and have a go at goal." The problem is that if you can't control the ball, the other team just takes it away from you. If you can't make a pass, you'll be watching the opponent play. Let's be honest, though. Is there a better country in front of goal than England? Their other strengths make them a competent side.
I completely disagree. Have you seen Germany play? They're every bit as masterful with the ball as every country not named Spain. I think you're making an outdated sweeping generalization. Technique is emphasized in every country not named England.
I am importing this argument from another thread, but what we should do that Spain and Germany do is work our reserve teams into the existing league system. It raises the level of play, gives it some meaning, and would get rid of the problem with games being few and far between. It also avoids the mistake that England has made with their own development system.
i think the infrastructure is there for this to happen with the PDL. Right now only Chicago Fire, Sounders, Vancouver Whitecaps, and Portland Timbers have U-23 teams in the PDL. Every MLS team should do so. The problem is not every MLS teams sees the incentive of paying for an u-23 side. http://pdl.uslsoccer.com/standings/index_E.html
Technique was emphasized at my high school team. Of course technique is emphasized in every country, even in England. That isn't saying anything. These are National Teams. And of course we are making generalizations. What else can we do? Compare every player in Europe and South America? I don't have the time for that. My post wasn't about Germany, but rather I was comparing the football cultures of Northern Europe and Southern Europe/SA while making a statement about the reasons for English failure. But since you made a statement I will answer it. No, Germany is not every bit as masterful with the ball as every country not named Spain. That's simply a fantasy. Just watching the Portugal-Germany match should have told you that. If you said that Germany has improved in this area since 2000, yes, of course I would agree. That's due in part to youth initiatives, some of which were introduced by Klinsmann. Do German players all have core competency with the ball? Yes, of course. We are talking about the highest level of football, and a very successful national team. One would never say that there is a problem in this area. Now I was using the phrase "ball mastery". That doesn't include passing or shooting, for example, which are generally put into another category. Yes, those are extremely important techniques, but not what I was talking about. "Ball mastery" is controlling the ball and dribbling. This has nothing to do with off the ball running, positional awareness, team tactics, etc. I say this just for clarity. Now I think you are German, so you are going to disagree. That's fine, but I won't buy what you're selling, so you are better off saving your keystrokes for another poster. You also mentioned Russia in your post. Russia were really nothing special in this tournament. Other than the Czech game where the Czech defense and goalkeeping were horrible, the Russians showed nothing. They were outplayed by the Poles. Even the Greeks had better control of the ball than them. I am perplexed why you would use them as an example of a team that shows ball mastery. Also, let's not confuse the totality of what a team offers with only one aspect of their footballing qualities, e.g. ball mastery. Let's also not confuse competency with excellence. Because a team is not excellent something does not mean they are terrible. There is a vast amount of territory in between those 2 extremes. Because the Russians were completely devoid of creativity and not a single player could dribble past an opposing defender, they were left having to take long, harmless shots until time ran out.
Are you kidding? Germany controlled possession (56%) completed more passes, completed a higher percentage of passes, created more chances, and drew more fouls on the dribble. By what metric did Portugal show more "ball mastery" than Germany? Germany was clearly the better team with the ball at their feet. Most people would disagree with you on that. "ball mastery" = technique It includes any skills you might use while the ball is at your feet, including passing, shooting, and dribbling. If you want to say that Portugal emphasizes dribbling, then say that, but that isn't what you originally said. With that said, how is dribbling (your definition of "ball mastery") more important than passing?Are they not equally important skills?
My two bits worth: The mexican teams have always been incredibly disciplined. That is why they beat Brazil recently. The "flair" you talk about was a Bob Bradley type "dump the ball to Donovan" move which scored their two goals. The reason Brazil didn't win was that they couldn't score any goals. The reason Mexico overtook America was that Mexico improved its living standard, including diet, which produced stronger, faster, bigger, smarter human beings. In England, football is a huge business and it bleeds over into the national team. We can avoid that fate and I agree we should. One has to wonder if we will succeed when posters here want to go the route of winning at all costs. Imagine all the immigrants from every corner of the world coming to America to play PDL football. In baseball it is limited to, say, Venezuela and Dom Rep., where they have a tradition of baseball. Now try to imagine what happens when we throw the doors open to football players. Win, win, win. That's not for me. I'd rather enjoy the sport and see it become part of the fabric of America even if we get knocked out in the quarterfinals for the next 30 years.
Oh, these English are such uncouth clods. Only if they had the divine skills of the Dutch. Then they could be going places.
the things is. You can't just say "lets develop world class players with technique" and then 10 years later you have them. You need culture. like others have said...no one is worrying about where the next great American basketball player is going to come from. We have basketball culture. Bird, Magic, Jordan, Kobe, Lebron, Durant. You get the picture. So the question is not how do we develop world class players. The question is how do we get the culture. And the answer is not that it takes time. While it will take time there are also things that can be done from the top down to cultivate culture. And there are things that can be done from the top down that stifle it. I have my opinions on how we are stifling culture and ways we can cultivate it. But before I piss anyone off, is there anyone who disagrees with what I've said here?
Portugal has a counter attacking style while Germany is always attacking. It's not a surprise that Germany had more possession. Passing is another topic. The rest is explained by my first sentence. I think you are discussing another area of the game, hence part or all of the disagreement. I agree with your definitions/philosophy in a general sense. However, ball mastery is a specific term that's used in American and some European coaching circles. It isn't my phrase. I was just explaining what it means. When I used that phrase I wasn't speaking (writing) in general terms, but in the specific way I've seen it used in the coaching. I wasn't talking about passing or shooting, which again, are very important techniques, but not in the scope of what I was talking about. I've seen "ball mastery" discussed in the Coerver (Dutch dude) Coaching Series of training videos, but I heard it long before that when I was playing in the 80s, and again when I was coaching in the 90s.
I've been on BigSoccer for over 15 years. I've learned that sometimes you have to pick your battles and avoid religious arguments like PC vs. Mac. They are a waste of time and go nowhere. Other times people will claim things like that the moon landing was fake. I avoid those types of discussions as well. My time is limited. B.S. is about fun. Anything more than that is missing the point.
Outstanding information, thanks. You know a lot more about England's plans than I do. Blimey, you must be English! I have to believe that the USSF has taken a look at what the FA are doing. Maybe they will incorporate some of those changes into their plan.
Nah, that's not how it went down. First you pick a battle, then you demean your opponent (and his opinion) by simply attacking his background/nationality even before he has had another chance to reply. Even after 15 years of BS there's still room for you to learn (more) and become a better poster.
IMO, the problem with the English team was not that they had no skills but that Roy picked the mix of players that had a poor combination of skill and pace in positions that required them and then played a style that exacerbated this situation. Hypothetically, one could ameliorate the lack of skills with pace, size and a nice cross from the flank and, while some teams win with style, there's nothing wrong with winning with brawn either. But this goes back to the old debate - should the English learn to play like a "continental" team or should it emphasize a direct English style with pace and power. I tend to side with the latter theory. We'll see what Roy does with the team after he gets a little more practice time with a healthy roster. In retrospect, the PK shootout with Italy doesn't seem all that bad of a result.
IMO, they are equally important, but you have to have both to be the best team in the world. I agree with both you and mariokempes. You're right that ball amstery is not the end-all-be-all of international soccer, but he's right that Germany has more of a ball competency than ball mastery. No one on Germany can do this: or this: or even this: (note: if anyone doesn't like swearing, don't watch the first video) That is ball mastery. Ozil, and to a lesser extent Gotze are close to that, but the majority of the players on the team have the ball skills required to keep possession and make the pass, and nothing more. However, this leads to the sick passing combinations that have the same result as great flair and dribbling ability. Which is why Germany is currently a better team than Brazil.
By the way, when one team lacks the ball skills of its opponent, the easiest solution is not to "cross dribble", i.e., when moving the ball, one always has to keep own body between the ball and the marker. The above is difficult in tight spaces but, when playing for flank and cross, it can be accomplished with a relative ease. Watch Theo Walcott, for example, compared to Adam Johnson. Johnson swings and swirls. Walcott just pushes the ball wide and tries to run by you.
I agree with your assessment. Looking at the Germany-Italy game, it was clear to me that Italy trapped the ball much cleaner and maneuvered much better in tight spaces. Look at the number of turnovers Italy caused by pressing the Germany back line opposed to have much better Italy was able to work the ball forward through the German pressure. Germany is a great team with great tactics and good to great players, but they do lag behind the likes of Italy, Spain, Brazil, Arg in on the ball skill. If given space to operate Germany can destroy another team, like against Argentina in the last WC. Italy does not give Germany space to operate and with superior ball skill wins a majority of the individual battles and tight combination battles.
Yes, technical skills and ball mastery are key ... but it is extremely important that this is developed early in age. Once a player is well on his way to fine-tuning his touch on the ball, he can then concentrate on the other aspects of the game like creativity and vision. In the US, generally players are put on teams and are too structured in their development that the ball mastery and touch occurs too late in a player's development so that they haven't had enough time to develop creativity and vision enough when they start playing higher-level ball. And that IMO is the big difference. Players should do a whole lot of unstructured ball work early on - by themselves and in even chaotic play situations so they can develop those skills.
Nah, that's not how it went down. You're simply misunderstanding the conversation, seeing things that aren't there, perhaps inadvertently bringing your own biases to the table, or perhaps merely trolling. I didn't pick any battle, unless the mere posting of an idea on BS is some kind of attack. And I didn't attack his nationality. As a fan he appears to be exhibiting the bias that one would expect of a fan of any country. It's only important that he is German because the topic was the German National Team. His nationality isn't important outside of this context. You are trying too hard to manufacture drama.
Actually you did pick your battle, as was the expression you used, but then you decided to take the easy way out by playing the nationality card. I didn't create any drama, but merely stated that would deserve some major neg rep. Not to troll but because I think it's a very poor way to end a discussion. You apparently decided you had to skip out because you "pick your battles and avoid religious arguments like PC vs. Mac. They are a waste of time and go nowhere. Other times people will claim things like that the moon landing was fake. I avoid those types of discussions as well. My time is limited. B.S. is about fun. Anything more than that is missing the point."