although i brought up the soccerless ghettoes in America, it's more than that. in certain parts of America, like where I live, few good athletes play soccer. a few do, but most play it in a non serious manner and concentrate on something else during high school. most schools in my state don't even have a soccer team. and no university has a male soccer team. brazil, england, and germany don't have this problem.
where do you live? even in Alabama all of the large schools and even backwoods country schools and some "inner-city" schools have soccer teams.
Yes I rember your theory about "small" US midfield players... I told it several times...oh, no more craps how "skillful" Landycakes is? I know you are not his fan..but I also know why...you explained it several times here....I know your "Landycakes" theory as well.. I think US boys are athletic very good, strong...but you might be right that US midflied is small compared with Europeans.... Which qualities - from your point view - need good midflied? I know your first point - he should be not small..something else? You know the answer.... so fire away... bltleo
well why only "small" men use to play soccer for USA? Is that not because all these strong big and high boys prefer other sport like baseball, american football, typical american sports?. american soccer is not sport number 1....not yet...so i think the talented boys who are too small for basketball or american football, just switch to soccer.....just my theory... japanese were taller then USA? It is so funny...because american men are usualy big and strong... but maybe not in soccer....soccer players from USA does not even represent "an average american man"....just my opinion.... despite of this many US soccer players are cute.... does someone know Kollar from Borussia Dortmund, he is extra tall, I think about 2 m....he actually play for czech national team... so if USA and czech team meet next year, could be interesting... English or German players are taller as well..... maybe just european soccer is different....then USA.. but beeing different does not mean beeing not good....just different.. told me actually my very good friend from the U.S. your bltleo
That's true, but we can afford a couple. You're right in that athleticism is as important as "skill" maybe even moreso, but the problem is, whatever our shortcomings athletically, they pale in comparison to our shortcomings in terms of running at defenders, shooting on target, touch, etc. We may have some disadvantages athletically, but we are a lot closer to having guys with Michael Owen's speed than we are to guys with Ronaldinho's dribbling, Zidane's passing or Rooney's shooting. Part of the reason why the current Gold Cup lineup has athleticism problems is Arena has chosen to ignore such issues and throw guys like Benny Olsen and Chris Armas out there. Nice guys, hard workers, know the system but fundamentally are below the standard of athleticism of international soccer player. Guys like Dempsey and Gaven, while certainly not world class athletes, at least have enough speed and strength to run with the real burners. Maybe when they get older that won't be the case, but then we should have a whole new crop. I think we should look at it as multiplication instead of addition: 3 speed and 9 skill equals 27 not 12. 9 speed and 3 skill equals 27 not 12. 6 speed and 6 skill equals 36 not 12. So that the bottom players are the ones we need to feature. Which I think are the sort of players guys like Dempsey, Gaven and Spector are.
Give me Gooch and Gibbs in the middle, Dolo and JOB on the flanks, DMB and Mapp wide mids, Dempsey and Mastro in the center, Donovan and GAM up top. That's plenty athletic, very fast, fairly skillful and strong where it counts.
Ummmm . . . The Costa Ricans don't seem to think Noonan & Dempsey have good 1v1 skills: https://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=219186 This goes back to Nutmeg's comments regarding the region's misperceptions of the typical American soccer player.
Well said. Improve youth development in the technical areas with the same level of athlete, and you'd see better results than if you recruited better athletes with the same skill set. And, to reiterate Karl's post, I think soccer smarts/speed of thought is the most underrated skill around. A savvy player who positions himself well can compensate for being slower than another player. It's the mental game that hurts most players at the next level. Read the initial interview of nearly every player that's moved up to a higher level of play (MLS players who moved to the EPL or National team), and a common theme is how much faster everything moves at that next level. This isn't to underestimate the importance of raw athletic talent -- as soccer continues to grow in popularity, I expect a wider range of youth players coming through the ranks. This isn't as big a problem in any other country. However, there isn't just one thing holding us back right now. Both our skill and athleticism must improve.
Jamaica was probably more athletic than Mexico last night. Ricardo Fuller did to the Mexican backline what he did to Gooch ... but then their forwards, including Damani Ralph, continued to dribble into triple teams and Andy Williams, their nominal QB, provided no passing worth mentioning. They also committed some horrid fouls, which would have left them with 7 men under a more strict ref. This is what you get when you get good athletes with skills but with little coaching or desire to play as a team.
I'm a big believer we need both athletic ability AND skill. We're never going anywhere with just one. But, as long as we're on the athletic thing in this thread, one thing I wanna mention is how it seems size and strength, outside of central defenders, is really not valued in the US, and is actually often derrided. For example, look at how much crap a guy like Casey who uses his size and strength rather than quickness, takes on these boards. Hell, McBride has taken similar crap for years, which has seemed to slow only now that he's had some success in England. I think the problem seems to permeate our soccer culture. Players who are able to use size and strength are looked down upon in many quarters in favor of quickness being all-powerful. How many times have I read speed kills? Even down to the level of playing pick up soccer or with young kids. Look how often a guy gets scoffed at if he uses his body and strength to win a ball. People half the time act like hes' cheating or playing too rough. Guess what...soccer is a contact sport. A guy who can handle the contact and dish out some force of his opwn is valuable. Big players using their body to win the ball and bang at the opposition are just using what athletic gifts they have, just as the quick player are doing. It is no less ridiculous to ask a big strong player not to bang guys around than it would be to ask a fast player to start running slower. Yet, we do it all the time. How many times have people mentioned how Casey is just a red card waiting to happen and that he needs to stop making airial challenges where he may make too strong of contact from time to time? So..feel free to bash Casey f you must. I just used him as the most obvious example we have of an offensive player who actually uses strength and size as a major part of his game rather than speed and quickness. Big players do face many disadvantages in developing skills, which is why truly big players are a rarity and will continue to be no matter how athletic the game becomes. But, when big, strong players are developing their skills, they should be taught that it is a good thing to use the natural advantages that size and strength do bring rather than obsessing on how the kid's not a speed demon. If we recognized the sport rewards a variety of athletic talents, we could end up with a better mix of athletes.
I'm going to ask a dumb question: What exactly is "athleticism"? Reading this thread, I've inferred the following definitions: -fitness / endurance -speed (top speed over distance) -acceleration (bursts of speed from standstill) Coming into this thread, I thought athleticism was more about: -quick reaction times -body control and coordination Is it all of these? Is there even a consensus on the word? Is it a word that people fill up with their own, often differing definitions? This is something that's always bothered me every time I hear the word by a soccer commentator. EDIT: I almost forgot: -size -strength
Ultimately, all these discussions wind up in the same place -- which is that the U.S. is B+ by world standards in three places - a) Athleticism, b) Technique, c) Tactics, in particular near goal. Now, B+ across the board ain't bad -- we're solid in all three categories, unlike opponents we might play that are terrific in one or two areas, but very weak in a third. And we get an A for discipline, which is important. All of which leads to a top 10 - 15 team in the world, capable of beating just about anybody on a given day but a huge longshot to win a star-studded tournament. Unfortunately, I think that getting to B+ was the easy part. Getting to A- across the board will be harder. But if we become A- across the board, we'll be world class. I've gone round & round on these discussions - do we need to get more athletes into the program early? should we be creating a love of the game in the little 'uns, grab all the U12 ball wizards we can find, and train 'em seriously? should the top clubs start developing specialized training & tactics for forwards? etc. The answer of course, is Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes to etc., too. So yes, get more athletes into the program. But that's easier said that done. Take the practical issue of this past weekend. Two calendar-year U13 candidates for the national pool. One is a tremendous athlete, good but not great technique. One is a good but not great athlete, tremendous technique. You can't take both. Gotta make a choice. And our debate is about that choice. But what will really push us ahead as a country is if we don't have to make that choice. We don't want one these guys sticking seriously with the game, and the other moving to football in a couple of years (which is what the first candidate might do), or dropping out of the system (the second candidate). We want both of them to continue in a high-level, serious environment that gives them the chance to excel, to become the best 18 year old players they can be. The athlete might take the next notch up in technique. The technical guy might become faster with physical maturity, or might mature into a guy who can help us at a non-speed position. (We can live just fine with a smart, nonblazing D mid.) Because for all of our collective talk, we don't know which of these two players will be the best 18 year old. And neither do the youth coaches. They gotta do the best job they can and in most cases they are -- but they might well pick the wrong guy. Thus, I am of the opinion that the best trend in U.S. soccer today is the broadening of the base. I don't mean the rec-league base; that battle was won long ago. Nor do I mean the suburban community club base, because ditto. I mean the base of serious, noncommunity youth clubs + the continued health (and increasing integration) of the Hispanic/ethnic team players + the development of U.S. Club Soccer, Super Y, ID programs, and the like + Brad Friedel Academy, and so forth. Where will our future players come from? All these places ... and then some. With this broadening of the base, both of the kids who I mentioned are still in the hunt. A decade ago, it might have been only the kid taken, the one who is approved by the ODP process. Now the other kid -- the loser in that early battle -- can lick his wounds, return to club ball, compete to be seen by the ID2 program, compete at a later age for Addidas/ESP, have a chance of being seen by Brad Friedel's guys, or even increasingly the European scouts that are starting to show up at the major youth tournaments. By and large, I think that the system works. Not completely for any single program. Every one of those talent identification programs will miss major potential players, guys who could later in life become fixtures on USMNT if given the training & the chance. But collectively, for the player who has the desire & drive, I think the opportunity is there today in a way that was never the case before. I am optimistic.
I think this is just a rivalry between the kids who played soccer as a kid and the ones that played football. The guys on the soccer team got much less glory, while the 250 pound linemen got plenty of attention. Soccer fans and players have had to be a bit more scrappy, while the larger athletes played football and basketball. I think some people on the boards just resent larger players because those were the athletes making fun of them on the playground.
The only reason Conor Casey takes crap on these boards is because he's been grossly ineffective. Brian Ching uses the same game and folks fall all over themselves praising him. One of the reasons he is ineffective is the oft ignored pyshical trait of "agility." Casey has none, Clint Dempsey, who is not that much smaller, has tons. That's as much a factor in athleticism as size and speed. I agree that size can be very useful but folks often overstate the case. They point to the German national team as an ideal without pointing out that German soccer on the whole is a basket case right now. Their national team is likely no longer one of the top 10 in the World. Their domestic league, once considered a jewel, has now likely slipped to 5th best behind France. An increasing number of their national team prospects are foreign born, and the Bundesliga top goal scorer lists tend to be sorely lacking in German players. My point is that when you fall for the trap of saying "size is so very important we need to emphasize this" you run the risk of falling into the trap of judging players solely by what you think is the most important factor. After a while when everything you see is through the prism of size, you lose, like the Germans have, sight of all the other things that while each may not be individually as important, they are collectively far more important than size. It's that sort of reductionism where we decide "'A' is important so let's do 'A'" that can lead you astray if you don't immediately recognize the need to do 'B' 'C' 'D' and 'F' as well.
The term athletic is very broad. Factors that weigh in athleticism, IMO: - Balance - Quickness (reaction) - Speed (top-out) - Power (thrust) - Agility - Eye-sight coordination - Strength (max-out) - Conditioning Non-athletic factors: - intelligence - adaptablilty - communication Given that you don't find many players, worldwide, with high marks in each of these categories, I think the focus should be to build a TEAM with highest marks possible in each category. And for whatever it's worth (I'm not familiar with how other squads view the American "style"), I don't think the American teams are very well organized. Too many times I've seen the U.S. break-down and give up an easy goal. That is not a quality of organization. Fitness, sure, that the American teams have. I also like what Casey brings to the field. Admittedly, he lacks certain athletic and maybe non-athletic marks, but he's a target man that can hold the ball. With Donovan coming through at attacking mid, facing the goal, we need a guy like Casey to receive and distribute the ball back (play the way he's facing). Donovan has too little help, too often, to bring the ball through the midfield on his own--which is why a lot of people probably think that he's a forward. He's not. He wants to face the goal, have the ball, give the ball, and work off of a striker to move forward. One-two's around the 20-yard mark anyone?
Fully agreed. By nature, tryouts are about finding A, or at most A + B. Bradenton -- and club play -- is about assessing C, D, E, & F. Thanks for stealing my green dots in yesterday's reorg!
Correct. To me, the easiest way to conduct talent evaluation in any sport, is to set up a hierarchy of competition levels and move players up through those levels closer and closer to the level for which you want to evaluate him. You may not know what a guy who scores 40 goals in a season in the Croatian 2nd division would do in the Premiership, but you do know that he damn well at least belongs in the Croatian 1st division. I don't think we have things set up nearly as well here. A kid who dominates in New Mexico becomes nothing more than a kid who tore up weak competition. Most likely the stronger competition would hold him down, but you don't really know if he never gets a chance to face it on a regular basis. The PDL serves as an excellent start on remedying this, however.
I almost hate to ask but where do you live? In the east, soccer is a fall sport and that forces kids to choose between football or soccer on the boys side or fieldhockey on the girls. In the south, it's a spring sport (don't know about other regions). If soccer were to move to a spring sport, it wold free up some of the better athletes that choose football in the fall and only have to compete with baseball or lacross (the new emerging giant). This would be good for the sport in many ways but it's doubtful it will ever happen. We're balanced now with two mjor sports in each season and they will protect baseball with their lives if they have to. Lacross is already cutting into the youth soccer ranks in the spring and is starting to seriously hurt baseball too.
It's hard to define but easy to spot. I'm heavily involved in youth soccer and have also done player evaluation quite a bit too. For me, someone that has "athleticism" is able to comptete and even dominate without having any special skill or knowledge. They win simply because they're better athletes. Contrast that with the player the wins because they've always played club soccer (more intense), been to every camp going and tries so hard that they succeed. This person wins by determination and practice. The best example I can think of is Larry Bird. Couldn't run, or jump like the more athletic players but was still a winner on attitude, determination and PRACTICE. Oops, just blew the whole argument out of the water. I guess you don't have to always be a superior athlete to succeed. Never mind .....
When most people in sports, including American soccer, say "athleticism" it usually means black people! I agree it's a term that needs to be defined to futher the debate. I mean, there are plenty of great "athletes" in US Soccer if you term athleticism as being good enough to play a sport at a fairly high level. Taylor Twellman went to Maryland on a baseball scholarship. Jay Heaps played basketball at Duke. Paul Broome was recruited to play D-I football in Texas. Brian Mullan was on the US junior national hockey team. Zach Thornton played D-I lacrosse (as a midfielder, no less). Tony Meola played baseball at Virginia. (And, of course, tried out for the Jets.) I think all of those guys could be considered very good athletes. But how many of them are making the US a better national team. Is athleticism pace? Is it strength? Balance? Size? Hops? Presence? There are a lot of guys in MLS who score highly in the above criteria I wouldn't want on the national team. Like Heaps. Or Ricky Lewis. Or Knox Cameron. Or David Stokes. Or Stephen Herdsman. Or Josh Gros. Or Arturo Torres. Or Marcus Story. Those guys are all GREAT athletes. Conversely, there are some skilled players who just aren't athletic enough to play at a higher level like Mark Lisi, Todd Dunivant, Jim Curtin, Kyle Martino (sad but true) and Memo Gonzalez (a lack of desire and work rate isn't helping in this case). Do we need better athletes? Yes. Do we need more skilled players? Yes. But what we really need are more skilled athletes? But, I think that's changing. Landon, despite being a **********, is a great athlete. So is Beas. So is EJ. So is Cherundolo (though a litlle small). So are Gooch and Gibbs. And, there are several more in the pipeline, starting with that Adu kid. Just a tremendous athlete and he has great skill, too. Marvell Wynne. No, he's not Cafu but his skill level will be fine for a right back. Rico Clark. The kid is back to the form that teased us as a rookie and he still has the skill and athleticism unmatched by any US D-mids. Justin Mapp. Finally adding the intensity to all his athletic and skilled gifts. Danny Szetela is the total package of athleticism and skill (and hopefully he can get out of his Andruli-funk). With the baby nats, the starting forward is 6-5! And, he used to play midfield so the inference is he has some skill. Nik Besagno is a 6-2 D-mid. Johann Smith has track-star speed and showed enough skill to get a contract from an EPL team. And so on. It's a growing process. We need better coches to teach the skill and we need the professional game to be stable and lucrative enough to entice the best athletes. It's changing, slowly. But, I agree with the original premise that the US isn't as athletic as it's reputation abroad usually would imply.
boys and girls soccer are the top 2 participation sports at the school I teach/coach at here in south central wisconsin. The original post left out guys like Gibbs, Bocanegra, Dempsey, and Eddie Johnson. The gold cup roster is missing a number of players due to injury or overseas commitment. We're not where we want to be, but things aren't as dire as all that.
louisiana. and in alabama i bet not all schools have it, some, but not all. university of alabama doesn't have a team i think. regardless, us soccer, should focus on developing the game in louisiana and mississippi. why? cause mississippi and louisiana have the highest proportion of african-americans per capita in america. the two states who have the most nfl players per capita are mississippi and louisiana. i didn't play soccer until i was a junior in high school and probably would have been good if i had played as a kid. my problem was that i didn't live in the city, although i went to school there. no suburb soccer for me. but i did run junior olympic track while in texas (moved from louisiana) and qualified for nationals. point still is is that americans do not play enough soccer and play other sports first and foremost, which is not true of any european or south american country, or african country.
I wonder where you get this statistic. Do you mean per black capita? Even still, it would surprise me if Louisiana or Mississippi has more nfl players than CA, FL, or TX.
You want the best athletes in the country (on average) look to Texas, South Florida and Southern California. Any football or basketball recruiter will tell you that these are the hotbeads of talent. However, I think Title IX has killed so much of our good soccer talent its very frustrating. Greg Wilkerson, the starting CF (and soon-to-be all star) for the Washington Nationals played football, basketball, baseball and soccer growing up. His best and favorite sport -- soccer. Yet he gave it up at a young age -- why -- not even close to as much opportunity. True, there are D1 scholarship opportunity at some ACC and PAC-10 (and other) schools but not so much in down here in SEC country. I don't want to get into a political discussion concerning the merits of Title IX but based on the lack of college programs supporting soccer I think its clear the effect is there.
Really good thread with lots of interesting opinions. I don't know that US Soccer has any *great* athletes. Good, yes, but not great. When you say "great" I think of Randy Moss, Kobe Bryant, Carl Lewis. Guys who can make the good athletes say "Wow, how'd he do that?" It's worth repeating no one ability makes you a great soccer player. Just because a guy has great speed or great technique or great understanding of the game doesn't mean he's going to be good. Further, all single abilities have a law of diminishing returns. I very, very strongly agree that not enough of the kids who are looking to become professional athletes consider soccer. They may play it but consider it something to do in the offseason of their "important" sport. This is particularly sad when the kid is too small for the NBA and NFL yet they make the futile attempt to join them.