I exaggerate but the situation is better than you think. Remember, you have not only MLS but Fox Sports World in recent years ... many U.S. kids see a lot of professional soccer. On my son's team, I'd say that 2/3s of them could pick out Cristiano Ronaldo if shown a picture of him (no uniform). If you asked them to play like Cristiano, they'd immediately do about 11 stepovers and start laughing. The point is, these guys know what the top-level game looks like. They're not barefoot and pregnant like the past generation. I think the problem remains, as Bruce Arena says in the current Soccer America, most U.S. players are either good athletes and bad soccer players, or bad athletes and good soccer players. Certainly, many of the little ones who I see do tricks with the ball are marginal athletes. Sure, an Eddie Johnson or Landon Donovan or Jonathan Spector who are both will automatically make a team, but when you have to pick among the rest ... well, sometimes you take work rate & speed over ball skills.
Now, this I totally agree with. I see the osmosis approach all the time. What's funny is when the coach comes to me and says, "You boy needs to work on X." I say, "Have you told him that?" Uh, no.
By the way, Arena's comments about the U.S. having good athletes with modest soccer skills or modest athletes with good soccer skills were in context of Eddie Johnson. He was very complimentary of Eddie, calling him a "damned good" player, implying that Eddie was of a new breed of athlete/soccer player the likes of which this country has historically not seen, and joking that Eddie isn't going to escape playing in the tough games of the Hex. I speak Bruce. (Many people don't; it's amazing how many people have been resisting the onslaught of Eddie, arguing that national team journeymen like Josh Wolff or Brian Ching will keep Eddie on the bench. Yeah, right.) In Bruce, this means, "EJ is pretty much already my starter already and he's a mortal lock for '06. The question is, who will be starting next to Eddie in Germany."
Actually, the proportion of the Europeans and South Americans in the NBA draft has risen meteorically. The highly athletic Americans, who perhaps have qustionable work ethics and/or attitude, will still be drafted because of them having a very high upside. Whatever you say about psychos like Sprewell and Artest, they're still legitimate NBA performers.
That's true but you still spend a lot of time making sure that your Rusty Pierces and Chris Armases have the basic skills, even if they will never approach the skills of the Jon Spectors ... whose talent, as I will always assert, have been unearthed at the ManU academy and the reserves. Now, to quote/mildly paraphrase Rob Reiner's mom from "When Harry Met Sally", I want what they're having. Seriously, why does the US seem to import the Steve Nicols types who bunker down in order to win some meaningless games instead of getting someone skilled out of Europe, who can teach the US boys all the tricks of the trade?
Without a doubt, most kids in the US today have the opportunity to watch a 100x more soccer on TV than prior generations. Unforunately, I think the players on your son's team are the exception as my sense is that soccer is not the primary professional sport that most US soccer playing youths watch, and in fact, many watch very little of it, if at all (outside of the WC). Which brings me back to my original points. I think one of the main reasons Brasilian and Argentian youth show the skills and creativity that they do is because they grow up trying to replicate what they see the most popular players in their domestic leagues do as as well as the best players in their neighborhood pickup games. And if they become successful at it, they receive positive feedback from their piers on the street as well as their coaches in the academies. Let's face it, its not just their DNA, the water they drink or the coaching they recieve.
I think this is very true. The biggest examples of this I think are Beasley and Boca, who I think have benefited greatly by honing their professional skills under the guidance of Novak, Stoichcoff and the other older Eastern Euorpean sweaper whose name escapes me right now (which is not to diminish the impact Bradley also had on them and natural speed that Beasley brings to the table).
Are you Paul Gardner? Here's an anecdotal answer. At Surf Cup this past July, I watched a bunch of very skilled, largely Hispanic U12 boys teams. Clearly, the highest concentration of young technical players in the U.S. are in SoCal, which sent all its top teams to the tournament. The winner? A blonde team that was OK technically but not among the top squads in that respect, coached by an Englishman, that played compactly in the back, scored two excellent counterattack goals in the finals via 30 yard passes, and that had a larger, faster forward that the opposition was capable of marking. Pretty doesn't necessarily win, at least not now. And trust me, 90% of U12 parents (including those of the vanquished teams) left the tournament thinking that the English guy was the best coach out there. Which he was, in many respects. That team played very intelligently.
Excellent point. The more players are around other good players, the better they become. And they in turn make the other players better. The virtuous circle. We are seeing the rumblings of this in the U.S., particularly with the past Bradenton crop, with Adu, Szetela, Spector, Gaven. It's starting to feel like we're hitting critical mass on good athletes who have been fortunate enough to grow up around enough other good soccer players so as to be able to develop a real game.
Actually, I think the leading opinion about the NBA is there are plenty of slashers and/or dunkers in the Garnett or Allen Iverson mode, and plenty of hardworking defensive specialists in the Ben and Rasheed Wallace mold (Garnett is really both), but what we lack is people who execute an offense proficiently and who can shoot--at least domestically. The complaint is that the league is turning to foreigners more and more because their game is more "fundamentally sound", especially on offense (setting picks is part of that, but it isn't so much unwillingness to do it, as it is inability to take advantage, since the guy rolling off the pick will neither shoot or pass out of it immediately when someone rotates on). To put a name to what the US is missing, it's Dirk Nowitzki.
Consider this a formal invitation for Rommul to join the thread, because you already have a problem when you give a crap what wins games at the U-12 level.
Is the "you" me? Where did I write about caring who won the game? But more importantly, since I am in no way representative of youth soccer parents, you gotta be kidding. Of course people care who wins the game. They care a great deal. You have families spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars to attend these tournaments. Even most of the SoCal teams live far enough way where they need to stay in hotels. People don't spend that kind of money for a developmental experience. They pay to win, baby. Make it free, you might get a different answer. But you haven't made it free, have you? Well OK then. Don't blame the parents (or coaches) for wanting to win. That's the way the system is set up.
I think that all your observation points out is that kids have to know how to play the game; after all, it is a team game. But the younger years should focus on technical development which will be the building blocks of later success. I don't think it's simply a coincidence that Ajax's method of player identification is the TIPS method, i.e., technique, insight, personality, speed. In today's soccer world, all four components are needed to play at the highest levels. But you notice that the first part of TIPS is technique. If you don't start with that, then nothing else will follow. And this is where many American coaches miss the boat. Technique, by the way, encompasses all the fundamental skills, not just creative ball skills. So that there's room for virtually any style under the technique heading. Most German players would never be accused of having supple, agile bodies that would enable them to perform the type of creative ball handling that the Argentinian or Brazilian players do. On the other hand, the best German players have fundamentally sound striking, heading and passing technique, and their dribbling skills are decent enough. But I agree that technique alone is not enough, and a good tactical coach can often overcome whatever technical advantages the other team might have. However, to ultimately advance to a high level, a player must have all four TIPS components in place. BTW, speed, the last component, is not necessarily the ability to run 100 meters in under 11 seconds, although that could be an advantage. It's more the ability of speed of play, quickness, and speed of thought. Thus, someone like Zinedine Zidane, who could not win many footraces, has the other essential speed attributes, i.e., speed of play and speed of thought.
In many ways, those who wring their hands about the state of USA Basketball envy us, because our development system is co-ordinated and theirs is not. A good point was raised about the Michael Redd's that are still out there (if you'd given Larry Brown a couple like him, we take home the Gold). However, it's worth noting that most teams looking to fill that role on the squad are turning to guys with names less like Michael and more like Predrag. There's a balance to be had in any sport between the stuff the coaches teach and the stuff the kids just 'pick up.' In basketball, we have all the latter we could ever need, but might could use a little more of the former. In soccer, we may could use more of the former, but it pales in comparison to how much we need on the latter. We need kids who either copy the pros they worship, or want to outdo all the neighborhood kids in the pickup games. That's Pele. That's Adu. That's Iverson. Right now our coaches are trying to 'rein in' kids who were reined in to begin with. "Some people learn it in the streets. Some learn it in the schools. Me and KG, we were f--in born with it, homez." - JB of Tenacious D
I think that you'll find most European scouts actually are looking at SPIT rather than TIPS. All elements are important, but if speed ain't there forget about it. Plus, if you get them young enough -- and these days the academies are training 7 year olds -- you can teach them technique. From Kevin McShane, "Coaching Youth Soccer," who talked to many European scouts. "Generally, the scouts want to pick characteristics that they cannot train." Slavia Prague has a very successful youth program that is technically oriented. When seeking players, the club looks for "speed, activity, courage, and awareness. These are important because the differences between players in these categories remain the same throughout the years." In summary, I think that the U.S. coaches seek the right thing in looking for brave, smart athletes. But once they get them, they don't necessarily train them well. Slavia Prague's training system is very, very different that what you see in the U.S. -- for example, a specific focus on dribbling skills, on the belief that dribblers can learn to become passers but passers can't learn to become dribblers.
I'm sorry, no. It's the general 'you.' Anyone. I'm just saying, that's the problem. If I were a coach of such a thing, I'd ask the parents whether they wanted their kids to learn the game and become better, or whetehr they wanted to win now. Of course, I'd fully expect the response to be a first steadfast denial that there's any difference, and second an implication that if there were, they'd prefer the latter. I'm not sure I blame the coaches. I do blame the parents (whose behavior in this regard ranges from the merely annoying to occasionally obscene "Friday Night Lights" levels), and feel perfectly justified in doing so, not that it'll change anything.
I think it's the same in every sport but in soccer, the need for size is less urgent than in basketball (height, vertical jump) or football (OL/DL), and so you left with one unteachable variable - speed. (OK, somewhat teachable as one can take all sort of speed building exercises, running with a parachute, running uphill, running into the strong wind, etc.) Could I suggest a heresy and say ... "outsource"? And before I get pelted with rocks and garbage, let's analyse this for a second. In another thread, there's a discussion of the cost of the Bradenton's Project-40. For far less money, why not send two-three dozen kids to the Czech Republic for a year or two? The place is getting very Westernized these days with a lot of film companies choosing to shoot there due its low costs compared to Hollywood and Western Europe. The Czechs can teach first grade soccer and it's good for the US kids to get out and see the world. If this was a cultural exchange or a foreign student program, no one would blink an eye at its feasibility. But it makes even more sense with the budding soccer stars.
This is sort of funny but Zlatan Ibrahimovic actually said today how much he has learned from Fabio Capello in his short time at Juve. I am not sure if Zlatan was enrolled in the Ajax Youth Academy but he surely played with many of its graduates. I doubt this solicited a great torrent of e-mails in Amsterdam - "Zlatan says we play "naive" football" - since I gather the gist of his sentiment was that there are certain things you teach to the 16-year olds and there are some you teach to the top level pros and Capello was darn good in doing the latter. But, as it pertains to the US boys, you have to crawl before you can walk. Well, you know, while I agree with you on the current state of fußball, the Germans had those bodies 30 years ago and their roster was filled with dribblers galore even from the backline ... something has changed since. All German B-liga players have that. That's why the Soviet teams have historically underachieved. They always had terrific athletes but the main accusation against them was their lack of risk taking and robotic play. Incidentally, that was not the case with the Soviet hockey team, which had individual players with tremendous abilities.
Two things. First, paying foreign teams to train US players sound interesting but I have a hard time seeing any establishment saying "you know, we suck at doing this." Second, a thread came up a little while back asking if the US Women's team could beat some of the lower ranked Men's teams in the world. Several people responded that the US Women lose to U16 boys teams. Not elite national boys teams either. Now, do those kids have an advantage in technical skills? Field vision? Drive to win? I doubt it. But once they're through puberty they have a speed, strength and size advantage.
Mostly speed. Average 16 year old male is 5' 9", 145 pounds. That won't scare the women. Plus most of the attacking U.S. players are smaller. Beasley, Donovan, Convey, Adu ... Abby Wambach would kick 'em up the ass. If should could catch them. I received an email from a guy who watched the USWNT lose a scrimmage against U15 SoCal ODP squad. Said the women were better in every respect except - a) technical flair and b) speed. The boys were tactically naive and at that age were no bigger whatsoever, but they were unafraid to take chances with the ball and -- the most important part -- they simply ran past the ladies.
The PR aspect of this can be dealt with fairly easily. It's no worse than having an MLS star train with a ManU or PSV. "Everyone needs a different flavor to their meal". The young males may have an advantage in technical skills insofar as U-16s delivering a harder pass or a cross, being more accurate with headers, etc. Women have the vision and skills on their own level but taking it up a notch is like going from the NCAA football to the NFL. You have to adjust your play due to the speed of the game.
I'm surprised by the technical part. I don't see any reason women should be at a disadvantage there. Or maybe you only mean they used it more, not that they were inherently better?
How long did you guys think it would take me to get in on this one? Basically, everyone here is right. A couple of points: I honestly believe (and have written) that the next level for us is coaching. When you have guys like Andrulis-choke setting the bar for top level coaching you have a problem. Many of the youth coaches, specifically speaking, are pretty limited both tactically and technically. The Chicago Wind plays, by most accounts, the most attractive soccer of all the top 4 Illinois clubs. And the coaches there are rather limited IMO in both technical and tactical training methods. I took a "B" team (not a very good one either) and beat the tar out of Wisconsin's state champs. The same "B" team played their own "A" team (a top 10 team in the country) and played them even for a half - before the athleticism wore them down physically and mentally. The difference is - my kids had an understanding of what they were doing out there. They were aware of how to move the ball from one place to the next - when, where and why. In fact, I have been in and out of top flight youth coaching the last 6 years for that very reason - so that I could use more of my time to seek out and learn what is not being taught to coaches here. That is, increasingly - tactics. Unfortunately, the sophisticated tacticians are usually from other countries. Often their "take whatcha got and be happy" mindset doesn't fly well here. The reason we see more UK, German coaches in this country is because they can match the strength of the American attitude to a point - and their players respect that. The South American, Western Euro coaches get eaten up because they can't match the mindset of their customers. Think about it. Nobody in this country likes a struggling artist - until they put up results. Results matter most in this game, just like they do in everything else American. NL
I didn't see this, only a second hand report. I was told that the boys successfully took on the women off the dribble. Couldn't tell you whether that was due to superior bravery or superior skill. Now that I think of it, might come back to speed again. After all, the easiest way to beat somebody off the dribble is to be faster than them.