I think the U.S. model for club soccer is one of the most competitive compared to most other Euro national leagues. The reason is simple. The NWSL and other U.S. sports leagues have built a lot of team parity into their models. The worst teams each season usually get the highest picks in the draft of new players coming into the league the following season. In countries like Spain and France (U.K. not included), it's the clubs with the most money that get the best players. Therefore, you only see competitive matches once in every three or four matches. This means that only a few teams in those Euro leagues are actually competitive. Whereas, top to bottom, the majority of NWSL teams are competitive. Therefore, the players in the U.S. face tough competition every single weekend. This is also why you see teams like France and Spain made up of players mostly from 2 clubs. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong with the European model.
Rankings 9. Australia 2-0-2 10. Canada 2-0-2 11. Brazil 2-0-2 12. Spain 1-1-2 13. Japan 1-1-2 14. China 1-1-2 15. Cameroon 1-0-3 16. Nigeria 1-0-3 17. Chile 1-0-2 18. Argentina 0-2-1 19. Scotland 0-1-2 20. New Zealand 0-0-3 (-4) 21. South Korea 0-0-3 (-7) 21. South Africa 0-0-3 (-7) 23. Jamaica 0-0-3 (-11) 24. Thailand 0-0-3 (-19)
Good point, I like your trend following idea as a way to track the rise (or not) of European might. And you are right about reading too much into one event I do appreciate US competitiveness and US model do produce world-class players. I just think professional/academy model has better results. I'm a big fan of volleyball and while US keeps producing competitive players and teams recent results aren't stellar. I think US women might suffer the way Mexican men's team suffers. A good domestic league will keep players home but lack of regional challenges will hinder development. This will be interesting to follow
When I say model, I mean a player development model. I see college sports as an integral part of player development in the US of A, while the European model is based on club/academies. While only Barça and RM has a real shot at the league (with maybe Atletico as a long shot) all the clubs at La Liga level have state of the art academies and more importantly many of them have chance to play in meaningful Regional competition (CL and EURO league) multiple times per year. If the same happens with the women's game I think Europe will become the dominant force. I agree that US league (NWSL) produce competitive clubs environment, which is good for the fan and players. However, this might be a hindrance to the national team. Just like Mexico league is a problem to their men's team. NWSL will promote competitive play among US team but there isn't any real competition at the confederation level. Diversity in competition is good and a key element in development, IMHO.
I think he meant a time-varying ELO or FIFA ranking. To see if a trend establishes over the years where all (or most) of the European teams are moving up.
Very true. The fact that European sides are so close and play each other so often, it's inevitable that they will produce more competitive national teams. I think that's one of the reasons why the U.S. has tried to host 2 tournaments annually and bring in 6 of the best national teams in the world to play against.
This, unfortunately, is not a good system for player development... at all. However, what it does offer, is a huge player pool. There is no way you get as many girls playing the game without college sports, and because players peak at different times in their lives, it allows older players a chance to showcase their talents. Whereas, in the clubs and academies, only relatively young girls are chosen and developed. Typically, older girls are seen as too rigid to mold.
Interesting point. Huge player pool in a huge country!! Humm doesn't look as bleak as I was imagining. This will be an interesting dynamic to follow. Will Europe be able to maximize its development potential and how US fit into this (can or even should you change the US model). Does College + MWSL provide enough competition to keep US as a top team?
I think that the U.S. model will only change when more players begin to bypass college and go straight to club teams. However, for that to happen, the NWSL teams will need to pay higher salaries to the players (enough for them to live comfortably). Also, the NWSL will have to expand the number of teams they have, because 9 teams is too small for a country as big as the U.S. Could take another generation to happen.
The US does not create world class football players, the US manages to find the best female athletes out of by far the biggest player pool. "Athletes" as in running quicker and further and having a competitive mindset. A Marta, Hegerberg or Maroszan player type has yet to come out on top out of the US system. In this regard, the US is constantly underachieving while other countries, considering their respective player pools, are constantly overachieving by producing players who are better on the footballer aspect: technique, creativity and actually playing football. The U20 and below competitions show this constantly as the athletics part does not matter as much yet as it does later.
However it's not the model for excellence. To achieve that, the best players should be in teams with above median quality players pool. When as a very good player you have to compete with another very good player for your spot in the team, you either grow better than the other (who's on the same incentive, thus making a chase of each other) or face losing your spot. In the parity model as the best player in the team you're guaranteed your spot and thus the drive to grow and improve is absent.
All excellent players, for sure. However, to be fair, Marta (in her prime) was a generational talent. No other nation produced such talent; you only see it once every 25 years. As far as Hegerberg, USA has lots of goal scorers. I don't think she is irreplaceable, as Norway is proving this WWC. Also, Maroszan is an great talent, but Horan is comparable IMO. Also, other teams have quality midfielders in her class.
This is simply not true. The parity model means that all teams have a chance to get better, not that they will. In the NWSL, the best players must earn their spots every year, nothing is guaranteed. Right now, because there are so few teams and some many players being drafted out of college, only the best survive the first year or two. The rest end up leaving the sport and going back to private life.
2009 Changed the name to UEFA Women's Champions League (huge brand recognition = TV Broadcast and Sponsors) and since 2010 prize money (a fist for the women's game). In comparison, CONMEMBOL just requires Club's to have a women's team in order for them to be eligible to participate in Libertadores. This will help the development of the women's game but nowhere near what UEFA did.
I'm certain that almost every country in the world would love to have the "underachievements" of the U.S.'s current system.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/24/...-day-out-with-the-dutch-at-the-world-cup.html Painting the Town Orange: A Day Out With the Dutch at the World Cup The Netherlands has a team capable of challenging for the World Cup title. Its fans are winning wherever they go. Netherlands fans before their team beat Canada in Reims.CreditFrancisco Seco/Associated Press
I think, but he can explain it better, he ment that the USA in their last match didnot exert their players pool numbers superiority vs a country that probably has a pool smaller than that of the state New York.
That is not close to what he said. He clearly expressed that the USA is underachieving in their "player pool" and the development of talent vs other nations. He also went ahead and gave several examples. Actually, in the first line of his post he wrote that the U.S. doesn't produce "world class players" and only finds "athletes [who] run quicker and further and having a competitive mindset", which is insulting. To your point, though, I would say that it was embarrassing that the USA was bossed in the Spain match. The USA are usually the ones dishing out the physicality to other teams, not the other way around. I credit the Spanish coach for changing up his tactics and causing the U.S. trouble. However, all good teams have a bad game from time to time. Heck, France had trouble with Brazil, who lost like 9 straight matches before the WWC. Overall, the USA had better goal scoring opportunities vs Spain and, except for one bad mistake by the GK and CB, kept Spain at bay offensively. If this match kept going, I felt like we would've eventually scored a goal during ET without the need for a PK shoot out.
Thanks for explaining your point. Isnot he talking about the USA being chased and eventually caught up by countries that donot rely on extensive players pool in which by definition enough good quality players emerge? This being caused by those countries expertise in scouting and developing players to maximise their capabilities?
Record 3.535m viewers – almost ¼ of #NED – watched #OranjeLeeuwinnen reach first ever #FIFAWWC QF on @NPO3 (62.8% share). That’s more than watched the UEFA Nations League final (3.250m)! #OnzeJacht pic.twitter.com/mbIXkWigtk— FIFA Media (@fifamedia) June 26, 2019